Illegal betting and match-fixing pose a significant threat to sport, but what roles should gambling operators and sports bodies play in tackling such corruption? DLA Piper's Nick Fitzpatrick weighs up the form

On 17 January, for those involved in combating corruption in sport, the focus was on Rome, where 200 delegates from 50 countries and key representatives from the worlds of sport, betting and law enforcement gathered to discuss the threats posed to football by match-fixing, and ways to further improve prevention and investigation.

To put the issue in context, Ronald Noble of Interpol said: "Illegal betting that drives match-fixing encompasses a market that is said to be in the range of hundreds of billions of euros per year, with estimates that the large bookmakers have revenues on the same scale as Coca-Cola."

This eye-watering (and unverifiable) number provokes some perennial questions: what role should gambling operators play in preventing corruption in sport? Who should pay for integrity measures? Should the 'polluter' pay, and who are the polluters anyway?

After all, so much corruption can be linked back to unregulated bookmakers – as in the recent Pakistan cricket fixing case – or to other pressures on sports people to cheat (which, as in Lance Armstrong's case, may have nothing to do with gambling at all).

Collaboration is key

Nor does the matter end with money; it is crucial that sports bodies and operators collaborate effectively on information sharing to expose the cheats, and no one should doubt the significant efforts of, and technology deployed by, many operators to track and report irregular betting patterns.

But above all of these questions one key issue stands out: finding the correct basis for the relationship between gambling and sport.

Should – as many sports organisers believe – the betting industry require consent from the event owner before taking bets – a so-called 'betting right'? Or do operators pay quite enough in sponsorship, and sometimes broadcast fees, already?

The issue is complex and highly contentious. What is clear is that online gambling, in particular exchange betting, has increased the opportunity for corrupt practices in sport (in particular the ability of punters to 'bet to lose' and bet 'in play').

Is it fair that sport should, on its own, bear the cost of combating this corruption threat that is a by-product of the revenue-generating activities of gambling companies?

More generally, is it fair that sport should not, on the whole, directly benefit from the revenues generated by operators on sports betting instead of operators taking a free ride?

Reasonable people sometimes disagree, and there are arguments on both sides, but I believe the answer on both counts is 'no'.

Payments for sponsorship, broadcasting rights, or other goods and services, are no substitute for compensating sport in respect of the revenue operators derive from sports betting.

EU intervention

The issue has received significant attention from the EU and the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

In its ruling in the 2011 Premier League broadcasting rights case, the ECJ noted that most jurisdictions lack rights (like copyright), directly enabling owners to control exploitation of their events, even though sporting events "have a unique and, to that extent, original character that can transform them into subject matter that is worthy of protection comparable to the protection of works, and that protection can be granted, where appropriate, by the various domestic legal orders".

Ultimately, the introduction of an event owner's right would require legislation at a European level. The current EU Action Plan did not propose this and there is no such legislation currently planned.

However, sports rights owners are looking with interest toward the European Commission's current study to "analyse the issues relating to sports organisers' rights from an EU perspective and formulate suggestions as to whether EU action is needed to address any identified problem in this respect".

Rights owners and gambling operators alike should get involved.

Nick Fitzpatrick is a partner at DLA Piper.