Betting and the Integrity of Sport

  • David Forrest
Part of the ASSER International Sports Law Series book series (ASSER)


Most of the sports popular in the world today emerged and developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Very quickly they became closely linked with wagering on the outcome of contests. Indeed, the rules of two leading sports, cricket and golf, were codified for the first time, in each case in 1774, by betting interests concerned that disputes on pay-outs should not arise because of ambiguity about how events should be conducted (Munting 1996). From then until now, betting has been a pervasive influence on sport. For example, betting companies have become a dominant source of sponsorship in English Premier League football and the famous shirts of Real Madrid are now adorned with the logo of a bookmaker. All this is unsurprising. Sport provides the product to which gambling relates and sport itself becomes more popular when those following it can add to the excitement from a game by taking a financial stake in its outcome. Sports and bookmakers might then be thought to be natural commercial partners: contemporary sponsorship arrangements clearly have the potential to be advantageous to both sectors. However, in practice, in the past and now, sports governing bodies have, more often than not, displayed antagonism towards betting. The reason is that, from the earliest years of organised sport, they have feared manipulation of contests by those who can then profit from betting on outcomes which are supposed to be uncertain.


Inside Trading Sport Event International Olympic Committee National Basketball Association Yellow Card 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Cook W (2005) The Louisville Grays scandal of 1877: the taint of gambling at the dawn of the National League. McFarland and Company, JeffersonGoogle Scholar
  2. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2010), Report of the sports betting integrity panel. Department for Culture, Media and Sport, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Deschamps B, Gergaud O (2007) Efficiency in betting markets: evidence from English football. J Predict Mark 1:61–73Google Scholar
  4. Erlisch I (1996) Crime, punishment and the market for offences. J Econ Perspect 10:43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forrest D, Simmons R (2003) Sport and gambling. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 19:598–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forrest D, McHale I, McAuley K (2008a) Risks to the integrity of sport from betting corruption. Central Council for Physical Corruption, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Forrest D, McHale I, McAuley K (2008b) Say it ain’t so: betting-related malpractice in sport. Int J Sport Finance 3:156–166Google Scholar
  8. Mitford M (1832) The country cricket match. Reprinted in Ross A (ed) The penguin cricketers’ companion, Penguin books, Gunn and Rees (2008)Google Scholar
  9. Munting R (1996) An economic and social history of gambling. Manchester University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Paton D, Siegel DS, Vaughan Williams L (2002) A policy response to the erevolution: the case of betting taxation in the UK. Econ J 112:F296–F314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wolfers J (2005) Point shaving: corruption in NCAA basketball. Am Econ Rev 96:279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Forrest
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Gambling, Salford Business SchoolUniversity of SalfordSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations