The manipulation of sport competitions poses a significant and multifaceted challenge to the integrity of sport, one that frequently extends across national borders. Legislation enacted by governments remains an essential instrument n tackling corruption in sport.
This webpage outlines the legal frameworks that directly target competition manipulation, as well as other relevant criminal law provisions that can be used to address such conduct demonstrating the diversity of effective approaches to address this threat by legal means.
The overall aim of this resource page is to provide lawmakers, policymakers, prosecutors and other relevant officials with access to legislation which specifically refers to tackling the manipulation of sports competitions.
It also seeks to support officials who are looking to develop effective legislation which criminalizes the manipulation of sports competitions by proposing model criminal law provisions for this purpose.
In those jurisdictions where there are no specific laws relating to tackling the manipulation of sports competitions, please consider consulting part of the UNODC and International Olympic Committee resource guide "Legal Approaches to Tackling the Manipulation of Sports Competitions".
UNODC and the International Olympic Committee have developed a range of other resources to support efforts to effectively tackle manipulation of sports competitions, which include: "Investigation of Cases of Competition Manipulation: A Practical Guide"; "A Practical Guide to the Prosecution of Cases of Competition Manipulation"; and "Reporting Mechanisms in Sport: A Practical Guide for Development and Implementation".
The purpose of this page is to offer relevant stakeholders involved in the investigation, prosecution, and sanctioning of competition manipulation an overview of practical approaches, good practices, and guidance to support the effective application of criminal provisions in addressing this threat. This, in turn, enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of efforts to tackle competition manipulation in particular, as well as corruption in sport more broadly.
In the absence of a law or legal provision which specifically criminalizes the manipulation of sports competitions, States have applied general criminal laws, such as those concerning bribery, fraud, public and private corruption, organized crime, money-laundering and abuse of functions, to tackle the problem
However, it should be noted from the outset that challenges exist to successfully apply such laws in a competition manipulation context, such as the following:
Proving underperformance of an athlete is difficult; this is a requirement for cheating or deception-related laws
This website will be updated on a continuous basis. Please feel free to contact us at the following email address to share details regarding new or additional examples, or to correct any inaccuracies by sending a message to uncac.sport@un.org.
Given the international dimension to competition manipulation, it is important for legislators, regulators, policymakers, and criminal justice authorities including (where appropriate) anti-corruption authorities, law enforcement and prosecutors to be aware of the various international legal instruments that have helped to create the international legal basis upon which the manipulation of sports can be addressed.
The United Nations Convention against Corruption is the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument. The far-reaching approach of the Convention and the mandatory character of many of its provisions make it a unique tool for developing a comprehensive response to a global problem. With 192 parties (as of time of writing), the Convention has almost reached universal adherence.
The Convention covers five principal areas: preventive measures; criminalization and law enforcement; international cooperation; asset recovery; and technical assistance and information exchange.
It does not define corruption, but it does define specific acts of corruption that are established as criminal offences by every State that adheres to the Convention, namely:
Concealment (art. 24) and obstruction of justice (art. 25) related to the offences listed above
While the Convention against Corruption does not explicitly refer to sport, its provisions have been and can be directly applied in many ways that can lay a strong foundation for the development of relevant measures, tools and mechanisms to tackle the corruption sport faces and to strengthen its integrity.
This applies to the criminalization of certain offences and the establishment of effective systems to detect, investigate and sanction corruption. Equally significant are measures to prevent corruption in sport, including promoting good governance and standards of conduct, improving procurement systems and providing anti-corruption education. The Convention also emphasizes the important role relevant stakeholders can play in the fight against corruption. Building effective cooperation between these stakeholders, both at the national and international levels, needs to be an important aspect of anti-corruption efforts.
The field of anti-corruption in sport is actively developing and new issues are emerging that were not apparent at the time the Convention was negotiated. Such issues (for example, illegal betting, competition manipulation and the protection of vulnerable groups) are often touched upon in the soft law instruments adopted in furtherance of the Convention, primarily in the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention against Corruption.
