Illustration by Sam Manchester/The New York Times; photographs from FIFA report and Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
A Shadow Over the World Cup
By DECLAN HILL and JERÉ LONGMAN
An investigative report by FIFA, obtained by The New York Times, found
that a match-rigging syndicate and its referees conspired to fix global
soccer exhibition matches.
Soccer
Fixed Soccer Matches Cast Shadow Over World Cup
A
New York Times investigation of match fixing ahead of the last World
Cup gives an unusually detailed look at the ease with which professional
gamblers can fix matches.
JOHANNESBURG
— A soccer referee named Ibrahim Chaibou walked into a bank in a small
South African city carrying a bag filled with as much as $100,000 in
$100 bills, according to another referee traveling with him. The deposit
was so large that a bank employee gave Mr. Chaibou a gift of
commemorative coins bearing the likeness of Nelson Mandela.
Later
that night in May 2010, Mr. Chaibou refereed an exhibition match
between South Africa and Guatemala in preparation for the World Cup, the
world’s most popular sporting event. Even to the casual fan, his calls
were suspicious — he called two penalties for hand balls even though the
ball went nowhere near the players’ hands.
Mr.
Chaibou, a native of Niger, had been chosen to work the match by a
company based in Singapore that was a front for a notorious
match-rigging syndicate, according to an internal, confidential report
by FIFA, soccer’s world governing body.
FIFA’s
investigative report and related documents, which were obtained by The
New York Times and have not been publicly released, raise serious
questions about the vulnerability of the World Cup to match fixing. The
tournament opens June 12 in Brazil.
The
report found that the match-rigging syndicate and its referees
infiltrated the upper reaches of global soccer in order to fix
exhibition matches and exploit them for betting purposes. It provides
extensive details of the clever and brazen ways that fixers apparently
manipulated “at least five matches and possibly more” in South Africa
ahead of the last World Cup. As many as 15 matches were targets,
including a game between the United States and Australia, according to
interviews and emails printed in the FIFA report.
Although
corruption has vexed soccer for years, the South Africa case gives an
unusually detailed look at the ease with which professional gamblers can
fix matches, as well as the governing body’s severe problems in
policing itself and its member federations. The report, at 44 pages,
includes an account of Mr. Chaibou’s trip to the bank, as well as many
other scenes describing how matches were apparently rigged.
After one match, the syndicate even made a death threat against the official who tried to stop the fix, investigators found.
“Were the listed matches fixed?” the report said. “On the balance of probabilities, yes!”
The
Times investigated the South African match-fixing scandal by
interviewing dozens of soccer officials, referees, gamblers,
investigators and experts in South Africa, Malaysia, England, Finland
and Singapore. The Times also reviewed hundreds of pages of interview
transcripts, emails, referee rosters and other confidential FIFA
documents.
FIFA,
which is expected to collect about $4 billion in revenue for this
four-year World Cup cycle for broadcast fees, sponsorship deals and
ticket sales, has relative autonomy at its headquarters in Zurich. But
The Times found problems that could now shadow this month’s World Cup.
■
FIFA’s investigators concluded that the fixers had probably been aided
by South African soccer officials, yet FIFA did not officially accuse
anyone of match fixing or bar anyone from the sport as a result of those
disputed matches.
■
A FIFA spokeswoman said Friday that the investigation into South Africa
was continuing, but no one interviewed for this article spoke of being
contacted recently by FIFA officials. Critics have questioned FIFA’s
determination and capability to curb match fixing.
■
Many national soccer federations with teams competing in Brazil are
just as vulnerable to match-fixing as South Africa’s was: They are
financially shaky, in administrative disarray and politically divided.
Ralf Mutschke, who has since become FIFA’s head of security, said in a May 21 interview with FIFA.com that “match fixing is an evil to all sports,” and he acknowledged that the World Cup was vulnerable.
“The
fixers are trying to look for football matches which are generating a
huge betting volume, and obviously, international football tournaments
such as the World Cup are generating these kinds of huge volumes,” Mr.
Mutschke said. “Therefore, the World Cup in general has a certain risk.”
Mr.
Chaibou, the referee at the center of the South African case, said in a
phone interview that he had never fixed a match, and he denied knowing
or having ever spoken to Wilson Raj Perumal, a notorious gambler who
calls himself the world’s most prolific match fixer and whom FIFA called
one of the suspected masterminds of the South Africa scheme.
