Match-fixing on the rise. Experts tell iGamingExpress: the system is broken, and manipulation is spreading

Match-fixing is a recurring theme in industry debates, but experts agree: this time, the problem is deeper and more widespread. As part of Sports Week at iGamingExpress, we asked representatives from regulatory bodies, financial crime compliance, and sports integrity organizations to assess how the fight against manipulation is going.

The views of Francesco Baranca, Chris Kronow Rasmussen, and Shaun Mumford paint a grim but realistic picture of a system under pressure. A growing number of betting markets, a lack of expertise among sports federations, operators hesitant to report suspicions, and ineffective legislation all contribute to a landscape where integrity is increasingly difficult to uphold.

All of the above experts were invited to take part in an exclusive expert survey conducted by iGamingExpress, where we asked each of them the same set of questions. Their answers, presented below, offer a multi-layered view of the current challenges and potential solutions in the fight against match-fixing.

Expert survey on match fixing

***

Have you observed an increase in match-fixing cases at the international level in recent years? If so, what do you think is driving this trend?

Francesco Baranca (Integrity expert): Yes, absolutely. In the last years, the increase was clear. New sports, new countries, new competitions involved. With a huge increase in lower categories, youth and women competitions.

Data is easy to explain: huge increase of the offer (including commercial competitions with no professional players) and increase of match-fixing, rather obviously.

Chris Kronow Rasmussen (Director of Financial Crime Prevention & Compliance at DK Advisense): There has been a noticeable increase in match-fixing cases at the international level, as evidenced by a growing number of suspicious events reported in open sources. This trend suggests that while we detect more fixed matches, there is also an underlying layer of undetected activities due to limited access to odds data.

One of the primary reasons for this rise is the sheer volume of matches available for betting. Years ago, betting on lower-division leagues in South America—such as in Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia—was virtually impossible. However, this has changed, making these leagues attractive targets for match-fixers. The same pattern has been observed in India, where lower-tier football has become a significant focus for manipulation.

Chris Kronow Rasmussen

The greater the number of events offered, the higher the probability of match-fixing. This increased availability provides fixers with more opportunities to operate under the radar. Instead of concentrating bets on a single match, they can distribute their wagers across multiple games through combinations like doubles and triples. This makes detection more challenging for bookmakers, as odds movements appear less suspicious, reducing the chances of flagging the activity.

Shaun Mumford (Sports Integrity Senior Executive at Malta Gaming Authority): Recent observations indicate a marginal rise in the number of potentially suspicious activities reported by our licensed operators. It raises a critical question: does this increase signify a rise in manipulated events, or does it reflect our improved processes and stronger relationships with key stakeholders, which enable us to identify instances of manipulation more effectively?

The issue of match-fixing is not new; it has been documented since ancient times, with some of the earliest records of sports corruption found in historical accounts of the Olympic Games in Ancient Greece.

Shaun Mumford

The rise in reported cases cannot be attributed to a single factor. Several notable contributors include advancements in technology, the use of encrypted communication channels, and the increased accessibility and variety of betting markets available today. These elements collectively enhance the potential for both manipulation and detection in the sports sector.

Which parts of the current anti-match-fixing system need the most improvement — actions by operators, sports federations, or perhaps legislation?

Francesco Baranca (Integrity expert): All match-fixing fight, it’s compromised by conflict of interests, lack of knowledge, and lack of interest.

Integrity has been and is seen just like a wasting of money by all stakeholders.

Bookmakers are victims, organizers of competitions are victims, and who should be a bulwark of integrity contributes to making match-fixing bigger with the increasing of betting offer.

Operators are often too much shy to report match-fixing, sports federations, they have a total lack of knowledge, and so system will never erase antibodies.

About legislation, I’m rather sceptical – criminal investigations in almost all cases failed and have huge costs. A good law can scary fixers, but problem must be face on the origin with strict monitoring and effective prevention.

Chris Kronow Rasmussen (Director of Financial Crime Prevention & Compliance at DK Advisense): Nearly 20 years after the Hoyzer scandal in Germany, various conferences, seminars, and working groups have been established to combat match-fixing. However, despite these efforts, the problem continues to escalate. A key contributing factor is the globalization of sports betting, coupled with a fragmented regulatory framework where licensed, unlicensed, legal, and illegal operators coexist.

The infrastructure of betting markets has become increasingly opaque. Many operators, payment processors, and data providers operate in a hybrid environment of licensed and unlicensed entities. Those without proper licenses often do not report suspicious events, leaving authorities with an incomplete picture of the issue. This situation mirrors money laundering investigations—if only 60% of the data is accessible, then only that portion can be effectively scrutinized.

