From Our Previous Analyses to Proven Fixed Matches Cases
In our previous two posts, Fixed Matches in World Football, Friendlies, World Cup and EURO and Do Fixed Matches Really Exist?, we presented our opinion on fixed matches in different parts of world football in detail.
We discussed lower football leagues, second divisions and the strongest domestic leagues. We then expanded the topic to Club Friendly matches, the World Cup and the European Championship.
In those analyses, we made a clear distinction between our personal opinion and facts that can be verified. We presented cases supported by evidence, official investigations or sanctions as separate examples. On the other hand, we did not present our opinion about which match categories have a higher or lower risk of manipulation as a proven fact.
We formed that opinion based on our professional and long-term experience in football and sports betting. For years, we have followed matches, results, odds and different football betting markets. This experience allows us to have our own view, but not to claim that a particular match was fixed without concrete evidence.
Why We Are Focusing on Proven Fixed Matches Cases
In the previous post, we announced that we would not stop with our opinion alone. The next step was to present specific fixed matches cases recorded throughout football history. That is exactly what we will focus on in this post.
Still, we will not cover every type of fixed match. Our focus will not be on cases where the only objective was to help a particular club secure promotion, avoid relegation or gain another sporting advantage.
Different cases are of interest to us. We will present interesting examples where betting and an attempt to make a financial profit motivated football match manipulation. The focus will be on cases with enough available information to see what happened, how betting played a role in the manipulation and what the investigation established in each specific case.
In this way, this post naturally continues where our previous two analyses ended. This time, the focus will not be on our assessment of particular football leagues or competitions. Instead, we will focus on specific cases where fixed matches and betting were directly connected.
South Africa – Senegal – The Case of Referee Joseph Lamptey
One of the most interesting officially confirmed cases of betting-related manipulation took place on November 12, 2016. South Africa and Senegal played a qualifying match for the 2018 World Cup in Russia.
The match took place at Peter Mokaba Stadium in Polokwane, South Africa. Ghanaian referee Joseph Odartei Lamptey was in charge. South Africa won 2–1, but the way the first two goals were scored later became an important part of the investigation.
In the 42nd minute, Lamptey awarded South Africa a penalty for an alleged handball. Video footage showed that the ball had actually hit Senegal player Kalidou Koulibaly on the leg. Thulani Hlatshwayo converted the penalty, and South Africa scored a second goal only a few minutes later.
But the suspicions surrounding the match did not begin only because of the incorrect refereeing decision. Systems monitoring betting market movements detected unusual odds activity. The market related to the total number of goals in the match attracted particular attention.
According to the evidence reviewed by CAS, betting data indicated that certain bettors expected at least three goals in the match in advance. Even more interestingly, suspicious betting activity was detected while the match was still being played.
The FIFA Early Warning System detected irregular odds movements. In addition, several companies monitoring betting markets later concluded that the betting pattern was suspicious.
How Betting Evidence Supported This Fixed Matches Case
The investigation did not rely only on the odds. Investigators compared the suspicious betting activity with the decisions Lamptey made on the pitch. They particularly analyzed two of his decisions near the end of the first half.
The first was the incorrectly awarded penalty. The second was his decision to allow a quick restart in the situation that led to South Africa’s second goal.
The combination of match footage, analysis of the refereeing decisions and unusual betting market movements became key evidence in the case.
The FIFA Ethics Department later conducted an investigation. On February 17, 2017, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee received the investigation report. It included an analysis of the match, data on suspicious bets and interviews with the match officials.
On March 15, 2017, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee found Lamptey guilty of unlawfully influencing the result of the match. It imposed a lifetime ban on all football-related activities.
Lamptey appealed the decision, but the case reached the Court of Arbitration for Sport – CAS. The court upheld the sanction.
CAS concluded that Lamptey had deliberately made two incorrect decisions to allow enough goals to be scored for certain bets to succeed. According to CAS, there was a clear connection between the deliberately incorrect refereeing decisions and the unusual movement in the betting market.
That is exactly why this is one of the most interesting fixed matches cases for our analysis. This is not simply a suspicious result or our opinion that the match looked unusual. FIFA sanctioned the referee, while CAS later upheld the decision based on several types of evidence.
Did Anyone Make Money From the Match Fixing?
Here we have to be careful.
CAS established that the purpose of the deliberately incorrect decisions was to produce a certain number of goals so that the relevant bets could succeed. The evidence also indicated that certain bettors had prior knowledge that at least three goals would be scored in the match.
Still, the official materials we reviewed do not state a specific amount of money earned through those bets. We also should not claim that Lamptey personally received a specific amount of money because CAS did not establish any specific payment to him.