“I did not know this man,” Mr. Chaibou said. “I had no contact with him ever.”
Mr.
Chaibou said FIFA had not contacted him since his retirement in 2011.
He declined to answer any questions about money he may have received in
South Africa.
The
tainted South African matches were not the only suspect ones. Europol,
the European Union’s police intelligence agency, said last year that
there were 680 suspicious matches played globally from 2008 to 2011,
including World Cup qualifying matches and games in some of Europe’s
most prestigious leagues and tournaments.
“There
are no checks and balances and no oversight,” Terry Steans, a former
FIFA investigator who wrote the report on South Africa, said of the
syndicate’s efforts there in 2010. “It’s so efficient and so under the
radar.”
Referees for Sale
As
players from South Africa and Guatemala gathered for their national
anthems, Mr. Chaibou stood between the teams at midfield. He was flanked
by two assistant referees who had also been selected by Football 4U
International, the Singapore-based company that was the front for the
match-rigging syndicate.
They
were present because of a shrewd maneuver the fixers had begun weeks
earlier to penetrate the highest levels of the South African soccer
federation.
A
man identifying himself as Mohammad entered the federation offices in
Johannesburg carrying a letter dated April 29, 2010. The letter offered
to provide referees for South Africa’s exhibition matches before the
World Cup and pay for their travel expenses, lodging, meals and match
fees, taking the burden off the financially troubled federation. “We are
extremely keen to work closely with your good office,” the letter read.
It was signed by Mr. Perumal, the match fixer, who was also an executive with Football 4U.
The
offer sounded strange to Steve Goddard, the acting head of refereeing
for the South African Football Association at the time. An amiable,
heavyset Englishman who sometimes used a table leg for a walking stick,
Mr. Goddard had had an eclectic career in and out of soccer. He sang in
Welsh choirs and worked as a sound engineer for an album made at Abbey
Road Studios. He knew that FIFA rules allowed only national soccer
federations to appoint referees. Outside companies, like Football 4U,
had no such authority.
Several
days later, Mr. Goddard said, Mohammad returned and offered him a bribe
of about $3,500, saying he was holding up the deal. Mr. Goddard said he
declined the offer.
Nevertheless,
other South African executives moved forward with Football 4U. At least
two contracts were drafted, giving Football 4U permission to appoint
referees for five of the country’s exhibition matches. The FIFA report
called the contracts “so very rudimentary as to be commercially
laughable.”
One
contract, unsigned, bore the name of Anthony Santia Raj, identified by
FIFA as an associate of the Singapore syndicate. The other contract was
signed by Leslie Sedibe, then the chief executive of the South African
soccer federation.
In
an interview, Mr. Sedibe said that someone from Football 4U had lied to
him about the company’s intentions, and that the FIFA report belonged
“in a toilet.”
“It is the biggest load of rubbish,” he said.
Mr. Santia Raj could not be reached for comment.
Investigators
found that South African soccer officials performed no background
checks on “Mohammad” or Football 4U. The company was already infamous:
It had attempted to fix a match in China about eight months earlier.
Mohammad turned out to be Jason Jo Lourdes, another associate of the
Singaporean match-fixing syndicate, according to the FIFA report. Mr.
Lourdes could not be reached for comment.
The report said the South African soccer officials were “either easily duped or extremely foolish.”
But
their behavior “inevitably leads to the conclusion” that several
employees of the federation “were complicit in a criminal conspiracy to
manipulate these matches,” the report said.
Fixers
are attracted to soccer because of the action it generates on the vast
and largely unregulated Asian betting markets. And if executed well, a
fixed soccer match can be hard to detect. Players can deliberately miss
shots; referees can eject players or award penalty kicks; team officials
can outright tell players to lose a match.
Most
fixed bets are placed on which team will win against the spread and on
the total number of expected goals. Gamblers often place large bets in
underground markets in Asia. By some estimates, the illegal betting
market in Asia amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
The
South African federation, troubled by financial difficulties and
administrative dysfunction, was a ripe target. Once Football 4U had
insinuated itself, the syndicate was able to switch referees at the last
moment, and it had access to dressing areas and the sidelines.
