Transparency and integrity are words that are frequently bandied about in the modern sporting world. Words that decades ago rarely needed to be mentioned, as at that time it was accepted by all that the majority in sport played and acted with integrity at all times. Back then there was transparency, because of the integrity of those running the various sports.
It would appear that in many of the big organisations that shift occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s. With the International Olympic Committee everything started to change following the huge losses incurred in 1976 when Montreal hosted the Olympic Games. Understandably the IOC realised that this would deter other cities from taking on the hosting rights and they needed to desperately buff up their product. The 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games became the most commercial up until that time. Ironically just 20 years earlier American decathlete Bill Toomey lost his Olympic eligibility in 1964 for endorsing a nutritional supplement. Now while athletes remained amateur the Games was besieged with official sponsors.
The hosts have been locked in up until 2032, when Australia will host the Games for a third time, but in Brisbane, and already people are asking at what cost? How did Brisbane end up as host? With no other city really interested, and with the TV deal due to expire in 2032 the IOC needed to lock in a city. (Down and Out in Paris… Not Now) If you look at the Summer Olympics post 1976, Australia will host twice, the USA three times, Paris and London will have hosted for the third time and Tokyo for a second. In 2004 Athens was given hosting rights for sentimental reasons, but again it was a costly exercise. Seoul (88) Beijing (08) and Rio (16) all put their hand up to make a statement to the world. Their Governments wanted the Games almost at any cost.
Each Olympic nation must have a National Olympic Committee. The purpose of these NOCs is the development and promotion of the Olympic movement in that country. The NOCs arrange to equip, transport, and house their country’s representatives at the Olympic Games. According to the rules of the NOCs, they must be not-for-profit organisations, must not associate themselves with affairs of a political or commercial nature, and must be completely independent and autonomous. They must also resist all political, religious, or commercial pressure. Who monitors the integrity of these National Olympic Committees? Are they transparent?
In Football the “commercialisation” of the sport started when Brazilian Joao Havelange was elected President of FIFA in 1974. It has been well documented how he helped make the world body and his executive board very wealthy. Despite the arrests of members of the Executive Board in Switzerland on the morning of May 27 2015, and subsequent court cases it would appear that there is still a belief amongst those running the game that they are above their own laws.
Every football nation that is a member of FIFA is bound by the FIFA Code of Ethics. Almost everyone of them has that written into their constitutions; almost by way of saying we don’t make the rules, FIFA does.
On the ABC’s Four Corners program this week it was revealed that many of Australia’s top sporting bodies are receiving income from betting on their sport. Four Corners, revealed that some governing bodies are earning a commission of up to 17.5 per cent of bookmaker’s profits from Australians gambling on their events. Ironically these fees are called “product integrity fees.”
Yet as the program showed clubs and players, the actual members of the various sporting bodies are unaware of the fact that these Governing bodies are generating a financial reward from allowing people to bet on their games. Football Australia it was revealed receives a percentage whether the bet is placed on the Socceroos, the Matildas or even local social teams.
According to Four Corners “Football Australia gets either 1 per cent of every bet placed in Australia on a soccer game or 15 per cent of the bookmaker’s profit — whichever is higher.”
Football Australia declined to talk to Four Corners. However, the NRL told the program that it earned $50 million from agreements with bookmakers last year. Football allows far more of its games to be bet on than NRL, so one can only assume that their earnings are greater.
One of the issues facing all sports is that just as they rarely check on those they employ, those they employ often do not do any fact checks on the companies they subcontract. As was revealed in the program, Cricket Australia-endorsed a live streaming service called Frogbox. Frogbox is owned by Sportsradar. Sportsradar collates data on sport. They told Four Corners that it does not sell the stream or the data to its betting clients. However, Sportsradar boasts on their own website that they are a company “Reimagining immersive experiences for sports fans and bettors.”
Under their “Who we are” section of their website they state:
“We’re the world’s leading sports technology company, at the intersection between sports, media and betting.
More than 1,700 sports federations, media outlets, betting operators and consumer platforms across 120 countries rely on our knowhow and technology to boost their business.”
Under the “What we do” tab look at the order in which they promote their work:
“We use data and technology to:
Keep betting operators ahead of the curve with the products and services they need to manage their sportsbook
Give media companies the tools to engage more with fans
Give teams, leagues and federations the data they need to thrive
Keep the industry clean by detecting and preventing fraud, doping and match fixing.”
They are not alone, there are other live-streaming operations and platforms being used by sporting bodies in Australia that are linked to off-shore betting companies. Some sports have been made aware of these links, but have chosen to ignore them. One such business is not even registered as a broadcast company but as a body corporate.