Therefore, we can safely say that the manipulation was directly connected to betting and the success of certain bets. Without additional evidence, we cannot state how much money anyone made or exactly who received that money.
In the end, FIFA annulled the 2–1 result and ordered South Africa and Senegal to replay the qualifying match.
Eduardo Bauermann – The Case That Became Part of Operation Maximum Penalty in Brazil
Several years after the South Africa – Senegal case, Brazil faced a major investigation into football match manipulation linked to sports betting. The investigation became known as Operação Penalidade Máxima, or Operation Maximum Penalty.
For our post, the case of Eduardo Bauermann is particularly interesting. At the time, he played as a defender for Santos.
This case is different from the classic idea of a fixed match, where someone tries to manipulate the final winner. Here, the objective was to manipulate a specific event in the match that could be used for betting.
According to the investigation by Brazilian authorities, Bauermann accepted an agreement worth R$50,000 to intentionally receive a yellow card in the match between Santos and Avaí. The match took place on November 5, 2022, in the 36th round of the Brazilian Série A.
The plan was simple. The people involved in the scheme could bet that Bauermann would receive a card. Meanwhile, the player was supposed to intentionally cause the agreed event on the pitch.
But the plan did not happen as agreed. Bauermann did not receive a yellow card against Avaí. This created a problem for the people behind the betting scheme because the agreed event did not happen.
The Second Betting Agreement With Bauermann
According to the investigation, they then made a new agreement. Bauermann was supposed to receive a red card in Santos’ next match, this time against Botafogo.
The match took place on November 10, 2022. Bauermann did receive a red card, but there was one major problem for the bettors. The sending-off came after the match had ended.
This was important because certain bookmakers did not count cards shown after the final whistle as part of the bet on the match itself. In other words, although Bauermann received a red card, the event did not happen in the way the people who placed the bets needed.
According to information from the investigation, Bauermann therefore had to return the R$50,000. He was also asked to compensate for the loss suffered by the people involved in the betting scheme.
How Was the Case Discovered?
Unlike the South Africa – Senegal case, where unusual betting market movements played an important role in detecting the manipulation, the Brazilian case was part of a much wider criminal investigation.
The Public Ministry of Goiás began investigating an organized group suspected of offering football players money to intentionally cause specific events during matches.
The investigation was not limited to Bauermann or Santos. It covered matches from the Brazilian Série A and Série B, as well as matches from state championships.
In April 2023, Brazilian prosecutors publicly confirmed that Santos – Avaí was one of the matches under investigation. According to their information, a Santos player had been contacted to intentionally receive a yellow card.
The investigation also uncovered other similar agreements. In different matches, players had been contacted to receive yellow cards, concede penalties or cause other pre-arranged events.
That is exactly why the case developed from suspicion surrounding one match into a major investigation of an organized scheme linked to sports betting.
Did Anyone Make Money From This Fixed Matches Case?
Here, we also need to make an important distinction.
There was an R$50,000 agreement connected to intentionally receiving a card. But the specific plan involving Bauermann did not end as the people involved in the scheme had expected.
First, he did not receive the agreed yellow card against Avaí. He then received a red card against Botafogo, but only after the match had ended.
Because of the rules of certain bookmakers, this meant that the agreed betting event was once again not successfully completed for those bets.
Therefore, we should not present this specific case as an example where we can say that the organizers definitely made money from the manipulation. On the contrary, the available information shows that the bettors suffered a loss.
Bauermann had to return the R$50,000. He was also asked to cover their financial loss.
What Punishment Did Eduardo Bauermann Receive?
The case reached Brazil’s Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva – STJD.
Initially, Bauermann received a 12-match suspension. But after an appeal by the prosecution, STJD reviewed the case again.
In July 2023, the punishment was increased to a 360-day suspension. Bauermann also received a fine of R$35,000.
The case then gained an international dimension. On September 11, 2023, FIFA announced that it was extending worldwide the sanctions imposed by the Brazilian Football Association in connection with match manipulation cases in Brazilian football.
Eduardo Gabriel dos Santos Bauermann was among the 11 sanctioned players. His 360-day suspension therefore became valid worldwide.
Three other players connected to the manipulation cases – Ygor de Oliveira Ferreira, Gabriel Ferreira Neris and Matheus Phillipe Coutinho – received lifetime bans from football-related activities.
Why Is This Case Important for Our Analysis?
The Bauermann case shows why fixed matches cases do not always involve manipulation of the final result. Someone may try to manipulate only one small part of a match – a yellow card, a red card, a penalty or another event for which a betting market exists. That is exactly what makes this example different from South Africa – Senegal.
