Project Number: 590606‐ EPP‐1‐2017‐1‐PL‐SPO‐SCP Match‐fixing and legal systems. An analysis of selected legal systems in Europe and worldwide with special emphasis on disciplinary and criminal consequences for corruption in sport and match‐fixing. Kirstin Hallmann, Severin Moritzer, Marc Orlainsky, Korneliya Naydenova, Fredy Fürst Project Number: 590606‐ EPP‐1‐2017‐1‐PL‐SPO‐SCP Publisher German Sport University Cologne Institute of Sport Economics and Sport Management Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6 50933 Köln/Cologne Kirstin Hallmann, Severin Moritzer, Marc Orlainsky, Korneliya Naydenova, Fredy Fürst October 2019 Match‐fixing and legal systems. An analysis of selected legal systems in Europe and worldwide with special emphasis on disciplinary and criminal consequences for corruption in sport and match‐fixing. Cologne: German Sport University, Institute of Sport Economics and Sport Management ISBN 978‐3‐00‐064119‐0 Intellectual Output IO1 of the Project ‘Against match‐fixing – European Research & Education Program’, Project Number: 590606‐ EPP‐1‐2017‐1‐PL‐SPO‐SCP Visual Title: Kirstin Hallmann i Project Number: 590606‐ EPP‐1‐2017‐1‐PL‐SPO‐SCP Management Summary In this report, a description and analysis of the criminal law and disciplinary law regulations of the football associations in European countries and selected countries in Asia and South America were conducted. The legal analysis covers a total of 12 countries and four continents, including eight European countries (Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, United Kingdom), two Asian countries (Japan, South Korea), one South American country (Paraguay) and one country from Oceania (Australia). Some of the most relevant key findings and recommendations are: 1. The Macolin Convention is key to further facilitate global efforts in the fight against match‐ fixing. The forthcoming entry into force of the Convention combined with the efforts of the Group of Copenhagen so far will be a crucial milestone. 2. Implementing specific criminal law provisions against match‐fixing can be perceived as a general prevention element in the fight against match‐fixing and for integrity in sports. 3. Country‐specific Acts of Sport may serve as societal and legal lighthouses of frameworks for ethic conduct (in sport). 4. Extending minimum standards of disciplinary regulations is recommended to further facilitate integrity and behavioural change. ii Project Number: 590606‐ EPP‐1‐2017‐1‐PL‐SPO‐SCP Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background Information 1 1.2 Methodology 2 1.2.1 Process 2 1.2.2 Methods 3 1.3 Excursus Macolin Convention 3 1.4 Structure 4 2 Description and Analysis of Jurisdictions within 12 Different Countries 5 2.1 Australia 5 2.1.1 Introduction 5 2.1.1.1 Macolin Convention 6 2.1.2 Criminal Law 6 2.1.2.1 Specific match‐fixing legislation New South Wales 7 2.1.2.2 Federal Gambling Regulation 8 2.1.3 Disciplinary regulations 10 2.1.3.1 Football: Football Federation Australia 10 2.1.4 Case Study 11 2.1.5 Conclusion 12 2.2 Austria 13 2.2.1 Introduction 13 2.2.1.1 Betting framework 14 2.2.1.2 Macolin Convention 14 2.2.2 Criminal Law 15 2.2.3 Disciplinary regulations 16 2.2.3.1 Austrian Football Association – Disciplinary Regulations 16 2.2.3.2 Disciplinary regulations for all Austrian professional sports associations 17 2.2.4 Case study 18 2.2.5 Miscellaneous 20 2.2.6 Conclusion 21 2.3 Bulgaria 22 2.3.1 Introduction 22 2.3.1.1 Macolin Convention 23 iii Project Number: 590606‐ EPP‐1‐2017‐1‐PL‐SPO‐SCP 2.3.2 Criminal regulations 23 2.3.3 Disciplinary regulations 27 2.3.4 Case Study 29 2.4 France 30 2.4.1 Introduction 30 2.4.1.1 Legal situation of sports betting 30 2.4.1.2 Macolin Convention 31 2.4.2 Criminal Law 31 2.4.3 Disciplinary regulations 33 2.4.4 Case study 35 2.5 Germany 36 2.5.1 Introduction 36 2.5.1.1 Macolin Convention 37 2.5.2 Criminal Law 37 2.5.3 Disciplinary regulations 39 2.5.3.1 Football: German Football Federation (DFB) 39 2.5.3.2 Ice Hockey – DEB 40 2.5.4 Case study 42 2.5.5 Conclusion 43 2.6 Greece 44 2.6.1 Introduction 44 2.6.1.1 Introduction of the Greek approach including a definition of the key stakeholders in Greek sport 44 2.6.1.2 Legal situation of sports betting in Greece 44 2.6.1.3 Macolin Convention 44 2.6.2 Criminal Law 45 2.6.3 