“The
situation was ideal for the criminal organization using Football 4U to
exploit these vulnerabilities and to offer money to SAFA staff, who were
themselves suffering financial hardship,” the FIFA report said.
Mr.
Perumal did not respond to requests for an interview. But he wrote a
memoir, published in April, that captured his brazenness and provided
details consistent with FIFA’s report. He wrote that his group offered
$60,000 to $75,000 to Mr. Chaibou and his crew for each exhibition match
they would fix.
“I
can do the job,” Mr. Chaibou replied, according to Mr. Perumal’s
memoir, “Kelong Kings.” (“Kelong” is Malay slang for match fixing.)
The memoir says Mr. Chaibou was paid $60,000 for manipulating the South Africa-Guatemala match.
The
day of the match, Mr. Chaibou walked with Robert Sithole, a South
African member of the officiating crew, to a Bidvest Bank in Polokwane,
about three hours northeast of Johannesburg, Mr. Sithole said in the
report.
Mr.
Sithole told investigators that he watched as Mr. Chaibou deposited a
“quite thick” wad of $100 bills, perhaps as much as $100,000, though Mr.
Sithole could not be certain of the amount. Mr. Chaibou said he wired
the money to his wife in Niger, according to the report.
A
woman at the bank gave Mr. Chaibou a gift of coins bearing the likeness
of Mandela, an apparent reward for “having deposited a huge amount of
money on this account,” Mr. Sithole told FIFA investigators.
Hours later, Mr. Chaibou arrived at Peter Mokaba Stadium for the match. Another referee from Niger was scheduled to officiate.
Instead, Mr. Chaibou took the field.
Questionable Calls
That night, only seats in the lower bowl were full, but the crowd of about 25,000 was noisily expectant.
As
the match began, FIFA’s Early Warning System, which monitors gambling
on sanctioned matches, began to detect odd movements in betting.
Gamblers kept increasing their expectations of how many goals would be
scored, a possible sign of insider betting.
Before
the match, the betting line had been 2.68 goals, an ordinary number,
said Matthew Benham, a former financial trader who runs a legal gambling
syndicate in England. By kickoff, the expected goals rose drastically,
to 3.48, and then to more than 4 during the match, Mr. Benham said.
The
questionable calls began early. In the 12th minute, South Africa scored
on a penalty kick after a Guatemalan defender was called for a hand
ball even though he was clearly outside the penalty area. At halftime,
the two assistant referees from Tanzania “looked shivering, nervous,”
Mr. Sithole said in the report. He was part of the officiating crew. South Africa vs Guatemala (5-0) Highlights Video by Ecuatoriano122395
In
the 50th minute, Guatemala was awarded a suspicious penalty kick for a
hand ball, even though a South African defender stopped a shot in front
of the goal with his chest, not his arm.
Mr.
Goddard watched from the grandstands, where he noticed others seemed
just as incredulous about the refereeing. A South African broadcaster
kept looking in his direction in disbelief. A fellow South African
soccer official repeatedly turned to Mr. Goddard with open arms, as if
to say, “What about that?”
In
the 56th minute, another debatable penalty kick was awarded to South
Africa, which resulted in the team’s fourth goal in a 5-0 rout.
The FIFA report stated plainly that “we can conclude that this match was indeed manipulated for betting fraud purposes.”
‘We’re Going to Eliminate You’
South
Africa had one more warm-up match, against Denmark on June 5, before it
opened the World Cup. While expectations for the team soared, some
officials in the South African soccer federation had grown concerned
about the refereeing.
The
night before the match with Denmark, several South African officials
delivered a stern lecture to the appointed referees, who were from
Tanzania and had been selected by Football 4U. Nothing inappropriate
would be tolerated, they were told.
Ace
Kika, one of three South African federation officials present, was
vehement. He later complained to investigators that men connected to
Football 4U had consistently tried to enter the referees’ dressing room
at halftime of the exhibition matches.
The
morning of the Denmark match, the scheduled chief referee withdrew,
citing a stomach bug, although the report described him as “clearly
alarmed.” A substitute referee was needed — fast.
Given
the officiating in the Guatemala match, Mr. Goddard already had another
referee on standby. “I was prepared for anything to happen that
afternoon,” he said in an interview.