In the first case, FIFA and CAS established that the refereeing decisions were deliberately made to produce the required number of goals for certain bets. In the Brazilian case, the scheme focused on specific events during matches. Players received or were promised money to intentionally cause those events.
In both cases, the motive was connected to betting. However, the way they tried to influence the matches was completely different.
FK Pobeda – FC Pyunik: Match-Fixing Case from the 2004 Champions League Qualifiers
One of the most significant match-fixing cases connected to Macedonian football involves FK Pobeda from Prilep and its two matches against Armenian club FC Pyunik. The teams met in the UEFA Champions League qualifiers for the 2004/05 season.
The first match took place on July 13, 2004, in Skopje, during the first qualifying round of the Champions League. Pobeda lost the match 1–3.
Pyunik scored all three goals in the first half. Edgar Manucharyan scored twice, while Zhora Hovhannisyan scored the third goal. Shortly before the end of the first half, Pyunik’s Karen Aleksanyan received a red card.
Despite playing the entire second half with an extra player, Pobeda managed to score only one goal. Blagoja Gesoski scored it in the 80th minute.
But the 1–3 result was not the main reason why this match later attracted attention. The real alarm came from the betting markets.
Unusually Large Bets Before the Match
The betting industry detected extremely unusual market activity surrounding this match.
Later, during the proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport – CAS, a report by betting expert Karl Dhont was reviewed. According to his analysis, the total betting volume on the first match was approximately ten times higher than the normal betting turnover expected for a match of this type.
The amount of money wagered was not the only unusual factor.
The odds also moved in a way that the expert considered extremely unusual. Large amounts of money went toward outcomes that corresponded with a Pobeda defeat. The betting patterns and odds movements later became some of the most important evidence reviewed by UEFA and CAS.
This is particularly important for our post. The suspicion did not emerge several years later simply because someone looked at the 1–3 result and decided that the match seemed unusual.
The betting industry detected irregularities connected to the match. Those irregular betting patterns later became the basis for the investigation.
What Happened in the Second Match?
The second leg took place on July 21, 2004, in Yerevan, Armenia. Pyunik and Pobeda drew 1–1, allowing the Armenian club to advance to the next round.
But another interesting detail appeared here.
A large number of major bookmakers did not offer betting on the second leg at all. As a result, the betting expert did not have enough technical data to analyze the second match in the same way as the first.
CAS therefore emphasized that there was not enough technical betting evidence to independently rely on such an analysis and establish that the second match had been fixed in the same way.
Still, CAS took into account the fact that a large number of bookmakers had decided not to offer the second leg at all. The court considered this another indication within the wider picture surrounding the manipulation of the first match.
How Did UEFA Establish That It Was Match Fixing?
The unusual betting patterns were extremely important, but they were not the only evidence. UEFA also used statements from several witnesses.
Information about Pobeda’s financial situation emerged during the proceedings. CAS accepted testimony indicating that the club had serious financial problems at the time.
A former coach of the club testified about a conversation with president Aleksandar Zabrcanec after the end of the Macedonian championship. According to the testimony, the club had problems meeting its financial obligations. The intention to “give up the match” against Pyunik was also mentioned during the conversation.
Other testimony and circumstances further supported the betting analysis.
The combination of unusual betting patterns, odds movements, high betting turnover, the club’s financial situation and witness statements created the body of evidence on which UEFA built its case.
Almost five years after the match took place, UEFA officially announced charges on March 26, 2009. FK Pobeda, the club president and one player were charged with violating the principles of integrity and sportsmanship by manipulating the outcome of a UEFA match.
The Punishment for FK Pobeda
On April 17, 2009, the UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body issued its decision.
FK Pobeda received an eight-year ban from UEFA club competitions, starting from the 2009/10 season. Club president Aleksandar Zabrcanec received a lifetime ban from football-related activities.
In the initial decision, Nikolce Zdraveski also received a lifetime ban.
Pobeda and the sanctioned individuals appealed the decision. The UEFA Appeals Body rejected the appeal in May 2009.
But the case did not end there.
The Case Reached CAS
Pobeda, Zabrcanec and Zdraveski took the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
On April 15, 2010, CAS announced its final decision.
The court considered the evidence submitted by UEFA sufficient to establish that the matches between Pobeda and Pyunik had been subject to manipulation. CAS also accepted the involvement of president Aleksandar Zabrcanec.
As a result, CAS confirmed FK Pobeda’s responsibility. The club’s eight-year ban remained in force, as did Zabrcanec’s lifetime ban.
But CAS made one very important distinction in the case of Nikolce Zdraveski.
The court concluded that the evidence against him personally was not sufficient to establish that he had actually participated in match fixing. Therefore, CAS upheld his appeal and overturned the sanction against him.
