Sports Law

Match Fixing: Need for a Better Legislation. [Saumya Agarwal] The author is a 3rd year B.A.LLB (Hons.) student of NLIU, Bhopal Introduction Match fixing has become a part and parcel to almost every existing sport in the world and has flexed its arms to tarnish the basic ethnicity of the term Sports. Oxford dictionary defines sports as: “an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.” Entertainment, if we focus on this sole term of the definition provided we will realise that ample number of formats and championships have been introduced to provide entertainment to that audience that spends chunks of money. Indian Premier League is one of the best existing examples wherein players from across the world are auctioned upon and celebrities, business tycoons are seen spending their fortune. The Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions which was concluded in Macolin on 18 September 2014 (Macolin Convention) is a multilateral treaty that aims to prevent, detect, and punish match fixing in sport. “Manipulation of sport competitions means an intentional arrangement, act or omission aimed at an improper alteration of the result or the course of a sport competition in order to remove all or part of the unpredictable nature of the aforementioned sport competition with a view to obtaining an undue advantage for oneself or for others.”[1] The above definition of “match-fixing” covers a wide range of situations: -The deliberate loss of a match or a phase of a match; -The deliberate underperformance by a competitor or improper withdrawal before the conclusion of a match (tanking); -The fixing of specific elements of a sporting event (spot-fixing); -The deliberate misapplication of the rules of a sport by the referee and/or other match -officials; -Interference with the play, playing surfaces or equipment. It is surprising to note that nowhere in the Indian Laws the term Match-fixing is defined. It was only until CBI Report on Match Fixing allegations which came in 2000 wherein the term was defined as[2]: (i) instances where an individual player or group of players received money individually/collectively to underperform; (ii) instances where a player placed bets in matches in which he played that would naturally undermine his performance; (iii) instances where players passed on information to a betting syndicate about team composition, probable result, pitch condition, weather, etc., (iv) instances where groundsmen were given money to prepare a pitch in a way which suited the betting syndicate; and (v) instances of current and ex-players being used by bookies to gain access to Indian and foreign players to influence their performance for a monetary consideration. The phenomenon of match fixing can be dated back to infamous incident of Black Sox scandal 1919 where eleven members of the Chicago White Sox team threw the world series. The phenomenon is carried out in two ways: tanking and spot fixing. Tanking is when the player intentionally throws away the game at his hand by deliberately losing or not competing at all and spot-fixing involves fixing small events within a match which can be gambled upon, but which are unlikely to prove decisive in determining the final result of the game. The widespread of match-fixing is immense and can be seen in almost every sport, cricket, baseball, tennis, horse-racing, snooker, sumo-wrestling to name a few. However, a high concentration can be seen in cricket. The world has witnessed many infamous cases of match-fixing and a recent sting operation documentary of Al-Jazeera discusses the match-fixing incidents covering almost all the formats of cricket. Indian Laws The laws in India under which match-fixing can be dealt with are as under: Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC): Section 415 of IPC which deals with the offence of cheating includes deceiving’ a person’. Cheating must be committed against a specific person. The section does not include the term ‘persons’. Match-fixing is an offence against public at large which is not included here as it deals with a person in specific. The section also warrants transfer of property which is not clearly involved in match-fixing. Section 120-A of IPC deals with conspiracy which uses the term illegal acts. Since none of the laws in India illegitimates match fixing therefore it cannot be covered under this section. Moreover, for it to be a criminal offence, dishonest intention (i.e. presence of mens rea) is to be proved with wrongful loss/gain. Since the wrongful loss caused to the spectators is consequential and not something caused intentionally it cannot be covered under IPC. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(PCA)[3]: According to section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of PCA ‘a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, if he by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.’ To bring the act of match fixing one has to bring ‘cricketers’ under ‘public servants’. S. 2 (c) (viii) defines public servant as a person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty. But do cricketers really do any public duty. Cricketers are mere professionals governed by independent contracts whose job is to entertain people by playing cricket. They do nothing sort of public duty. Thus cricketers do not come under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also. The Public Gambling Act, 1867 (PGA): The Public Gambling Act is the only law bringing match-fixing directly in its ambit as gambling is its direct cause. However, Section 12 of the act provides with an exception that it would not apply to game of mere skill and nowhere defines the phrase. Horse racing and rummy are seen as game of mere skill. The power lies with the states to determine the status of betting and gambling as they are state subjects under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Goa and Sikkim have legalised many forms of betting and gambling. Thus, there lies a grey area when it

