Editor's note: Deeksha Malik is a final-year student at National Law Institute University, India. Her main interest areas are corporate law, arbitration, and sports law. She can be reached at dkshmalik726@gmail.com.

In 2015, while interrogating cricketer Sreesanth and others accused in the IPL match-fixing case, Justice Neena Bansal, sitting as Additional Sessions Judge, made the following observations as regards betting on cricket matches.

“Cricket as a game of skill requires hand-eye-coordination for throwing, catching and hitting. It requires microscopic levels of precision and mental alertness for batsmen to find gaps or for bowlers to produce variety of styles of deliveries’ (medium pace, fast, inswing, outswing, offspin, legspin, googly). The sport requires strategic masterminds that can select the most efficient fielding positions for piling pressure on the batsmen. Based on above description, cricket cannot be described anything, but as a game of skill.”

The debate on the issue of betting in sports has since resurfaced and gained the attention of sportspersons, media, sports bodies, policymakers, and the general public. In April 2017, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an order directing the government to come up with an appropriate framework for regulating betting in sports. The arguments put forth in the PIL present various dimensions. One of these pertains to economic considerations, a submission that regulated betting would be able to generate annual revenue of Rs. 12,000 crores by bringing the earnings therefrom within the tax net. As for policy considerations, it was submitted that a proper regulation in this area would enable the government to distinguish harmless betting from activities that impair the integrity of the game such as match-fixing. Further, betting on cricket matches largely depends on the skill of the concerned players, thereby distinguishing it from pure chance-based activities.

The issue of sports betting witnesses a divided opinion till this day. This is understandable, for both sides to the issue have equally pressing arguments. Aside from its regulation being a daunting task for authorities, sports betting is susceptible to corruption and other unscrupulous activities. At the same time, it is argued that it would be better for both the game and the economy if the same is legalised.

THE MAGNITUDE OF CONSIDERATIONS

It is feared by some that the consequences of recognition and legalisation of betting could be negative, considering what happened in Australia. Australia legalised online betting in 2001, and by 2009, it found itself in a situation where betting took over the sporting landscape in a big way. The impact was clearly visible; betting was marketed extensively in public places, attracting many young potential punters. Some found the trend disturbing, for sports fans were more concerned about their personal gains than about the sport itself. It is estimated that around 500,000 Australians are on the verge of becoming “problem gamblers.”

There has been an increasing support for the other side of the debate that argues for recognition of betting as a legal activity. It is argued that criminalising betting does not prevent its happening; it merely drives the activity underground where it continues to thrive. Add to it the substantial revenues that government would be able to obtain therefrom. In fact, the Report of the Supreme Court Committee on Reforms in Cricket, also called the Lodha Committee Report, submitted that given the worldwide legal sports betting market which is worth over $400 billion, it will be in the best interest of the economy if betting is given legal recognition.

POSITION IN THE USA AND THE UK: GROWING ACCEPTANCE OF THE UK-BASED MODEL

In the USA, federal law has taken a tough stand against betting and gambling. The 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) makes it unlawful for a person to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly, on one or more competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate. The provision prima facie makes no distinction between betting and gambling, and it is, therefore, irrelevant for the purpose of establishing an offence under this provision whether the activity in question involves skill or not.

On the other hand, one may refer to the position in the UK, where there has been a well-developed betting market with appropriate measures to ensure that the system is not abused. The governing organisation in this regard is the UK Gambling Commission, initially set up under the 1960 Betting and Gaming Act which works in partnership with all the sporting bodies which, in turn, frame their own bye-laws to regulate betting.[1] Apart from licensing requirements, the framework provides for an information-sharing system, whereby bookies are required to report any suspicious betting activity within their knowledge to the Gambling Commission.[2] The example of the UK shows how through appropriate safeguards and implementation policy that involves various stakeholders such as the sports bodies and the booking companies, sports betting could be effectively regulated, bringing, at the same time, significant economic advantage. It does not come as a surprise that a majority of Americans have advocated for a UK-based model.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States began dealing with the issue in the case of Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The State of New Jersey seeks to get the PASPA annulled, which, in turn, would facilitate state-sponsored sports betting. It is being submitted that the federal government through the aforesaid statute is violating the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment, according to which states cannot be mandated to carry federal acts into effect. The outcome of the case would certainly have an impact on the debate, one way or the other.