He
persuaded Matthew Dyer, a respected South African referee, to
officiate, even though it was unusual for a referee to work a match
involving his home country.
But when Mr. Goddard arrived at the stadium, he found a familiar figure already there — Mr. Chaibou.
As
the teams prepared to take the field, Mr. Dyer was hidden away in an
unused room to perform his warm-up exercises. Mr. Chaibou received a
massage and completed his own warm-ups, but that was as far as he got.
As
Mr. Chaibou waited in a tunnel to lead the teams onto the field, Mr.
Goddard said, he put his hand on Mr. Chaibou’s shoulder and told him: “I
am kicking you out of the match. You are joining me in the grandstand.”
Another
South African soccer official said he locked Mr. Chaibou in the
referees’ dressing room while Mr. Dyer took the field instead.
South
Africa won, 1-0. In Mr. Perumal’s memoir, he wrote that the fixers had
wanted three goals in the match, and that $1 million “went up in smoke.”
He also wrote that Mr. Goddard was “a big troublemaker.”
After
the match, as Mr. Goddard drove away from the stadium, his cellphone
rang. It was Mr. Perumal, who had once been convicted of assault for
breaking the leg of a soccer player in an aborted match-fixing attempt.
“This
time, you really have gone too far and, you know, we’re going to
eliminate you,” he said, according to Mr. Goddard. Mr. Perumal later
bragged about the episode, the report said. But in his memoir he said
that he had threatened only to sue Mr. Goddard for breach of contract,
not kill him.
The South African officials made no written report of the threat and did not alert FIFA or the police at the time.
But
Mr. Goddard said he took the threat so seriously that “to save my
life,” his colleague, Mr. Kika, suggested that they allow the Singapore
syndicate to pick the referee for the next day’s exhibition match
between Nigeria and North Korea. Under duress, Mr. Goddard said, he
agreed.
“That was basically to save my neck,” he said in an interview.
That
night, at 8:26, Mr. Kika sent an email granting permission for Football
4U executives to appoint the referee. Mr. Kika declined a request for
comment.
The
referee in the Nigeria-North Korea match made several questionable
calls. FIFA investigators could not confirm whether it was Mr. Chaibou,
but they said the referee was definitely not the Portuguese official who
had been assigned.
The
referee took “a very harsh stance” in giving a red card for a seemingly
lesser infraction, and he later took “a very liberal stance” in
awarding a suspicious penalty kick, the report said. Nigeria won, 3-1.
If
the Singapore syndicate was not shocked by the result, many bettors
were. “We were absolutely trashed in that game,” said Mr. Benham, the
professional gambler. “It made no sense at all in the betting market.”
As
South Africa faced Denmark on June 5, the United States defeated
Australia, 3-1, in another exhibition. According to an email from Mr.
Perumal to Mr. Kika on May 24, the Singapore syndicate asked to provide
referees for the match. In an interview, Mr. Goddard said that Football
4U proposed using three referees from Bosnia and Herzegovina who,
according to the FIFA report, would later receive lifetime bans from
soccer for their involvement in match fixing.
Mr.
Goddard said he had warned American and Australian officials of
Football 4U’s intentions. Ultimately, South African referees officiated
the match.
United
States soccer officials said they did not recall receiving any warnings
about fixers or a change in referees. The FIFA report gives no
indication that the game was manipulated.
“We’ve
never heard anything about this before and have no reason to doubt the
integrity of the match,” said Sunil Gulati, the president of the United
States Soccer Federation.
Even
if it could not place referees in the United States match, Perumal
wrote in his memoir that the Singapore syndicate walked away from the
South African exhibitions “with a good four to five million dollars.”
Shrugging at the Evidence
Mr.
Perumal remained in South Africa until June 30, 2010, deep into the
World Cup, according to the FIFA report. Mr. Perumal wrote that he
offered a referee $400,000 to manipulate a World Cup match, but that the
referee declined because he thought Mr. Perumal had a “loose tongue.”
After
the World Cup, a freelance journalist, Mark Gleason, reported
suspicions among some African soccer officials that exhibition matches
had been rigged. FIFA did nothing at the time.
