The use of data by sports governing bodies (SGBs) and gambling operators was the main topic of discussion at a Sports Betting Integrity Forum (SBIF) event at Stamford Bridge in London yesterday. Delegates heard that SGBs need data from gambling operators to be able to pursue successful prosecutions against those involved in corruption, however operators need to be confident that SGBs will use and protect that data adequately.

Operators said that they needed to have confidence in the governance structures of sporting bodies in order to share information with them. However, they also said they are happy to share information which may be useful to SGBs without going through Great Britain’s Gambling Commission.

“We want to give information to somebody who can do something useful with it when something doesn’t feel quite right”, said Bill South, Head of Security and Community Affairs at William Hill. “We cannot give this information to the regulator. Betting operators want to find a home for information on suspicious betting.”

South said that operators will pick up the phone and call an SGB when something feels wrong, but only if they can be confident that the SGB will deal with the information in the correct manner. However he highlighted a problem in that SGBs don’t always report back on what action has been taken when a betting market has been suspended due to integrity concerns. “Often, genuine bettors have money staked on a suspended market”, he pointed out. “This puts us in a very difficult position”.

Schedule 6 of the UK’s 2005 Gambling Act lists SGBs with which the Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU) of the Gambling Commission can share information. Steve Paine of the SBIU said that the SBIU can share information with SBGs that don’t feature on this list “in certain circumstances” – for example in the course of a criminal investigation.

Use of data

Data is collected at sporting events by scouts, so that gambling operators can offer bets. Often, integrity partners specify in their agreement with an SGB that they are to become the sports betting data partner for that sport. In theory, this protects the SGB from its match data being used by unlicensed overseas operators to offer bets on its events, which could lead to the potential for corruption – especially when amateur or youth events are concerned.

However, certain integrity organisations are using subsidiaries to employ scouts to collect match data, which is then passed on to gambling operators. This sometimes involves amateur or youth competitions. As the scouts recruited by such companies are low paid – coupled with the issue that amateur and youth sport athletes are often unpaid – concerns have been raised that such arrangements raise the potential for corruption. Often, SGBs are unaware that odds are being offered on their amateur and youth competitions as a result of such arrangements.

Regulated operators defended their ability to collect data from amateur and underage sporting events, arguing that if they don’t offer odds on such events, somebody else will (i.e. unregulated operators). They also defended the right to offer in-play betting for the same reason, despite the fact that – for example – it is easier to fix no-ball or a wide in a cricket match than it is to fix the entire game. Regulated operators argued that banning in-play betting would be a mistake, as it would push certain types of bet onto the black market, where they could not be controlled.

This argument was also used by regulated operators to defend ‘novelty’ bets, which have been the cause of recent controversy in the UK. Allegations of corruption were made connected to John Terry’s substitution in the 26th minute of his final game for Chelsea FC, matching his shirt number. Bookmakers were also accused of encouraging corruption by taking bets on whether Sutton United reserve goalkeeper Wayne Shaw would eat a pie during the club’s 0-2 loss to Arsenal during the FA Cup this year.

Regulated operators said that bets such as this – including who would be the first Premier League manager to get the sack during the season – were what ordinary people were talking about. They argued that if they didn’t offer bets on this, unlicensed operators would.

The SBIF heard that arrangements with sports integrity organisations can help plug a gap where a gambling operator is unsure as to whether certain information is an indicator of corruption, but for commercial reasons cannot liaise with other operators about whether they they have seen similar patterns. South of William Hill said that when ESSA receives a report of potential suspicious activity from an operator, it will ask its 23 other operator members whether they have seen similar activity, and will aim to report any activity to an SGB within one hour.

General Data Protection Regulation

The sharing of data between SGBs and gambling operators will get more complicated from 25 May 2018. This is the date when the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will apply in the UK, irrespective of Brexit. The SBIF heard that SGBs will need to employ a data protection officer to ensure that their use of data is in line with the GDPR.