POSITION IN INDIA: THE ‘GAME OF SKILL’ DEBATE

In India, the power to legislate on betting and gambling is conferred on states, since these subjects are enlisted in the State List. Nevertheless, the pre-independence legislation, namely the 1867 Public Gambling Act (Act), is still valid today, though some states have enacted their own laws pertaining to betting and gambling. Section 12 of this Act provides that it does not apply to a ‘game of skill.’ The legislation, therefore, makes a distinction between a ‘game of chance’ and a ‘game of skill.’ The term ‘game of chance’ has been explained in the case of Rex v. Fortier[3] as a game “determined entirely or in part by lot or mere luck, and in which judgment, practice, skill or adroitness has honestly no office at all or is thwarted by chance.” It has further been held in the case of State v. Gupton that any athletic game or sport is not a game of chance and instead depends on a number of factors such as skill, ability, form and practice of the participants.

At this juncture, reference must be made to the case of KR Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court of India that horse racing, foot racing, boat racing, football and baseball are all games of skill. Betting on, say, a horse race entails use of evaluative skills in order to assess several factors such as speed and stamina of the horse, performance of the jockey, and the like. Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. K Satyanarayana observed that rummy is not like a three-card game which is based substantially on chance. There is considerable amount of skill involved in memorising the cards, or in holding and discharging them, in a rummy game. The uncertainty involved in shuffling and distribution of the cards does not alter the character of the game to one based on chance.

Based on these judgments, it is reasonable to infer that betting in cricket, too, is an activity involving sufficient skill and is not based merely on chance. A person who studies the form and performance of a player, the conditions of play and the like could predict the outcome of a game with a reasonable accuracy. The mere uncertainty of the outcome should not come in the way of understanding sports betting as an activity based on skill. Considering this important factor, the government should proceed to develop an appropriate framework to regulate betting. 

A PRACTICAL POLICY FRAMEWORK

The International Cricket Council, too, has suggested that India should come up with a suitable policy framework to regulate betting.[4] Such a framework would keep a check on individuals and further help detect and prevent corrupt activities. The above-mentioned Lodha Committee Report has strongly recommended legalising cricket betting in India. The suggestion is based on the premise that while match-fixing interferes with the integrity of the game itself and is unacceptable, betting is a “general malaise” indulged by different sections of the society and is capable of being regulated. Therefore, betting should not be equated with unscrupulous activities such as match-fixing.

Having been so distinguished, a regulation along the lines of the UK model could be put in place to establish regulatory watchdogs tasked with monitoring betting houses and persons entering into betting transactions. Those placing bets could be brought within a licensing system wherein their identification and other details are recorded. This could be supplemented by an information-sharing mechanism whereby a database of undesirable entities such as bookies and fixers would be shared with players so that they do not remain in the dark with respect to suspicious activities. Importantly, players, match officials and administrators should be kept out of such regulated betting, and they should continue to be bound by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and IPL rules. It is important to note here that the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code prohibits participants from soliciting, authorising, placing, accepting, laying, or otherwise entering into any bet with any person in relation to the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match or event. The Code further makes it an offence to ensure “the occurrence of a particular incident in a match or event, which occurrence is to the participant’s knowledge the subject of a bet and for which he/she expects to receive or has received any reward.” As can be seen from the provisions, the liability is imposed specifically on the participant. This is in line with the opinion of the Lodha Committee, which has recommended that if betting were to be legalised, the players should nevertheless be barred from indulging in the activity so as to prevent any apprehension concerning their integrity. It is submitted that bringing these reforms in the current uncertain and highly ambiguous regime would address several surrounding issues, provided all the stakeholders work in tandem.

Lesson could be learnt from the state of Nagaland, which recently enacted a law, namely the 2016 Nagaland Prohibition of Gambling and Promotion and Regulation of Online Games of Skill Act. The said legislation defines “games of skill” as including “all such games where there is a preponderance of skill over chance, including where the skill relates to strategising the manner of placing wagers or placing bets, or where the skill lies in team selection or selection of virtual stocks based on analyses, or where the skill relates to the manner in which the moves are made, whether through deployment of physical or mental skill and acumen.” Besides providing such an inclusive definition, the Act sets out a schedule enlisting certain activities that shall be regarded as games of skill, such as poker, rummy and virtual games of cricket and football. All such games shall be regulated by way of issuance of a license to persons or entities based in India. Upon receiving the license, such a person or entity is eligible to earn revenue from games of skill, whether by way of advertising, obtaining a share of winnings or charging a fee for membership.