Another major challenge is the international nature of match-fixing. An event may involve teams from different countries, officiated by a referee from another jurisdiction, while bets are placed across multiple continents. This raises the question of investigative authority—who has the mandate and resources to pursue cases spanning different legal systems? Local police can handle domestic incidents, but cross-border cases require a more coordinated international approach. Currently, investigations primarily target athletes rather than the masterminds behind the schemes. However, countries like Belgium and Spain have made significant strides in tackling the individuals orchestrating these operations, shifting the focus away from merely penalizing players.

Rather than having operators, data providers, and sports organizations initiate investigations, the process should be reversed—authorities should lead inquiries, with support from industry stakeholders.

Shaun Mumford (Sports Integrity Senior Executive at Malta Gaming Authority): In the realm of sports, everyone plays a vital role in combating manipulation. Typically, an investigation begins when a licensed operator identifies a suspicion, which is then communicated to the relevant sports governing body or law enforcement agency. The next step should then be for the agency to initiate a criminal investigation and, where applicable, proceed to a criminal hearing or sentencing.

However, while there are numerous opportunities for each stakeholder to enhance their existing processes, legislation often presents significant challenges. In certain jurisdictions, manipulation in sports competitions is not recognised as a criminal offence, which complicates efforts to address the issue effectively.

3. What solutions do you believe could realistically reduce the scale of match-fixing in the coming years?

Francesco Baranca (Integrity expert): Solutions, it’s rather system: correct compensation for the organizers of the event for data rights, system of immediate interruption of betting in case of odds anomalies, and radical decreasing of the offers with exclusion of youth and minor competitions.

Francesco Baranca

Chris Kronow Rasmussen (Director of Financial Crime Prevention & Compliance at DK Advisense): To combat match-fixing effectively, a structured reporting obligation should be introduced, similar to anti-money laundering (AML) regulations. Betting operators should be required to submit Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) or Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs), as is standard in financial crime compliance. Additionally, data providers should report unusual odds movements along with contextual explanations. This approach would provide authorities with a holistic view of suspicious betting patterns, helping to establish networks of individuals placing bets across multiple bookmakers and enabling more efficient investigations.

Education also plays a crucial role. Athletes, coaches, and officials must be trained to recognize and reject match-fixing attempts. A unified, standardized approach to reporting suspicious activities within the sports community is essential.

A potential starting point could be granting the European Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) the mandate to oversee match-fixing investigations within Europe. This would create a centralized mechanism for monitoring and analyzing suspicious betting activities. If successful, this model could then be expanded to other regions.

By enforcing mandatory reporting, fostering education, and enhancing international cooperation, the fight against match-fixing can become more effective and comprehensive.

Shaun Mumford (Sports Integrity Senior Executive at Malta Gaming Authority): At the Malta Gaming Authority, we firmly believe that collaboration and transparency are crucial in the battle against manipulation.

Establishing a robust channel of communication with relevant bodies and law enforcement agencies is essential. To this end, we have established numerous data-sharing agreements with various sports governing bodies, as well as memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with several law enforcement agencies. Any potentially suspicious activity must be reported promptly, accompanied by the necessary betting data to support the claim.

Furthermore, we advocate for the sharing of best practices across jurisdictions. A one-size-fits-all approach is not feasible in this complex landscape, and embracing tailored strategies will best enhance our collective efforts.

***

A failing system that can’t keep up. Experts point to a lack of courage, knowledge, and accountability — so what needs to change?

The expert survey conducted by iGamingExpress reveals a clear and sobering conclusion: the current framework for fighting match-fixing is fragmented, inconsistent, and structurally unprepared for the scale of the problem. The voices we gathered — representing sports integrity, financial compliance, and regulatory institutions — highlight not just technical shortcomings, but a deeper lack of institutional will and coordinated effort.

Among the key issues identified are conflicts of interest, limited awareness within sports federations, reluctance among betting operators to report suspicious cases, and expensive but largely ineffective investigations. The mechanisms currently in place are insufficient to stop the spread of manipulation — and in many cases, they allow bad actors to operate with little risk of consequences.

The experts agree that the system needs fundamental reform. Suggested solutions include mandatory reporting of suspicious activity (in line with AML regulations), the ability to immediately suspend betting when odds anomalies are detected, reducing the scope of betting markets by excluding youth and semi-professional competitions, and ensuring proper compensation for organizers in exchange for data rights.

Equally crucial is education — for athletes, coaches, and referees — as well as the creation of stronger, cross-sector communication channels between operators, data providers, sports institutions, and law enforcement agencies. Without this kind of coordination, as our contributors emphasize, the global fight against match-fixing will remain fragmented, reactive, and ultimately ineffective.