Law enforcement

Friedrich Martens, Head of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Integrity Betting Intelligence System, told the SBIF that all international federations are fully prepared to follow up specific breaches of betting rules and give feedback to sports betting operators. “I am confident that our regulation on sports betting is world leading, but we need to engage with others who may not regulate gambling”, said the UK government’s Minister for Sport, Tracey Crouch.

However, the SBIF said that due to the cross-jurisdictional nature of sports betting corruption offences, it can be difficult to gain the engagement of law enforcement. The SBIU said that typically, match-fixing involves an event, betting and players, but all three took place in the UK in only one third of cases. The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) said that it had over 80 integrity cases open for 2017 alone.

However, the SBIF dismissed arguments that such difficulties were caused by a gap in the law. Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005 does contain a specific offence ‘cheating at gambling’. In 2011, this was used for the first time to convict cricketers Mohammad Amir and Salman Butt, however it has not been used since. The SBIF conceded that sentencing under S.42 is a problem, arguing that law enforcement is not used to dealing with S.42 and other offences – such as bribery – carry a heavier penalty.

The SBIF argued that SGBs needed to be better at explaining that betting related corruption in sport is lower than in other sections of society. It was pointed out that the media disproportionately covers match-fixing in sport as compared to – for example – fixing the stock market due to public interest. However, it was agreed that highlighting this issue could be problematic.

Misuse of inside information

The SBIF held a workshop on Inside Information, which highlighted the difficulties that SGBs had in deciding whether participants in a sport – or bettors – had used inside information to cheat or commit betting fraud. The Gambling Commission has a 2014 position paper on what should be considered inside information, however a number of grey areas were highlighted.

For example, many gambling operators are based on small offshore communities – such as Gibraltar, Jersey, Alderney – which previously had beneficial tax regimes. Operators said that in such an environment, employees had to be very careful what they talked about in public, in case the conversation was picked up by other operators.

In addition, sport faced particular difficulties in deciding whether certain scenarios constituted misuse of inside information. For example, in horseracing, the trainer tells the jockey how to run a horse. A jockey is not bound to report that instruction, unless it breaches horse racing’s rules about running a horse on its merits. However, if a jockey thinks that a trainer’s instructions will result in it not doing as well as it otherwise might and he passes that information on, is that misuse of inside information?

Specific gaps were identified regarding disclosures made on social media. If a bettor picks up that an athlete was out until 3am the morning before a race, is that considered inside information? If a member of a player’s family posts a picture of a domestic injury and that is used by others for betting purposes, is that inside information?

Harm prevention

The SBIF heard that an athlete is three times more likely than a member of the public to develop a gambling addiction. Footballer Joey Barton has previously argued that for athletes with a gambling problem, recovery is also more difficult than for a member of the public. ‘It is like asking a recovering alcoholic to spend all his time in a pub or a brewery’, he wrote.

The SBIF heard that if an athlete has an injury, treatment is immediately forthcoming. However if an athlete has a mental health issue such as a gambling problem, this is often viewed as unacceptable. This makes it very difficult for athletes to proactively report problem gambling issues.

It was argued that whilst education is important, SGBs need to explore treatment for such problems, including the possibility of intervention. “You cannot educate somebody out of a gambling addiction”, pointed out Colin Bland of the Sporting Chance Clinic.

Conclusion

As Crouch pointed out, the British sports gambling market is probably the most developed and best regulated in the world. Although the issues raised highlighted the complexities of regulating gambling, at least the British market is aware of them. If Britain hadn’t regulated gambling, such issues would be freely exploited by the unregulated market. This is perhaps why Crouch warned that Britain needs to engage with other countries that do not regulate this area.

The use of data is a cause for concern. Gambling operators need match data in order to be able to offer bets on sporting events. For untelevised events, taking scores off the internet is not commercially viable, as they could be subject to delay. Regulated operators traditionally use scouts to collect data in order to allow them to offer bets. A proper investigation needs to occur into who is offering bets on lower league and amateur sporting events and where they get their data from, and whether SGBs are aware that such bets are being offered.

Betting operators were vocal about the potential governance shortfalls of SGBs at yesterday’s event. SGBs also need to be vocal about how gambling operators can ensure that the integrity of their game, and of their athletes, will not be affected by sports betting corruption.