Sports bribery has been in existence since ancient times, when in the original Olympic games athletes would be bribed to produce particular outcomes. In the modern day, sports bribery takes a different form than it likely took back then, but it continues to plague the fairness and ethics of sports. Players can be bribed to throw matches; referees can be bribed to unfairly fix results. Individuals willing to commit bribery can make huge amounts of money by betting on fixed matches, assuming they do not get caught.
But sports organizations are fighting back against the prevalence of bribery in sports and the damage that it can do. They have enacted such internal regulations as banning sports betting and punishing very any individual caught exchanging some form of bribe.
The battle between those who would use bribery to unfairly affect outcomes of sports matches and those who would defend the fairness of sports competitions against insidious bribery has no end in sight.
The primary controversy regarding sports bribery comes from the practice of match-fixing. Match fixing would nullify the validity of any sports competition. After all, every sports game has the objective of discovering which team or participant is better at that sport than the other. Match-fixing undermines this goal and prevents any observer from successfully and truthfully claiming that the winner has proven himself the best at that sport.
Controversy arises when considering how best to deal with match-fixing. A major goal is not to discourage the practice, but to repair the damage it causes. Should the fixed matches be replayed, at great cost to the sports organization, the participating teams and even the audience? Should they simply be annulled, the season ignored and forgotten, a costly and unsatisfactory solution?
There is likely no good answer, not least because some of the teams involved may have participated to the best of their ability, without any match-fixing behavior on their parts, only to find out that their success was due to the illegitimate practices of other participants. Seizing their victories from them by replaying those games seems cruel.
But sports organizations are fighting back against the prevalence of bribery in sports and the damage that it can do. They have enacted such internal regulations as banning sports betting and punishing very any individual caught exchanging some form of bribe.
The battle between those who would use bribery to unfairly affect outcomes of sports matches and those who would defend the fairness of sports competitions against insidious bribery has no end in sight.
The primary controversy regarding sports bribery comes from the practice of match-fixing. Match fixing would nullify the validity of any sports competition. After all, every sports game has the objective of discovering which team or participant is better at that sport than the other. Match-fixing undermines this goal and prevents any observer from successfully and truthfully claiming that the winner has proven himself the best at that sport.
Controversy arises when considering how best to deal with match-fixing. A major goal is not to discourage the practice, but to repair the damage it causes. Should the fixed matches be replayed, at great cost to the sports organization, the participating teams and even the audience? Should they simply be annulled, the season ignored and forgotten, a costly and unsatisfactory solution?
There is likely no good answer, not least because some of the teams involved may have participated to the best of their ability, without any match-fixing behavior on their parts, only to find out that their success was due to the illegitimate practices of other participants. Seizing their victories from them by replaying those games seems cruel.
No comments:
Post a Comment