This detail is important because it shows that the final decision did not automatically confirm every initial UEFA sanction. CAS considered the evidence against each accused individual separately.
Was Any Money Made From the Match Fixing?
This is exactly where we need to be careful with the information.
The official CAS decision provides strong evidence that the manipulation was connected to betting activity. The huge betting turnover and unusual odds movements were central elements of the case.
CAS also considered testimony according to which Pobeda players had bet against their own team.
Still, the official CAS decision does not establish the exact final amount that any particular person earned from the match fixing.
Other sources contain claims about bookmakers suffering losses of millions. But if we want our text to remain fully professional, we should not present those figures as facts established by UEFA or CAS without an equally strong source.
What we can say with certainty is that betting activity was an essential part of the evidence. Unusually large amounts of money were wagered, and CAS ultimately considered the evidence sufficient to confirm the manipulation.
Why Is the Pobeda – Pyunik Case Significant Among Fixed Matches Cases?
Among documented fixed matches cases, this example holds a special place in the European fight against match fixing. 4.
It was the first CAS decision related to match fixing.
More importantly for our analysis, the case shows how investigators can prove manipulation even without simple evidence such as a recording of someone handing over money.
In the Pobeda – Pyunik case, several different elements created the overall body of evidence. These included betting patterns, odds movements, huge betting turnover, witness statements and the circumstances surrounding the club.
CAS ultimately considered this combination sufficient to confirm Pobeda’s responsibility and the involvement of its president.
That makes the case completely different from an ordinary suspicious football result.
UEFA did not punish Pobeda simply because it lost 1–3 or because the match looked unusual. UEFA conducted proceedings, and the appeal process also included a review of the evidence. The case eventually reached the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport, which confirmed the responsibility of the club and its president.
What Can We Conclude From These Three Cases?
With these three fixed matches cases, we are not trying to create a complete list of all proven fixed matches in football history. There are many more such cases. If we continued going further back in history, we could present dozens or even hundreds of other examples from different countries and periods.
Still, that is not the purpose of this post. Instead of creating an endless list of fixed matches, we wanted to present several interesting and well-documented cases. In each of them, the manipulation was directly connected to betting and financial gain.
The three examples we examined are different. The South Africa – Senegal case centered on a referee who influenced events on the pitch. In Brazil, we saw an attempt to manipulate specific betting events through a football player.
The Pobeda – Pyunik case involved unusual betting activity, witness statements and other evidence. These elements eventually led to one of the most significant match-fixing sanctions in European club football.
What These Fixed Matches Cases Have in Common
Still, when we look at these examples together, we notice something particularly interesting in relation to our previous two analyses.
None of these cases comes from the richest and most commercially powerful parts of world football. We are not talking about a match between two European giants with huge budgets. We are also not talking about players earning millions at the strongest clubs in the world.
Instead, these cases are connected to football environments, clubs or individuals far from the financial level we see in the richest European leagues.
This is exactly where the connection with what we explained in our previous two posts appears.
When we presented our personal opinion about fixed matches in different football leagues and competitions, we emphasized that we did not present it as a proven fact. We formed our view based on many years of professional experience in football and sports betting.
Based on that experience, we are more cautious when it comes to financially weaker clubs and lower or less commercial football environments. The same applies to matches that receive less global attention.
What These Three Cases Can and Cannot Show
These three proven fixed matches cases cannot, by themselves, prove that our opinion applies to football around the world. Three examples are not enough to conclude that match fixing happens only in financially weaker leagues. They are also not enough to conclude that the richest competitions are protected from such a risk.
But they show that the factors we discussed earlier are not only theoretical.
Money, financial pressure, the opportunity to profit through betting and access to players, referees or other people can all play a role. These factors actually appear in documented match-fixing cases where people can influence a specific part of a match.
That is also the main point we want to draw from this analysis.
We do not want to claim that a particular country, league or club is connected to fixed matches simply because it has less money. Even less do we want to declare every unusual result from such a competition a fixed match.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that real, investigated and sanctioned cases show something important. Financial motives and betting can create a reason for someone to try to influence what happens on the football pitch.
How These Fixed Matches Cases Connect With Our Previous Analysis
That is exactly why these three cases connect well with our previous two posts. There, we presented our opinion and explained why we view the risk of fixed matches differently across various parts of football.
Here, we do not rely only on our opinion. Instead, we examined specific cases where the relevant football or legal authorities established manipulation and imposed sanctions.
For us, this does not prove that every financially weaker club or smaller league should be considered suspicious. But it provides another reason to carefully examine the circumstances in which a match takes place. We should never rule out the possibility of manipulation simply because everything appears normal at first glance.
