Draft legislation aimed at boosting the fight against bribery in sports has been drawn up by the Attorney General’s Office following a report prepared by the anti-corruption and transparency task force set up by the Malta Football Association earlier this year.
Sports Parliamentary Secretary Clifton Grima said the proposed law, set to be presented to Parliament when it reconvenes after the summer recess in October, would provide a new definition of sports manipulation.
He noted that, among others, the law being proposed referred to “the commission of acts of corruption in sport done for illicit profit out of gambling, and, the illicit use of inside information for the advantage of oneself or others”.
The Swiss-based data collector Sportradar, in 2013 valued the legal betting industry on Maltese football at €70 million. They say there is nothing money cannot buy, which means the temptations to secure the ‘assistance’ of players and/or club officials in match-fixing efforts must be huge.
Sports authorities and the police certainly realise the fight against corruption in sports has become more complicated even because it now knows no borders. Thus, they need and deserve all the legal help and tools they can have in their efforts to bring the culprits to book.
It is good to know that MPs from both the government and the Opposition, Malta Gaming Authority representatives and MFA officials have been teaming up with the police to share their experiences, knowledge, data and expertise.
On the other hand, it was rather worrying hearing Dr Grima speak of a brief public consultation on the proposed law. Such an exercise certainly deserved more than a ‘brief’ period of time for ordinary citizens to give their input. The new law is expected to also take into consideration new forms of corruption in sport and, therefore, the more the personal experiences heard the more fool proof the provisions are likely to be.
This country is not and was never immune to football bribery, even if, for a long time, the subject rarely made it to the national agenda. Things are thankfully changing and the phenomenon is being discussed more openly, particularly after weekend match days, even if, at times, somewhat off the mark.
Thus, it would have certainly been wiser had more time been given to gauge public sentiment on bribery in sport and issue an open invitation to former sportsmen and women who would certainly have a few stories to tell on shady ‘advice’ they might have been given.
It is likely that the man in the street will want athletes and officials found guilty of corruption, especially those representing the country on the international scene, to be given no second chances and be slapped with lifetime suspensions, deeming the proposed 10-year ban to be rather lenient.
The public will probably also feel the same on the proposal of raising the maximum prison term from two to three years for sports corruption. They rightly expect a more significant punishment if the new law is to really serve as a deterrent.
The dirty rewards being offered to athletes colluding in shady dealings are reportedly very generous and can only become more enticing. That is precisely why the law in the pipeline has to fit the crime.