Almost half of Dutch-licensed operators report possible match-fixing cases

Almost 50% of Dutch-licensed operators have reported suspicious activity relating to attempted match-fixing, the Dutch Gambling Authority (KSA) has confirmed.

In a new report from the Dutch regulator, focusing on the period from the launch of the Dutch market in October 2021 to December 2022, 45% of the country’s 11 live and licensed sports betting operators had reported suspicious bets to the Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU).

The SBIU is a special division of the KSA which specifically looks for signals of possible match-fixing in licensed games of chance.

Drilling down into the data, the SBIU confirmed it had received 40 reports of possible match-fixing, with 83% of those reports being made between the period April to June 2022.

Of these, two categories exist: those involving an unusual betting pattern of which there were 12 reports, and secondly, involvement by external persons involved in that match and/or competition concerned deemed to be reportable to the SBIU, of which there were 28 reports.

In respect of unusual betting patterns, data came from five operators, with all cases concerning competitions outside the Netherlands. Sports involved included football (eight reports), tennis (two), table tennis (one) and snooker (one).

The 28 reports of involvement by external persons were filed by just two operators, and with the exception of one report, all concern the Dutch football leagues.

Six current Eredivisie players were reported by Dutch-licensed operators, rising to 19 from the Dutch first division (Eredivisie), as well as two players from the second division (Tweede Divisie) who were all named in instances of potential match-fixing.

In most of these cases, players bet on matches they participated in themselves or that took place in the same division, with most bets being made for low amounts or forming part of combination bets.

While there is no indication of any match-fixing, the reports filed by the operators form part of their ‘duty of care’ under the Dutch Remote Gambling Act.

“The betting of a person involved on his own match and/or competition is a signal of possible match-fixing, but ultimately does not have to be match-fixing,” the SBIU report states.

“In addition, the SBIU received a signal from a licensed foreign provider about an unusual betting pattern on a Dutch football match. This is not under the supervision of the SBIU.

“Finally, the SBIU received the signal that providers were not affiliated with an international partnership. This is required by law. After investigation, the signal turned out to be incorrect,” the report concludes.

Despite the high number of reports, the SBIU suggested that “definitive conclusions” about the risks of gambling-related match-fixing could not be currently discerned due to the nascent nature of the market.

“The SBIU cannot yet estimate the risk of gambling-related match-fixing among licensed providers. It must be taken into account that the online gambling market has only been open for over a year and therefore there is no comparison material to indicate the numbers, for example. In addition, non-gambling-related match-fixing may take place or gambling-related match-fixing may take place at unlicensed and/or foreign providers,” the SBIU added.