Sandpapergate: ICC’s Failure to Save the Spirit of the Game from Orchestrated Cheating. [Ayushi Singh] The author is a third-year student at National Law University, Jodhpur. She may be reached at ayushisingh3004@gmail.com. The South Africa-Australia Test Series saga has not stopped unravelling since the ball-tampering scandal was captured on live telecast during the third test match. Whether or not South Africa manages to clinch a Test Series win against Australia at home-a feat last achieved in 1970- is yet to be seen; however, it is not wrong to say that this series will be remembered for the hullaballoo caused when Cameron Bancroft was caught red-handed with sandpaper and tape – foreign substances being used to scuff up the ball on live television, with Australian captain Steve Smith confessing to being the ring-leader behind the offence. The public reception to this collusive act of cheating has been scathing and acute. During the third test match, Australian supporters removed their flag and stuck naked flags instead. Cricket legends have come forward in collective disdain for the acts of the Australian captain including past captains like Michael Clarke; even the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called for swift action against the disgraceful act of cheating. Personal opinions aside, as far as tangible backlash is concerned, Steve Smith and David Warner have been demoted from their posts of Captain and Vice-Captain respectively. Even coach Darren Lehmann is liable to be removed from his post with reports stating thathe knew about the plan as he had tried to warn Bancroft about being caught on camera. Steve Smith has also been removed from captaincy of the Indian Premier League team Rajasthan Royals. Cricket Australia is still carrying out investigations on Johannesburg and is yet to reply to reports of whether the players involved would be facing a year-long ban from the team. Despite the bitter fallout faced by the players, mainly Smith and Bancroft, the punishment meted out by the International Cricket Council has been surprisingly lukewarm. Steve Smith was charged under Article 2.2.1 of the Code of Conduct i.e. act of serious nature that is contrary to the spirit of the game – a Level 2 offence which brought forth a fine of 100% of his match fee and one Test Match ban. Cameron Bancroft was charged under the Level 2 offence of Article 2.2.9 of the Code i.e. changing the condition of the ball in breach of clause 41.3 of the ICC Standard Test Match, ODI and T20I Playing Conditions, receiving a fine of 75% of his match fee and three demerit points. With glorious expectations that hoped for the ICC to take strict action against this premeditated act of cheating and set a strong precedent for the future, this punishment was met with less than warm reviews. ICC Demerit Point System for Offences The demerit points system of the ICC was introduced in December 2016 as a tool to crackdown on repeat offenders of the ICC Code of Conduct. The mechanism in place simply notes the presence of demerit points in the record of the player in correspondence with the Level of Offence committed by him/her. These points remain in the record of the player for 24 months and the accumulated demerit points may translate into corresponding punishments of suspension in ICC International matches. Even after a ban or suspension has been meted out, the demerit points remain in the record for 24 months so as to hold the player accountable and deter recidivism. This does bring in questions of double jeopardy, however, the intention is to increase the gravity of the punishment with every repeated offence. The number of offences defined by the ICC Code are divided into to four Levels: Level 1 constitutes minor offences; Level 2 constitutes serious offences; Level 3 covers very serious offences, while Level 4 constitutes overwhelmingly serious offences.[1] According to Article 6 of the Code, which defines the standard of proof for the offences, the Match Referee or the Judicial Commissioner must be satisfied as to the commission of the offence.[2] This “comfortable satisfaction” is subject to the sliding standard of proof wherein minor offences have to be proved on the basis of balance of probabilities while overwhelmingly serious offences have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The nature of evidence must of the kind that can be proved by reliable means: i.e. as in this case, the presence of live television footage and the players’ admission. It must also be noted that, the level of offence is also dependent on the context of the occurrence. It is on the foundation of context that the action taken by the ICC seems to fall short. On his very own admission, Steve Smith brings to light a premeditated, concerted effort to indulge in the act of cheating during the Test Series. Bancroft admits complying with the instructions of the captain and “a bunch of senior players” to use the foreign objects to tamper with the ball. This shows that an intention to cheat and influence the course of the game was present from the very beginning. If past instances of ball tampering are referred to for perspective, these acts seem to have been resorted to in the spur of the moments. For example, Faf du Plessis, who has been charged for this offence twice, used the zip of his trousers and later saliva from a mint to tamper with the ball. Shahid Afridi bit the ball, Vernon Philander scratched the ball with fingers and more recently, Dasun Shanaka picked the seam of the ball to tamper with it. This is not to say that these acts are not incidents worthy of action, but they can be distinguished with the present offence. The introduction of a foreign object onto the field from the very beginning displays a premeditated mala fide intention to be dishonest rather than an act of desperation during the game. It is also unfortunate to note that a new player in Bancroft was used as a vessel by the Captain and the “bunch of senior players” to indulge in dishonest acts. It is on the basis