Disciplinary regulations 46 2.6.4 Case Study 50 2.7 Italy 51 2.7.1 Introduction 51 2.7.1.1 Introduction of the Italian approach including a definition of the key stakeholders in Italian sport 51 2.7.1.2 Legal situation of sports betting in Italy 51 2.7.1.3 Macolin Convention 51 iv Project Number: 590606‐ EPP‐1‐2017‐1‐PL‐SPO‐SCP 2.7.2 Criminal Law 52 2.7.3 Disciplinary regulations 54 2.7.4 Case Study 57 2.8 Japan 58 2.8.1 Introduction 58 2.8.1.1 Macolin Convention 58 2.8.2 Criminal Law 58 2.8.2.1 Gambling regulation 58 2.8.2.2 Match‐fixing regulation 59 2.8.3 Disciplinary regulations 60 2.8.3.1 Football: The Sports Promotion Lottery Act 1998 60 2.8.3.2 Kōei kyōgi: The Horse Racing Act 60 2.8.4 Case Study 61 2.9 Paraguay 62 2.9.1 Introduction 62 2.9.1.1 The sport system in Paraguay and its legislation 62 2.9.1.1.1 Main Stakeholders 63 2.9.1.1.2 Possible national integrity strategies 64 2.9.1.2 Macolin Convention 64 2.9.2 Criminal Law 64 2.9.3 Disciplinary regulations 65 2.9.4 Asociación Paraguaya de Fútbol (APF) 65 2.9.4.1 Código de ética de la APF (Code of Ethics of the APF) 65 2.9.5 Case Study 68 2.9.6 Miscellaneous 69 2.10 Poland 70 2.10.1 Introduction 70 2.10.1.1 Macolin Convention 70 2.10.2 Criminal Law 70 2.10.3 Disciplinary regulations 72 2.10.4 Case Study 76 2.10.5 Miscellaneous 77 2.11 South Korea 78 v Project Number: 590606‐ EPP‐1‐2017‐1‐PL‐SPO‐SCP 2.11.1 Introduction 78 2.11.1.1 Introduction of the Korean approach including a definition of the key stakeholders in Korean sport 78 2.11.1.2 Legal situation of sports betting in Korea 78 2.11.1.3 Macolin Convention 79 2.11.2 Criminal Law 79 2.11.3 Disciplinary regulations 81 2.11.4 Case Study 82 2.12 United Kingdom 83 2.12.1 Introduction 83 2.12.1.1 Macolin Convention 84 2.12.2 Criminal Law 84 2.12.3 Disciplinary regulations 88 2.12.3.1 Football: English Football Association 88 2.12.3.2 Cricket: England and Wales Cricket Board 90 2.12.4 Case Study 91 3 FIFA and UEFA 92 3.1 FIFA 92 3.2 UEFA 93 4 Findings and Recommendations 97 5 References 104 6 Appendix A: Australia 110 7 Appendix B: Austria 120 8 Appendix C: Bulgaria 128 9 Appendix E France 132 10 Appendix F: Germany 135 11 Appendix G: Greece 141 12 Appendix H: Italy 148 13 Appendix I: Japan 152 14 Appendix J: Paraguay 155 15 Appendix K Poland 177 vi Project Number: 590606‐ EPP‐1‐2017‐1‐PL‐SPO‐SCP 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Information Fixing an end or part result or other single events of a sport event or any component of it contradicts the established norms and values of the sporting competition drawn up at the end of the 19th century by Baron Pierre de Coubertin and known as Olympism. Today, however, some of these values sound slightly abstract, but defending the core values of sports seems to be the only opportunity for humanity to keep the idea of fair play. Today match‐fixing is not only a global phenomenon, but also worldwide a business and a matter of profit. There are individuals or entire public groups for which fixing certain elements of a sport event or its final outcome is natural. In most cases these are people who have not even put up a minimal effort in their development in the given sport and somehow affect active players who in turn are dissatisfied with their status in the sport team. Assuming that these are the main players in the match‐ fixing market, it is necessary to address the problem with two‐directional measures – prevention from the very beginning, which is predominantly with an educative focus and building a sophisticated system of mechanisms to counteract match‐fixing by active athletes. In every society, the athlete is a role model that largely defines the behaviour of young people; typical examples are Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi, as well as the vast number of children who are their followers. Such examples and role models can be used to educate young athletes and build a value system based on the principles of Olympism and fair play. Regarding the development of a system of mechanisms to counteract match‐fixing, a set of complex measures is required subject to the legal framework, both in the respective country and at an European and global level. Measures framed by legislation and disciplinary regulations in various countries will be introduced in this report.