Evidence from five different betting monitoring companies supported FIFA’s to ban Ghanaian referee Joseph Lamptey for life for match-fixing last year, a judgment published by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has revealed. In September 2017, FIFA received confirmation that the CAS had rejected Lamptey’s appeal against his life ban, issued in March. However the reasoning behind the decision was only communicated to the involved parties on 4 December, and was published by FIFA earlier today.

FIFA argued that Lamptey had helped to fix a South Africa vs. Senegal 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia qualifier on 12 November 2016, which South Africa initially won 2-1. However following the decision to sanction Lamptey, the game was replayed on 10 November last year, and Senegal won 2-0 to qualify for this year’s World Cup.

The Senegalese football federation (FSF) argued that a penalty at 41 minutes for deliberate handball was wrongly awarded, and that a ‘quick restart’ at 45 minutes allowed South Africa to score its second goal in the 2016 match. ‘The penalty was supposedly awarded because of a deliberate handball by Senegal no. 2 which didn’t happen’, read the Referee Assessor’s report into the 2016 match.

Five betting monitoring companies independently notified FIFA that during the first half of the 2016 match, there was suspicious movement in the ‘overs’ market, which offers live odds on the total number of goals that will be scored in a given match (i.e. in this case, over two goals being scored). They found that the number of bets significantly differed from the usual, indicating probable match fixing. The CAS accepted that those operating in this market were confident that at least two goals would be scored.

‘There is clear and overwhelming betting evidence that the course or result of this match was unduly influenced’, read Sportradar’s November 2016 Escalation Report to FIFA. ‘The betting evidence ultimately indicated the bettors held prior knowledge of at least three goals being scored in total’.

‘EWS considers the live odds movements on at least 2 and 3 goals to be scored in the match for a specific number of goals in a match as irregular’, read a 17 January 2017 Final Monitoring Report provided by FIFA’s Early Warning System (EWS). ‘EWS is 99.5% confident that the irregular odds movements noted in this match are statistically different from the odds movements for equivalent matches. Moreover, the fact that the bookmakers did not reduce the opening Goallines of 1.75 and 2.00 in the first 41 minutes of the game is unusual and raise additional integrity concerns.’

An investigative report into the match conducted by FIFA supported the idea that Lamptey’s refereeing decisions were linked to betting fraud. ‘Documentary evidence was provided that five (5) betting monitoring entities witnessed, analysed, and concluded that the betting patterns of Match 1 [the 2016 match] were suspicious and indicative of match manipulation’, it concluded. ‘The modus operandi of referees giving penalties was defined as a strategy used by referees to influence the result of the match for betting purposes. Mr Lamptey’s decision to award a contentious penalty and his omission to stop the quick restart of the match by South Africa resulted in goals being scored and therefore influences the outcome of the match. Mr Lamptey’s actions contributed to more goals being scored in Match 1, which allowed to meet betting expectations.’ 

A second part of FIFA’s investigative report presented analysis of six matches in which Lamptey had previously officiated, where suspicions of match-fixing had also arisen. Tom Mace, Director of Global Operations for Integrity Services at Sportradar, explained that suspicious betting activity was detected from the 12th minute of the first half.

‘Suspicious betting activities reached their climax precisely when Mr Lamptey took the incorrect refereeing decisions between the 40th minute and the end of the first half’, read an explanatory statement from FIFA. ‘CAS found it significant that the match had been uneventful up to the moment when Mr Lamptey took the wrong decisions, that the deviation from the ordinary betting pattern occurred prior to those decisions, and that when the second goal of the match was scored, the market appeared to be satisfied, causing the live betting odds to return to the expected figures, because the expectations of at least two goals had been fully met’.

The CAS concluded that Lamptey had intentionally taken two wrong decisions with the intention of enabling a specific number of goals to be scored that would make the bets successful. ‘CAS concluded that there was an obvious link between these intentionally wrong decisions and a deviation from an expected betting pattern, and consequently found Mr Lamptey guilty of having unlawfully influenced the result of the match’, read FIFA’s statement.

It is understood that Lamptey still disputes the argument that he fixed the game, and has appealed to the Swiss civil courts in an attempt to get his ban lifted. This is despite the fact that, prior to FIFA’s investigation, Lamptey was sanctioned with a three month ban by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) for awarding ‘a wrong penalty for handball despite the fact that the ball never touched the hand of the player’, during the 2016 match.