An obvious question any responsible organisation would ask is, why would a company offer to pay to stream your games if they are not getting something out of it? In some cases they are charging well below the market rate in order to be able to access that information. Camera operators are actually sending data to the betting company as they film!
Those who have opted to get into bed with newspapers that have now entered this market to try and increase subscribers would be wise to look into whether the data from these games is being shared with betting companies. Betting companies tend to be the main advertisers in the sports pages of those papers and on-line. If the newspapers are like the sporting bodies, receiving a percentage, it would make sense that they jumped on the opportunity as it offers them a new revenue stream.
The situation with Football Australia is a very grave one indeed.
The FIFA Code of Ethics states quite clearly that all officials, referees, players as well as match agents and intermediaries, are subject to the Code as follows:
“They are forbidden from participating in, either directly or indirectly, betting, gambling, lotteries or similar events or transactions related to football matches or competitions and/or any related football activities;
They shall not have any interests, either directly or indirectly (through or in conjunction with third parties), in entities, companies, organisations, etc. that promote, broker, arrange or conduct betting, gambling, lotteries or similar events or transactions connected with football matches and competitions;
“Interests” include gaining any possible advantage for the persons bound by the Code themselves and/or related parties.”
The Four Corners report has claimed that the FA is receiving revenue from betting, so it has a direct involvement.
The consequences of this are very severe.
According to article 26 of the FIFA Code of Ethics, such conduct can be subject to an integrity investigation, which can lead to a fine of at least CHF 100,000 and a ban on taking part in any football related activity for a maximum of three years.
What is interesting is that the FA’s code of ethics states under section 2.9 Betting subsection a):
“A Constituent must not, directly or indirectly, participate in any Bet on, or in any way connected to, a Match, Competition or any related football activities.”
It goes on to define a “Constituent” in its Definitions in this way:
“Constituent has the meaning given in the FA Constitution except that, for the purpose of this Code, Constituent includes any person who is unregistered, but ought to have been registered under the National Registration Regulations (such as a player who participated in a Match).”
Which is a little confusing and means that you have to refer back to the actual Football Australia Constitution, where the definition is:
“Constituent means a Member, Qualifying Member, Provisional Member, a District Association, a Competition Administrator, a Club, a Player and an Official.“
So that means that any administrator that was aware of this revenue from betting is accountable.
Australian football cannot afford to be banned for three years. Any ban that was handed out in the next year would strip the nation of Olympic representation and other Youth representative tournaments as well as potentially AFC Asian Cup participation. Who knows the impact that would have on the generation coming through, sponsorships, and the overall development within the game. One thing is for sure nothing will happen until after the FIFA Women’s World Cup!
Then there is the matter of all those that the FA has banned from Football for betting on games. Surely they now have a case to challenge those bans as the organisation that took the moral high ground and made an example of them was allegedly in the background making money themselves from that same bet?
The FA does have its Football Australia Sports Betting and Match Manipulation Guidelines on its website, but one can understand if people do not take them quite as seriously as they may have previously.
In 2016 there was an issue with an NPL game where the bookmakers closed the books. Yet it would appear that despite the FA’s guidelines no one was sanctioned. Although there were football integrity issues that came into question. (Is The Integrity Of The Competition At Risk?)
To be fair to the FA on their website under the tab Football Australia Integrity Network, they actually state the following, “while the betting industry represents a source of funding for the game.” Was this an admission of their taking money from betting companies? If so, most presumed that it was by way of advertising, never suspecting that it was a commission on bets made.
Back in 2020 the issue was raised of the FA having sports betting advertising on its website by a number of people including ex Socceroos. This was in breach of the FIFA Regulations (Brand Alignment: A Plus of Minus When It Comes to Australian Football?) Nothing happened, and the advertisements remained. They are not there now.
Once again the organisation’s transparency is brought into question, something that has frequently been raised since the dawn of “new Football” in 2005. Possibly worse than that, the game’s integrity is now questioned, and that of those running it. Suddenly people start to question what else has been covered up?
Where to now is the question? The Members of the FA are the State Bodies, who are in turn representatives of the clubs and players within their states. Will those state bodies find a voice and ask questions as to how this has been allowed? Were they in fact already aware of the revenue from betting coming into the sport? Should the Chairman and the CEO be asked to explain and/or resign? The integrity and transparency of the sport has taken a massive hit once again, and there needs to be an explanation as to how this was allowed to happen.
Swift action is vital as it may ultimately reduce any penalties that FIFA may look to impose, as a result of Football Australia breaching its code of ethics.
