Match fixing in sport (criminal action vs disciplinary action) proof required for a conviction

Abstract

This dissertation explores the issue of match fixing in sport, focusing on football-related offences. The differing standards and the burdens of proof which are required in criminal and disciplinary actions are examined from a comparative perspective. Since the offence of match-fixing is criminal in nature, the Court of Magistrates acts as a Court of Criminal Judicature. Thus, for conviction to occur, the crime must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Disciplinary boards have a lower standard: proof on the basis of a balance of probabilities, or the comfortable satisfaction that the crime was committed must be satisfied in order to pass a guilty sentence. This dissertation seeks to determine whether these different standards of proof serve as a sufficient deterrent to match fixing, and whether the lower standard of proof required by disciplinary boards should be raised or not in light of recent developments in case law and match fixing offences. To examine the subject comprehensively, this dissertation shall begin by introducing the offence of match fixing, followed by an examination of the current legal and regulatory framework enacted to prevent it in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 explores the Statutes and the disciplinary regulations of the MFA and UEFA, which were implemented to mitigate and sanction match fixing. Chapter 3 scrutinises these frameworks in action, by evaluating recent cases from the Court of Magistrates, the CAS and the adjudicating bodies of the MFA and the UEFA. After a comparative analysis of the differing standards and burdens of proof being used, it was found that the current legal and regulatory framework operating in tandem with the different courts and adjudicating bodies act as an effective deterrent and sanctioning mechanism against match fixing.