Some stakeholders are advocating for a uniform legislation on betting that would ensure that the legal position on betting remains the same across all the states. In July 2017, the All India Gaming Federation along with an advisory panel presented a white paper to Law Commissioner BS Chauhan, recommending a central legislation regulating online skill gaming, and that sports betting in general and cricket betting in particular be recognised as a game of skill. Such a legislation could introduce a system of checks and balances along the lines of that existing in the UK, for instance. A proposal has also been moved from the Central Information Commission in the case of Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. PIO, recommending the Government of India to consider moving the subject of sports from the State List in the Constitution of India to the Concurrent List so as to ensure a uniform policy regulating sports bodies and national sports federations such as the BCCI.

CONCLUSION

The international discourse on the issue of sports betting shows just how inadequate the Indian legal regime is to cater to the same. Suggestions have been pouring in from all quarters as to how, upon being legalized, cricket betting could be regulated. These suggestions, along with international best practices concerning ethics and betting, should be taken into account by the legislature and the executive to bring in an appropriate framework to address cricket betting. This, of course, requires the active participation of all the stakeholders, with the BCCI leading the way. 

[1] Ali Qtaishat and Ashish Kumar, ‘Surveying the Legality Issues and Current Developments’ (2013) 20 JL Policy and & Globalization 40, 42.

[2] See Gambling Act 2005 s 88.

[3] Rex v. Fortier 13 Que. KB 308.

[4] Rohini Mahyera, ‘Saving Cricket: A Proposal for the Legalization of Gambling in India to Regulate Corrupt Betting Practices in Cricket’ (2012) 26 Emory Int'l L. Rev.

Editor’s note: Tomáš Grell holds an LL.M. in Public International Law from Leiden University. He contributes to the work of the ASSER International Sports Law Centre as a research intern.

It has been more than seven years since the FIFA Executive Committee awarded the 2022 World Cup to Qatar. And yet only in November 2017 did the Qatari government finally agree to dismantle the controversial kafala system, described by many as modern-day slavery. Meanwhile, hundreds of World Cup-related migrant workers have reportedly been exposed to a wide range of abusive practices such as false promises about the pay, passport confiscation, or appalling working and living conditions.[1] On top of that, some workers have paid the highest price – their life. To a certain extent, all this could have been avoided if human rights had been taken into account when evaluating the Qatari bid to host the tournament. In such a case, Qatar would not have won the bidding contest without providing a convincing explanation of how it intends to ensure that the country's poor human rights record will not affect individuals, including migrant workers, contributing to the delivery of the World Cup. An explicit commitment to abolish the kafala system could have formed an integral part of the bid.

Urged by Professor John Ruggie and his authoritative recommendations,[2] in October 2017 FIFA decided to include human rights within the criteria for evaluating bids to host the 2026 World Cup, following similar steps taken earlier this year by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and UEFA in the context of the Olympic Winter Games 2026 and the Euro 2024 respectively. This two-part blog critically examines the role human rights play in the new bidding regulations adopted by the IOC, UEFA, and FIFA. The first part sheds light on the IOC and UEFA. The second part then takes a closer look at FIFA and aims to use a comparative analysis to determine whether the new bidding regulations are robust enough to ensure that selected candidates abide by international human rights standards.

IOC: Olympic Winter Games 2026

About the host selection process

Compared to the past, cities bidding to host the 2026 Games could expect lower costs, simplified procedures, and more assistance provided by the IOC.[3] All interested cities[4] might enter a Dialogue Stage[5] and engage with the IOC to learn more about the benefits and responsibilities associated with the hosting and staging of the Games. Although the Dialogue Stage is non-committal, cities that join are supposed to present their consolidated Games concepts,[6] outlining their vision, long-term plan alignment, or initial financial strategy, as well as providing information with regard to a potential referendum.[7] These consolidated concepts, together with the IOC's own research, will serve as a basis for a preliminary report exploring the capacity of interested cities to deliver successful Games.[8] The IOC Executive Board will review this report and recommend to the IOC Session which cities should be invited to the Candidature Stage.[9] The IOC Session will designate Candidate Cities in October 2018 during its meeting in Buenos Aires.[10]

