World Cup year, betting markets, criminal law: Why section 265c German Criminal Code (StGB) covers corrupt collusion and what the "Hoyzer" case has to do with "Piegate".
The upcoming football World Cup is again bringing attention to a structural problem outside the sport that has long plagued organised football: the sporting competition's vulnerability to influence when the course and result of matches are the subject of extensive sports betting. While gambling law is primarily meant to protect players, limit risks posed by addiction and therefore secure the regulatory framework of betting markets, criminal law steps in when sporting decisions are deliberately made under corrupt influence on the basis of financial betting decisions.
Sports betting fraud under section 265c StGB: Criminal liability for match fixing and corruption in sport – Earlier point of criminal liability and delineation from section 265d StGB
Legislators have been deliberate in defining sports betting fraud in section 265c German Criminal Code (StGB) as occurring well before the fraud is conventionally committed. Offenders are already criminally liable if they corruptly conspire to fix a match with a view to placing a bet, not just once they have collected their winnings. This means that the provision has less in common with the model outlined in section 263 German Criminal Code (StGB) than it does with the classification of corruption offences and is designed to apply symmetrically to both the recipients (athletes, coaches and equivalent persons in (1) and judges, referees and arbiters in (3)) and the givers of benefits ((2) and (4)). In addition to section 265c German Criminal Code (StGB), in 2017 section 265d German Criminal Code (StGB) introduced an independent offence for manipulating professional sporting competitions, which, unlike section 265c German Criminal Code (StGB), does not require any connection to a sports bet and therefore covers collusion related only to the sport. We have already detailed both criminal offences here.
The offences under section 265c German Criminal Code (StGB) can include not just collusion on the outcome of the game, but even more subtle efforts to influence the course of the competition, such as fielding weaker players, committing tactical errors or deliberately engineering individual match situations in line with bets. A look at past betting scandals makes clear that manipulation tends not to be spectacular, but rather functional and situational.
Sports betting fraud and match fixing: From the Hoyzer case to Piegate – Loopholes in criminal liability and the introduction of section 165c StGB
The most famous German example is still the "Hoyzer" case: In early 2005, referee Robert Hoyzer admitted to having fixed 23 matches in the German Cup, 2. Bundesliga and regional leagues by making dishonest calls. The most famous such match was the 2–4 defeat of Hamburger SV to SC Paderborn, then a fourth-league side, during which Hoyzer awarded two penalty kicks against the favourites and sent one player off. Berlin Regional Court (case no.: 68 Js 451/05) convicted him for aiding and abetting fraud. The case also revealed loopholes in criminal liability at the time: Because cases of fraud, as crimes against property, require that an injured party has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, the criminal justice system faced considerable difficulties in proving such a loss, particularly in cases where winnings were not paid out. The introduction of sections 265c and 265d German Criminal Code (StGB) were intended to close these loopholes.
Four years later, the 2009 betting scandal shook European football even more deeply: In the course of the investigations by the Bochum Public Prosecutor's Office, at least 32 matches from the 2. Bundesliga to the junior league were suspected of having been fixed. The scandal was discovered by monitoring telecommunications related to organised crime.
The fact that even apparently trivial matters can fall foul of betting laws against influencing the course of a match is demonstrated by an English case that has gone down in the history of sports law as "Piegate" and that serves as a prime example of the scope of sports betting fraud: On 20 February 2017, Wayne Shaw, a substitute goalkeeper for the fifth-tier club Sutton United, ate a pasty on the substitutes' bench in the 83rd minute of an FA Cup match against Arsenal. He did so knowing that a betting company had offered odds of 8:1 on him doing exactly that during the game. The Football Association judged this to be an intentional attempt to influence a betting market. After a hearing before an independent regulatory commission, Shaw was given a fine and banned for two months. The betting company for its part was fined GBP 84,000. The case is instructive in how banal it is: It shows that influencing the course of a match for the sake of a bet does not require a large-scale criminal network.
Sports betting fraud outside the Bundesliga: Third division, regional leagues and youth football – Risk of criminal liability under sections 265c and 265d StGB even without proof of betting winnings
It has been well known for a long time that such practices are not exclusive to top-level international competitions. In football in particular, attempts at match fixing are often made in divisions that receive less oversight and public attention. In 2024 17 matches between the third league, two regional leagues and several lower-level leagues were suspected of having been fixed. Information on the expected results for the matches in question is thought to have been sold on the darknet. The potential danger seen in youth divisions is even more drastic: In Singapore, for example, bets can be placed on matches in the German U19 Bundesliga. These games receive no television coverage and very little public attention in Germany.
During UEFA Euro 2024 more than 5,000 arrests for illegal sports betting were made in 28 countries, involving investigative authorities in Vietnam, China, the Philippines and Singapore.
Those who wish to uphold the notion of this competition as a festival of sport might want to consider whether breaking the rules always implies that sports betting fraud has been committed. However, when sporting decisions become the subject of corrupt collusion, the integrity of the competition – and thus the basis for financial betting decisions – are fundamentally called into question. In such cases the threshold for criminal liability under sections 265c and 265d German Criminal Code (StGB) may be crossed without the need to prove physical betting winnings or a quantifiable financial loss.
We will keep you up to date in our blog series on Football & Law with the latest articles on this topic. In the series you will find articles such as "Advertising for the World Cup – What is acceptable?", "Secondary ticket market: buying tickets on the internet – and then being denied entry?" and "Between neutrality and sanctions: Political conflicts in sport".
