T C A Srinivasa Raghavan: The problem of match fixing

LINE & LENGTH

More money means greater proneness to manipulation. Sports authorities, therefore, need to cover all bases.

Two developments have taken place this week that requires us all to take a fresh look at the problem of betting in sports and match fixing. One is the allegation by a leading Indian tennis player that some tennis matches are fixed. The other, quite separately, is the emergence of privately-owned cricket teams. This, I may add with my usual modesty, was an idea that was the subject of the very first column bearing this name way back in March 1992.

So, I am very pleased at the development, even while feeling some disquiet because privately-owned teams need to perform at a very high level consistently in the heavy-duty games. The disquiet is because all games have two common features. One is that people can bet on outcomes; and two, therefore, is that the games are always prone to manipulation.

Indeed, all sports depend on chance, and when necessary, as we have seen through the ages, its role can be reduced by the right incentives to on-field participants, both active and passive. The likelihood of manipulation can be very high when a lot of money has been bet on outcomes that have a very low probability.

This much is evident. But there is something that is no not so obvious. This is a possibility that my good friend Surjit Bhalla and I have often discussed. This is that, in theory, practically anyone involved in conducting the game can also be manipulated. It is mostly a matter of spotting the rotten apple and offering large sums of money to him or her.

So, if one were to set down what all economists call necessary and sufficient conditions for manipulation by those who stand to gain financially from a particular outcome "" bookies, in other words "" one could probably offer two such conditions. The sufficient condition is that betting must be possible, even if not permitted legally. The necessary condition is to spot an accomplice, which is where the real skill lies.

Most people assume, perhaps rightly, that it is the players who are more prone to manipulation be it jockeys, goal-keepers, batsmen, or whatever. But could they be wrong in their assumption? What has never been investigated by the authorities of different sports is the possibility that the game's other deciders, such as groundsmen, linesmen, and other on-field arbiters may also be offered allurements that make them suspend their judgment temporarily and at moments that are crucial to the outcome of the game.

The temptations before the on-field arbiters can be huge. For one thing, they are fully protected by the rules of the game, so it is hard to catch them. Second, at the top level in any sport, they are so few in number that it probably ensures that they maintain a sort of omerta or vow of silence. Third, the leeway for error in big team games is huge "" vision, hearing, speed of movement, crowd noise etc. This makes it extremely hard to say with certainty that a particular decision was mala fide. Fourth, because of derivative betting "" a penalty in the second half, a wicket in the fifth over, a double fault in the third set "" referees need not take massive risks that get exposed by TV cameras. They can get by with small 'errors'. Fifth, player protest during the "game" has been almost completely muted in all games by the system of penalties. This reduces risk even further. It is also necessary to look at the probabilities. For example, the probability that a referee or umpire will give more than one or two such decisions is very small. The further probability of these going against just one side or player is even smaller. Normally, it should be 50-50.

The authorities in all sports therefore need to look at the decisions differently because only then can they establish randomness or its absence. The idea should be to rule out the possibility that the errors were systematic. It is also important to keep a close watch on important games and see if the number of errors is higher in such matches. This is because the betting on such games is high.

The use of technology offers one way to ensure process honesty. But there is another way as well, says Surjit: Just ensure that a suspect game is annulled because this will remove all incentives for everyone. The procedure for annulling can be worked out in such a way that no betting money changes hands before a decision is taken about the game.

There is one problem, though, that can't be solved. This is the possibility that the stewards of the game, be it football or racing or whatever, are fearful that scandals may destroy the games that bring in so much revenue. If they are happy with the excitement that the game generates and don't much care about its reputation , such a thing can indeed happen. It does too, because fences sometimes eats the hedge.