Technology

Not that it's my usual style to comment on corporate stories, but the news which has been published on various blogs, and formally announced on the official website, of a deal which puts Betfair onto Samsung televisions, is one of the more exciting releases I have seen in a long time, and in my view a huge personal success for the amiable and extremely capable head of Betfair TV, Simon Miller.

The wider picture here, though - following on so soon after the equally exciting launch of Betfair's iPhone application, which was downloaded 20,000 times in the first month - is the same as I was making when I was interviewed the other day as part of the BBC's coverage from the Aegon Championships at Queen's. Asked by John Inverdale what should be done about people betting on laptops court-side, I commented that there is little point in dealing with any 'issues' perceived to be associated with betting by trying to hold back technology. It's far better to address them through transparency and co-operation.

On that track, I recently spent some time with a number of sporting Chief Executives, who gave up some of their time to come and understand how betting is tracked today. I think it is fair to say that they were wide-eyed about what they described as 'almost anti-terrorist style' means of tracking any problematic betting. We agreed that the biggest deterrent to malpractice is getting the message out there that the proliferation in online betting has tipped the risk/reward ratio dramatically in favour of risk, by virtue of the trackability, and not - as is commonly perceived - in favour of reward.

The more sports leaders who understand that, the better for all of us, because the message will be easily communicated to the players and officials (who are the only people who can genuinely impact the outcome of a sporting contest). I'm very encouraged that organisations like the Professional Players' Federation and the British Athletes' Commission are so willing to engage in the subject. It's good news for everyone - except the would-be corruptors.

Chinese match-fixing story

The story out of China about match-fixing and corruption in sport, as reported in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago but for some reason only picked up by PA Sport today, seems to me a classic example of two points that I have made repeatedly (boringly, even!) over the years.

I've written about match-fixing before here, and talked about it at great length in the past, so I will just reiterate the two main points which are underlined by this story.

First, the only people who can corrupt sport are people who are involved in it. There is no way I can fix the result of any match without the collusion of a player, team, coach, or official involved. I accept that I may become the corrupting force behind a fixed match, but ultimately I cannot fix it without the collaboration of someone or some group directly involved in the event - someone, that is, who falls under the jurisdiction of the governing body of a given sport. Education of participants in sport is therefore a key ingredient to rooting out corruption.

Second, the threat to sport comes not from the legal, regulated market, but the illegal market. If all betting were transparent and all funds could be tracked, then it would be easy to establish who was coercing the players, and who was making money.

Sadly, neither of these points is yet publicly accepted by governments or by sporting bodies. this is because accepting them makes it harder to argue for monopoly operators or sports levies from regulated betting companies.

Play the Game: Match-fixing: A blow to the core of sport - part two

Play the Game: Match-fixing: A blow to the core of sport - part two