In
fact, FIFA did not investigate the suspicious games for nearly two
years, until March 2012. By then, Mr. Chaibou had reached FIFA’s
mandatory retirement age, 45. FIFA has said it investigates only active
referees, so its investigation of Mr. Chaibou stopped. “It took a while
to get around to it, longer than we would have liked,” Mr. Steans, the
author of the report, said in an interview.
At
the time, FIFA’s investigative staff amounted to five people
responsible for examining dozens of international match-fixing cases, he
said. The group has no subpoena power or law enforcement authority.
Investigators
spent only three days in South Africa and never interviewed the
referees or the teams involved, the report said. An unsuccessful attempt
was made to interview Mr. Chaibou at the time, according to Mr. Steans.
FIFA
officials in Zurich received the report in October 2012 and passed it
to the soccer officials in South Africa; it had little meaningful effect
there. A few South African officials were suspended but later
reinstated. And no one was charged with a crime even though FIFA had
found “compelling evidence” of fixed exhibitions and apparent collusion
by some South African soccer officials.
“We
never got to speak to the referees, which was sad,” said Mr. Steans,
who operates his own sports security firm. “It would have tied up a lot
of loose ends. I’m sure they would have given us some relevant
information.”
Mr.
Sedibe, then the chief executive of the South African soccer
federation, shrugged off the report as a politically motivated witch
hunt. “Why is it taking so long to get to the bottom of this?” he said.
“Why not refer this matter to the police to investigate and bring
closure to it?”
Three
months after the suspicious South African matches, Mr. Perumal was
linked to another daring scheme. In September 2010, he organized a match
in Bahrain in which the opponent was a fake squad claiming to be the
national team of Togo, in West Africa. The referee for that match? Mr.
Chaibou.
The
presence of Football 4U and Mr. Chaibou made soccer organizers uneasy.
In 2011, a South African official, Adeel Carelse, said that after being
misled by some in his national federation, he learned that Mr. Chaibou
was about to referee an under-23 age-group match in Johannesburg. Mr.
Carelse said he raced across the city with a car full of South African
referees to replace Mr. Chaibou’s crew at the last minute.
Mr. Chaibou retired to Niger in 2011.
Mr.
Perumal was arrested in Finland in 2011 and found guilty of corruption.
He was given a two-year sentence, although he was released early. He
was arrested again in Finland in late April for his continued role in
match fixing.
Since
the South African episode, Mr. Steans has left FIFA. He said the
investigative staff in Zurich had a docket of about 90 match-fixing
cases worldwide. along with other security duties. To seriously combat
match fixing, Mr. Steans said, FIFA needs at least 10 investigators
working full time on monitoring the manipulation of games, and two
offices in each of its six international soccer confederations.
“You
need the local intelligence and local knowledge on the ground,” Mr.
Steans said. “You need to be talking to sources face to face to get live
information that helps you counter match fixing before the fix
happens.”
A
FIFA spokeswoman said Friday that the Zurich staff now included six
investigators and that FIFA worked with a broad network of law
enforcement officials including Interpol. Delia Fischer, the
spokeswoman, said that for the World Cup, 12 security officers would be
assigned to each stadium, with the monitoring of potential match fixing
among their duties.
In
addition, Ms. Fischer said, a security staff of 18 will be on hand from
FIFA headquarters in Zurich. Mr. Mutschke, FIFA’s security chief, said
on the organization’s website that a primary concern about fixing is the
third and final game of the group phase of the World Cup, when a
particular team has been eliminated or has already qualified for the
second round.
“Prevention
is not something where you can see easy success stories the next day,”
Mr. Mutschke said in the FIFA.com interview. “So we are investing in
long-term solutions, and we certainly need the help of our member
associations as well to be successful in the end.”
In
late 2012, an elite anticorruption police unit, called the Hawks, said
it was investigating potential corruption linked to the match-fixing
scandal inside South Africa’s soccer federation, including a possible
bribe of about $800,000. But in March, President Jacob Zuma of South
Africa said he would not form a commission to examine charges of match
fixing, leaving the matter to FIFA.
“I’m
disappointed for South African football,” Mr. Steans said. “I’m
disappointed for football in general because when these things happen to
the game, they need to be investigated and the truth found. And two
years, well, four years since this happened was way too long.”
Coming Sunday, Part 2 of Rigged, Our Investigation Into Match Fixing.
COPY http://international.nytimes.com/
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário