I mean those leagues at least try to put on a front legitimacy. I shudder to think of some of the other ones like Belarus or Moldova.
I'm pretty sure it's happening everywhere in Europe, albeit on a smaller scale and less frequent (but not necessarily with smaller financial consequences). This is also what Interpol has signaled but UEFA is not really interested (how they dealt with Turkey is a case in point, where UEFA sabotaged the work of the judicial system). Europol has mentioned Champions League games, that it happens regularly, "including one game played in England". The nature of the action is that it's all a bit foggy and slippery. Many of the elements are (sadly) not necessarily new. It is possible to mention plenty of proven examples (e.g. 1980 Olympics, 1984 Olympics), even going as far as strange and peculiar assassinations (e.g. the assassination of general Actis for 1978WC). What is new and unprecedented though is how they have mixed all together, and at a serious scale. And that's really scary.
I was reading an interview - I think on SovSport - with a new owner of some RPL2 team and he said that, when he was interviewing perspective coaches, a common question posed to him was, "And what is your budget for the ref bribes?"
The Olympics had long had that flesh peddling concept set up between the old Communist nations where favors were exchanged on a per need basis, including but not limited to match fixing (on the other hand, some matches like Poland-USSR in soccer, Czechoslovakia-USSR in hockey and Hungary-USSR in water polo were the antithesis of friendliness and also for political reasons). The infamous fixing took place at the Salt Lake City Olympics figure skating events where several judges were bought by a notorious "thief-in-law" (kind of analogous to a "made man" in Cosa Nostra) Taivanchik. I still contend that the figure skating events in Sochi 2014 were also bought. The Russians and the Qataris, naturally, bribed their way into the WC hosting as well.
Yep it's a major problem outside if I think the very elite levels. Like I don't think there's enough money to fix a World Cup or champions league final. In the former USSR though it's just so blatant and out in the open.
Perhaps not an actual final in modern football, I'm inclined to agree with that, but pretty high levels for sure (think about 1990s Juventus, backed up by actual telephone tapes once the Italian judicial system got involved). http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/21319807 Probably (85% sure) this anecdote from Alex Ferguson his autobiography (2013) refers to a Juventus match, when some television pundit had a few words for him. Declan Hill is the authority on this and although the risks and frequency at group stages and preliminary rounds is much higher (as well as mid-table games in top leagues), it is evidently not restricted to those levels. He cites an actual ex-fixer who explains the "mistake" many people make: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002176/217636e.pdf Or how it's transcripted in his book (2008): Think about Sepp Blatter, who earned £2.6m a year excluding bonuses (not an abnormal salary for a CEO) - it wasn't enough for him. Same for Lance Armstrong and his bribes (all of that only surfaced when the judicial system got involved, followed by USADA after the investigation was miraculously dropped on Super Bowl day). There are always people who are insatiable. Either way, it's (imho) frightening that Russia combines everything at an unprecedented scale. E.g. drug test cover ups are not new - it took place at the 1980 and 1984 Olympics (it's widely known; check also the "9.79" documentary and the 1984 lab director comments). But Russia is ticking all the boxes at the moment. If there's a bucket list for fixers, hit-men and mobs, they succeed with distinction and that two years before the World Cup takes place.
One can fix a group match where the group is already decided by playing the goal difference. If one gets a late group stage with a East European club playing one of the global giants, a two, a three or a four goal loss makes little difference. But I doubt a big Euro club will throw a game against the other big Euro club. The sensationalism of these books makes them an easier sell but they rarely contain any tangible proof at the end. The Italians, mind you, got caught with their alleged match fixing. So did the CL winning Marseille. Zaragoza is still in the investigating stages but Aguirre lost his Japan gig. Most of those were, however, cases of match fixing taken by the clubs in order to save them from relegation or produce an easy win in the heat of the long battle. One can naturally buy an individual player but then he'd be risking a prison term for a fairly small sum. For a big name to throw a match, one would need several million dollars and that creates another problem with money laundering and tax evasion. Of course, some Russians claim that Zenit bought their UEFA Cup win .. but, not in the final. Many suspect that the semi-final win over Bayern was bought. Except all they had to do was to buy a one-goal win.
I dunno that Zenit team was really good. Hard to buy your way entirely to a trophy. A lot of people have to shut up for a long time.
That's what I was thinking. It a team fixed their way to a title it would seem strange that after all of this time nobody would have been a whistleblower or admitted it.
Agree. Personally I think it's for a few reasons less likely than Marseille or Juventus back in the days. http://www.espnfc.com/russian-premi...der-erik-hagen-makes-match-fixing-allegations http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...d-Fifa-hired-match-fixers-con-man-friend.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...over-false-bayern-soccer-fix-claim-in-germany Yes, it involves a lot of people and there will be whispers + sore losers (for ex. Zdenek Zeman) but the incentives for compliance are typically also huge, as well as the diffuse of knowledge (plausible deniability). We've seen that previously, where it took big countermeasures. And even then investigations are sometimes close to been struck down prematurely (Juventus, Armstrong). In other sports as cycling it's rightly called the 'Omerta', and that often involves even more people than with football. You also have to remember that (sports) authorities are for economic and political reasons not always interested. When the Marseille scandal unfolded, the French police and courtcase revealed the same fixers had ties with other European clubs, but local judicial departments do not always care. Another example is Sepp Blatter personally admitting that he once paid an individual African whistleblower (and disadvantaged party) 25.000 dollars, to solve the problem internally within FIFA and prevent he would tell the story to CNN or Reuters. UEFA was also an unreliable party in the Marseille and Juventus cases imho. I'm not saying the Zenit tie was fixed and it involves quite some people, but the incentives for compliance or also huge, the burden of proof is huge to live up to, and the knowledge is typically diffused. From other international sports we know the 'Omerta' is true (and can go on for decades unless someone pulls some big 'big bazooka'). Marseille and Juve went on for over a decade before it unfolded. I'm sure Europol, Interpol are not sucking it out of their big thumbs when they drop some snowflakes around - it's up to others with the competences to show the willingness and care, or not.
Forgot to say: the same media are often excellent gatekeepers, and even if they are sure about a thing then they weigh their options and potential losses (for ex accreditations, or TV rights/advertising in case of Newscorp). It is often a double edged sword. Juliet Macur has elaborated extensively and we also saw it at the FIFA scandals. "Fans with typewriters", and expression made famous by David Walsh.
+ additionally, fear for suicide attempts and wrecking families as well. Gianluca Pessotto is an example. Or the stress it causes among people, families and businesses. Journalist Giorgio Tosatti was a friend of Moggi and Bettega, he was involved, and he suffered a heart attack October 2006, then died of another heart attack February 2007. These considerations increases the pressure on sports journalists and whistleblowers, at least psychological if not professional pressure (repercussions).
That's sad to know what happened to Tosatti. What my question is, do athletes care more about performance of money? There has been suggestions that Zidane in 2006 and Suarez in 2014 were offered money by gamblers for their actions, but would they would be willing to throw away their chance of winning a World Cup for more money? On the flipside, what logical reason other than for money would players do something like that?
It's definitely possible. I only really trust the biggest clubs. You might buy off a referee but not anybody on Barcelona or Man City.
As far as major teams are concerned I honestly think the likes of Suarez and Zidane are last in line to think of (or an Arshavin in case of Russia/Zenit). Extremely well documented cases as aforementioned Marseille or Juventus show you should first think of (e.g.) referee appointments, referees themselves and the role players (work horses, goalkeeper) before you get to the stars of a team. That being said, it might be harder to prove and with bigger interests at stake as well (there's a huge difference between a Sakho, Kolo Toure or a marketing phenomenon of the Neymar caliber). Paolo Rossi (late 1970s) was a big name and an international star; he was the world transfer record holder when he got caught for match fixing and illegal betting on his own matches. Boxing in particular has shown big names might throw games, and this sport involves some of the best paid athletes on the planet (since the 1960s at least). With that sport in mind, which incentives might there be in play? Perhaps I overlook a few factors but I'm aware of these: 1) Simply the money. Some people, not just athletes, are simply insatiable. Of course it is a good point to think "if you have already 70 million dollars on your bank account, why would you do that?" But the reference point of what constitutes 'a lot of money' in sports is continuously moving upwards. Thirty years ago it was, say, 10 million (for a career that lasts 10-15 years). 2) Boxers, Suarez and Zidane often come from reasonably poor backgrounds with large families. It's a well known fact that Suarez supports a whole family and even his birthplace neighborhood. That's the culture and the expectations that are placed upon them. They literally play for themselves, their family, neighborhood and friends. 3) Give and take, quid pro quo, live and let live (you name it). This are just some well known principles that take place in boxing, in cycling, in autoracing, in team sports etc. It is not good for the sport if a team wins all the time. Athletes know they cannot always win and are (sometimes) not even allowed or favored to win. If necessary, it is not unheard of that regulations are designed to stop and dismantle the dominance of an athlete or team (in football as well). The 'system' just gravitates to a situation where France - and a small market team/country as Uruguay even more so - doesn't always win, as it might switch off eyeballs and sponsors. The director of the 1994WC organizing committee Alan Rothenberg sighed when Bulgaria beat France, Argentina, Mexico and Germany at the World Cup; "Bulgaria cost us a lot of money. I wonder how much money they have cost us. They don't sell shirts. [sic]" Another one added: "They don't turn on television sets and they communicate in a language that no one in the world speaks." If athletes, or their colleagues, are aware of how the system gravitates and think they cannot always win, then that roadblock is out of the way. Personally (imho) I'd say the likes of Zidane and Suarez are the last in line to think of, but maybe I'm wrong. Possibly I overlook some commonly known incentives as well.
The main way of match manipulation currently seems to be spot fixing. Rather than a predetermined outcome, a specific moment of the match is decided. This makes it harder to prove. For example a player missing a shot despite a wide-open net. How can one possibly know if it was intentional or just poor finishing? Same with a referee, it would be very hard to prove whether an error was a mistake or on purpose. 1. In a sense it can be comparable to some politicians. Some have made shady decisions despite being tremendously rich just for more money. 2. I guess in that sense money can be important. The thought of their families suffering means more than the thought of losing a game. 3. I remember reading somewhere that ESPN (or whoever was broadcasting the World Cup) were angry that Bulgaria beat Germany as an Italy-Germany semifinal was expected to get lots of views. I also remember in a 2014 World Cup simulator (not an actual prediction, just something for fun) there was a bizarre result, it had Bosnia and Herzegovina beating Japan in the final. For the video a large amount of the comments were saying that FIFA would not allow a final like that to happen as the viewership would be low.
...and those people can be safely ignored as clueless idiots. TV rights are bought years in advance. FIFA would make exactly the same amount of money for a Brazil v Spain final as they would for Peru v Albania.
Not really fully clueless, although to say that FIFA categorically "does not allow it to happen" is probably too strong a wording (if anything, the pressures and forces are more subtle). For example, we had such Portugal vs Greece final in 2004 (an aberration), and in the same year the European Commission themselves released in a speech as statement (EC deals with the internal market). Not "exactly the same amount" because FIFA has also other revenue streams, which are indirectly related to the viewership figures. But the television rights are the vast chunk of their income, true. You're right that on the short term (at least) FIFA doesn't lose in television rights when the outcomes become unpredictable. That is right. On this subject, this are some of the interesting and relevant reads (esp. the first five links): http://www.ibtimes.com/2014-world-c...ottom-line-fifa-advertisers-retailers-1606600 Doidge Italian Football 2012 Bose Premier League 2012 Bose Premier League 2012 (pt2) Bose Premier League 2012 (pt3) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/b...scorer-in-world-cup-maybe-univision.html?_r=0 http://inbedwithmaradona.com/retro/...cup-the-future-according-to-silvio-berlusconi
They wouldn't, because they wouldn't expect the finals in four or eight years time to also have small-drawing finalists. And in any case, tv rights are for the whole tournament, not just the final. The impact of a lower than expected viewing figure for the final is more or less negligible for a 64 game tournament. And is there any evidence at all that the 2004 final had any impact at all in future TV negotiations? Did it even impact tv viewers anyway? The Euros/World Cup are not like the champion league, where you need the big names to get the viewers. People are interested in the whole event, because it is an event in itself. The exact same amount of tv money. Advertisers will not be happy, but they know it's something of a gamble. They won't demand refunds or reduced rates next time round, just as they wouldn't negotiate price hikes based on fortuitously good numbers. There are also too many advertisers and nations involved to come to any sort of collusion over who ought to advance.
It is also not good for the sport (the commercial value) if say France wins six tournaments in a row. The regulations gravitate towards preventing such scenario. This in turn create incentives for players. "Any evidence at all" as in value, just the numerical value? Absolutely. UEFA themselves signaled they met more difficulties than usual in reaching the expected value, and many major markets only signed up after they had qualified (this was unlike 1996, 2000, 2004): http://web.archive.org/web/20080613...07-EURO-2008-TV-deals-not-coming-through.html The euro 2008 rights were negotiated between 2005 and 2007. Although it climbed with 20-30%, that does not take into account that 1) UEFA stopped selling to EBU and sold the rights individually to more parties 2) advent of digital platforms 3) thanks to abandoning EBU they were better able to market the event to parties outside Europe. Meanwhile, the euro 2004 rights was an uptake of 80% (at the very least) compared to 2000, while selling it to a similar number of parties. At euro 2008 four countries were responsible for 70% of the television revenues. Another piece of evidence is that it has changed competitions and the money distribution. As 'The Economist' (it hardly gets more credible) pointed out, there was every reason to expand the euros to 24 teams. After all, UEFA president Platini himself said he was hoping for a Germany vs Spain final in 2012. This is also the main argument behind the new 'Nations League'. https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...h-richer-that39s-why-it-exists-us-translation 12 million for 2004 final in UK, 18 million viewers for 2000 final. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/euro2000/the_bbc_team/817290.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3867849.stm While I agree it is arguably not as strong, I don't see why the effect would be totally absent. See this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/business/media/24rights.html?_r=0 http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/fifa-world-cup/3731244/All-Whites-in-World-Cup-horror-final In the 'Soccernomics' book the specific numbers are laid out - detailed data since 1998. A final including Brazil boosts the global viewership figures with 2.2% above the baseline. That's considerable. England is 2nd best with 1.4% by the way. Also this link again: https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...h-richer-that39s-why-it-exists-us-translation When Blackburn Rovers in 1995-96 was in danger of going unseeded (and in need of playing preliminary rounds), ITV and TF1 did famously signal that it lowers the value. Subsequently the calculation method was changed, which made Glasgow Rangers an unseeded team. Just as the FIFA corruption has clearly influenced the 2026 World Cup television rights selling (as compensation for 2022 Qatar damages to tv companies), without a shadow of doubt.
You appear to be merging comments about clubs and countries - and countries qualifying - which is an entirely different scenario. None at all seemed remotely bothered by the last final being between Portugal and Greece. And was this because he was worried about disgruntled tv advertisers if two smaller nations met in the final, or was it because he thought those two teams were the best teams? Yet only about 14 million for the 2008 and 2012 finals. You've branched off again, into the impact of specific clubs/nations not qualifying. That's a completely different matter to the impact of a disappointing (for advertisers) couple of nations making in to the final.
Found something from the 'Financial Times' Then for euro 2008, they had more problems than usual in signing up the big markets. http://web.archive.org/web/20080613...07-EURO-2008-TV-deals-not-coming-through.html But statements as that "FIFA does not allow Bosnia to reach the final instead of Russia" is arguably too strong of a black/white wording. As linked above, this is an excellent article. https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...h-richer-that39s-why-it-exists-us-translation