A multi-stakeholder perspective on match-fixing

Aim and Research Questions Match-fixing, the manipulation of sport competitions, can occur in a wide variety of forms, and involve many and different actors. Despite the increasing literature on match-fixing, empirical research to date has mainly focused on the vulnerability of athletes (e.g., Tak et al., 2020) and referees for match-fixing (e.g., Visschers et al., 2020). However, fixers may also decide to approach other people involved in sport (e.g., coaches or board members) to manipulate a sport event. Moreover, sport actors may even be the instigators themselves (Holden & Rodenberg, 2017). While Van Der Hoeven et al. (2021) suggested that various stakeholders may also perceive match-fixing differently, a multi-stakeholder perspective has barely been used in the study of match-fixing. Therefore, this present study examines various stakeholders’ perceptions of match-fixing, and to what extent they are vulnerable to be approached for a match-fixing proposal. Consequently, the two research questions read as follows: RQ1: How do different stakeholders perceive match-fixing in their sport? RQ2: Which stakeholders are vulnerable to be approached for match-fixing? Theoretical Background and Literature Review Although multiple match-fixing scandals have already shown that various stakeholders in sport can be involved, a stakeholder approach has rarely been applied to study match-fixing. Freeman (1984, p. 49) identified stakeholders as “those groups who can affect or are affected by the achievement of an organization’s purpose.” In the context of match-fixing, Spapens (2021) made a distinction between “outsiders” (e.g., organised criminals) and “insiders” (e.g., athletes, coaches, officials), who can affect or are affected by match-fixing. In this study, we focus on the “insiders” stakeholders, as they actively participate in sport and are also the ones who can perform the manipulation on the field. By applying a stakeholder approach to study match-fixing, an interesting lens is provided to gain insights into the perceptions and vulnerability of various stakeholders. Research Design, Methodology and Data Analysis Data stem from a research project within the Erasmus+ Programme which was co-funded by the European Union. Data were collected in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, using an online questionnaire. The online questionnaire ran for approximately six months, and focused on three sport disciplines per country. The questionnaire examined the characteristics of the respondents, their perceptions of match-fixing, whether they personally knew someone who had been approached to fix, and whether they had been confronted themselves with a match-fixing proposal. When respondents testified of match-fixing cases (of themselves or acquaintances), further details about the match-fixing proposal were examined. In total, 5014 adult actors (i.e., 60,2% athletes, 17,4% referees / (video) assistant referees / (fourth) officials / jury members, 8,4% coaches / trainers / assistant coaches, 5,8% board members / assembly members / managers of sport clubs, 0,9% medical staff, and 7,4% others) who are/were involved in various sport disciplines (i.e., football, tennis, basketball, hockey, handball, cricket, and other sports) across seven countries completed the questionnaire. Data analyses were performed using SPSS 24 software. Results and Discussion When it comes to the respondents’ perceptions of match-fixing, the results showed a significant difference between the different stakeholder groups regarding (a) the estimation that match-fixing is a real problem in their sport discipline in their country; (b) the assessment that they could be approached themselves for match-fixing; their attitudes when they hear that someone has been involved in (c) sporting-related or (d) betting-related match-fixing; their perceptions when they hear that someone has not been punished for engaging in (e) sporting-related or (f) betting-related match-fixing; and the acceptability of (g) sporting-related and (h) betting-related match-fixing (one-way MANOVA: Wilks’ = .903, F (40, 21558) = 12.796, p < .001, = .020). The eight significant univariate effects and the specific differences between the various stakeholder groups will be discussed at the EASM conference, when the data analysis will be completed. Conclusion, Contribution and Implication Building on stakeholder theory, this study enriches the sport management literature on match-fixing by providing an explicit perspective on various stakeholders in an international sample. Exposing the different perceptions and vulnerabilities of the various stakeholders, this study’s results could navigate future match-fixing prevention initiatives. References Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. Holden, J. T., & Rodenberg, R. M. (2017). Lone-wolf match-fixing: global policy considerations. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9(1), 137–151. Spapens, T. (2021). Match-fixing. In H. Nelen & D. Siegel (Eds.), Contemporary Organized Crime: Developments, challenges and responses (Vol. 18, pp. 135–150). Springer. Tak, M., Sam, M. P., & Choi, C.-H. (2020). Too much at stake to uphold sport integrity? High-performance athletes’ involvement in match-fixing. Crime, Law and Social Change, 74, 27–44. Van Der Hoeven, S., Constandt, B., Schyvinck, C., Lagae, W., & Willem, A. (2021). The grey zone between tactics and manipulation: The normalization of match-fixing in road cycling. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902211038414 Visschers, J., Paoli, L., & Deshpande, A. (2020). Match-fixing: Football referees’ attitudes and experiences. Crime, Law and Social Change, 74, 77–95