Importantly, while the Convention is addressed to States parties and signatories, it is not only Governments that can apply its principles and measures. Sports organizations can use the Convention as a benchmark and adapt its provisions to create their own systems to prevent, detect, investigate and sanction corruption, including competition manipulation, which they have been consistently encouraged to do by the international community.
Developing legislation that sanctions both active and passive corruption, in line with articles 15 and 16 of the UNCAC, is also considered an effective measure. In addition, extending the notion of private corruption to the sports sector and ensuring sanctions for public corruption involving the misuse of public funds by sports officials are further examples of positive practice.
In the application of corruption provisions to tackle competition manipulation, jurisdictions have distinguished between active and passive corruption in the private sector on the one hand and active and passive corruption in the public sector on the other.
In order for cases to be considered public corruption, they need to involve individuals recognized as public officials, in line with article 2 of the UNCAC and national legislation. However, it is important to note that in most jurisdictions, officials such as referees and umpires are not considered public officials.
Abuse of functions is defined in article 19 of the UNCAC as “the performance of or failure to perform an act, in violation of laws, by a public official in the discharge of his or her functions, for the purpose of obtaining an undue advantage for himself or herself or for another person or entity.” It is also referred to as abuse of position, office, authority, or influence-peddling.
Anti-bribery laws have been extensively used to tackle competition manipulation. Under the UNCAC, bribery is referred to under Article 15 (Bribery of national public officials), Article 16 (Bribery of foreign public officials and officials of public international organizations), and Article 21 (Bribery in the private sector).
It should also be noted that in its resolution 8/4 on Safeguarding Sport from Corruption, the Conference of the States Parties to the UNCAC, at its Eight Session, “urged States parties to enforce their national legislation criminalizing bribery and other forms of corruption by preventing, investigating and prosecuting corrupt acts involving sport, in line with articles 12, 15 and 21 of the Convention, and without prejudice to article 4.”
A good practice identified is for the offer or promise of a bribe to be sufficient to establish criminal liability. Legislation and judicial decisions also show that it is not necessary to prove the existence of a corrupt agreement between the person who offers and the person who accepts a bribe.
Fraud, as defined in United Nations administrative instruction ST/IC/2016/25, refers to any act or omission whereby an individual or entity knowingly misrepresents or conceals a material fact in order to obtain an undue benefit or advantage for themselves or a third party, or to cause another person to act to their detriment. Revenue and taxation fraud and unexplained wealth laws may also be used in cases relating to the manipulation of sports competitions.
In common law jurisdictions, fraud takes different forms, including forgery, theft by false pretence and bank fraud. However, it can be extremely difficult to prove all the elements of a fraud offence. For example, theft by false pretence, one of the most general forms of criminal fraud, requires the intentional deception of a victim by false representation or pretence with the intent of persuading the victim to part with property and with the victim parting with property in reliance on the representation or pretence and with the perpetrator intending to keep the property from the victim.
In relation to competition manipulation, anti-fraud law have been applied so that wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain as a result of the manipulation, is penalized. This may include betting fraud or deceptive conduct by referees and athletes who have obtained financial or personal gain from manipulation.
The link between the manipulation of sports competitions and money-laundering has been the subject of several studies and initiatives, including by UNODC in section 6 of its Global Report on Corruption in Sport and its publication “Game Over: Exploring the linkages between corruption, serious and organized crime in sport”, the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the Financial Action Task Force.
The characteristics of sports betting platforms that make them a unique conduit for laundering the proceeds of crime, allowing them to emerge as legitimate business revenue, include the following:
The application of weak or no sanctions for competition manipulation makes money-laundering through sports betting particularly attractive to criminal organizations, representing a lower-risk investment compared with other crimes subject to more severe penalties.
The recognition of competition manipulation as a form of economic or financial crime is considered good practice because of the financial gains that can be made, notably on the sports betting market.
A good practice is to implement relevant measures so that all banks, betting operators and businesses through which potential profits of crime may be laundered closely monitor movements of money and report all suspicions to the appropriate authorities.
It is also good practice to include requirements for customer identification and, where appropriate, beneficial owner identification, record-keeping and the reporting of suspicious transactions.
Safe harbour provisions to protect the reporting institution and its employees from civil, administrative and criminal liabilities when reporting in good faith and on reasonable grounds should be considered.
Protection from intimidation by those about whom reports are made is also important. Therefore, it may be necessary to allow for the protection of the identity of the reporting official. Other incentives may be more related to practical issues, such as providing an adequate time frame and the use of non-burdensome methods (such as easy-to-fill-in forms and an encrypted online reporting system) to facilitate the gatekeepers’ function.
In 2024, UNODC highlighted the threat posed to sport by the involvement of organized crime with the publication of “Game Over: Exposing the linkages between corruption, serious and organized crime in sport”. This built on section 6 of the UNODC Global Report on Corruption in Sport which focused on organized crime and sport.
Article 2 of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime defines several key terms relevant to the consideration of organized crime in the context of the manipulation of sports competitions. While the term “transnational organized crime” is not explicitly defined, article 2 explains what is meant by an “organized criminal group”, a “serious crime” and the “proceeds of crime”, among other essential terms.
According to article 2 (a), an organized criminal group consists of the following main elements:
A serious crime, as stated in article 2 (b) of the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, means “conduct constituting an offence punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or a more serious penalty.”
The Convention adopts a flexible approach to what can be considered a serious crime, focusing on the gravity of the offence – based on the maximum penalty associated with it – rather than on a fixed list of offences. This approach broadens the scope of the term “serious crime”, allowing it to encompass a wide range of offences, including crimes against life and limb or drug-related crimes.
At the fifth session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in 2010, experts concluded that the Convention’s scope enables it to cover traditional, emerging and future forms of crime, including those related to the manipulation of sports competitions.
Regarding the criminalization of participation in an organized criminal group, article 5 of the Convention provides that each State party shall adopt legislative and other measures necessary to establish as criminal offences, when committed intentionally, either or both of the following, as offences distinct from those involving the attempt or completion of the criminal activity:
The existence of legislation in relation to, and the regulation of, the sports betting market increases the capacity for the monitoring and identification of suspicious betting potentially linked to competition manipulation.
Over the last 30 years, the sports betting landscape has changed vastly. In 1990, betting was offered on a limited number of sports. However, at the time of writing, numerous betting operators offer bets on more than 50 different sports, with the availability of a wide variety of types of betting, including live in-play betting. Football now represents less than 65 per cent of the betting market.
A common strategy is the use of mules or runners who bet smaller amounts with different betting operators. For example, a criminal organization ensures that a match is manipulated and makes a €200,000 bet on the team arranged to win by hiring 50 persons to place bets of around €4,000 each.
An analysis of judicial decisions relating to the manipulation of sports competitions demonstrates that most cases involve criminals who seek to profit from sports betting through the manipulation of a sports competition.
The need for player identification is also crucial in relation to compliance with sport organizations’ regulations and, notably, the prohibition of betting by sportspersons on their sport. Although this is not a criminal offence, such an act is a disciplinary breach and once established should be accompanied by disciplinary sanctions, in line with the competent sport organization’s regulations.
To understand more about illegal betting and sport, readers can consult section 9 of the UNODC Global Report on Corruption in Sport.
The use of law and regulation sin relation to the use of unexplained wealth, revenue-related, and tax-fraud provisions can also be considered in order to identify and disrupt illicit financial gains arising from the manipulation of sports competitions. Given that competition manipulation often generate profits that are disproportionate to an individual’s lawful income, financial-crime tools can provide a useful means of detecting wrongdoing, tracing proceeds, and supporting parallel criminal investigations.