Candidate Cities will then have until 11 January 2019 to prepare and submit their Candidature Files together with an initial set of core guarantees.[11] In their Candidature Files, Candidate Cities shall provide answers to a variety of questions as set out in the Candidature Questionnaire, covering areas such as sustainability and legacy, transport, accommodation, safety and security, finance, or marketing. Thereafter, Candidate Cities will be visited by the IOC Evaluation Commission that is tasked with conducting an in-depth assessment of each bid and producing a report to help the IOC Session elect the most suitable candidate. The Host City of the 2026 Games will be elected in September 2019.[12]

Human rights as selection criteria

Little attention is paid to human rights in the Candidature Questionnaire. Candidate Cities are only required to provide a guarantee whereby the national government and relevant local authorities undertake to respect and protect human rights and ensure that any violation of human rights is remedied ''in a manner consistent with international agreements, laws and regulations applicable in the Host Country and in a manner consistent with all internationally-recognised human rights standards and principles, including the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, applicable in the Host Country''.[13] This language is somewhat ambiguous because when defining human rights that should be respected and protected in connection with the hosting and staging of the Games, the guarantee first refers to human rights applicable in the Host Country and only then to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN Guiding Principles).[14] The latter make clear that the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights extends to specific international treaties and other instruments.[15] However, some of these treaties could be inapplicable in the Host Country if not ratified. This would make the guarantee to some extent self-contradictory. Apart from the guarantee, the IOC does not ask for any other human rights-related information from Candidate Cities. In the absence of such information, it is difficult to see how the Evaluation Commission[16] will assess the Candidate Cities' capacity to respect and protect human rights.

UEFA: Euro 2024

About the host selection process

While the Euro 2020 will be a bit of an experiment with games scheduled to take place in 12 different cities across the continent, the Euro 2024 returns to its classic format as only one member association will host the tournament. In March 2017, UEFA confirmed that it would be either Germany or Turkey. The next step for both member associations is to submit their Bid Dossiers to UEFA by no later than 27 April 2018.[17] In principle, the bidders must demonstrate in their Bid Dossiers that they meet all Tournament Requirements. Importantly, UEFA reserves the right to appoint independent consultants when evaluating bids.[18] A written evaluation report on each bid will be circulated in September 2018 before the UEFA Executive Committee finally decides which member association will host the Euro 2024.[19]

Human rights as selection criteria

UEFA requires that the bidders and then the Host Association respect, protect, and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights of workers and children, in line with international treaties and other instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[20] In order to meet this obligation, the bidders should in particular seek to culturally embed human rights, proactively address human rights risks, engage with relevant stakeholders, and implement means of reporting and accountability.[21] The bidders' capacity to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights will be evaluated based on their human rights strategy that must be included in their Bid Dossiers.[22] As part of this strategy, the member associations bidding to host the Euro 2024 should explain how they are going to integrate the UN Guiding Principles in their activities related to the organisation of the tournament.[23] While no further details are given about the required content of this strategy, UEFA suggests that a successful bid should not fail to: (i) outline proposed measures aimed at preventing human rights abuses, in particular child labour in supply chains and violations of workers' rights; (ii) provide evidence of meaningful consultation with vulnerable groups; or (iii) describe grievance mechanisms that will be available for victims of human rights abuses.[24]

Conclusion

Unlike UEFA, the IOC has attracted widespread criticism for being involved with negative human rights impacts.[25] Nevertheless, it is the former who gives more weight to human rights in its new bidding regulations. This is even more surprising given that the IOC introduced its bidding regulations later than UEFA. It seems that the IOC deliberately avoids including human rights within the criteria for evaluating bids to host the Olympic Games, hoping that this would encourage more cities to participate in the host selection process. Further reflections on human rights as selection criteria in bidding regulations for mega-sporting events will be presented in the second part of this blog that will focus on FIFA and provide some comparative perspectives.

[1]    Amnesty International, The Ugly Side of the Beautiful Game: Exploitation of Migrant Workers on a Qatar 2022 World Cup Site, 30 March 2016. See also Human Rights Watch, Qatar: Take Urgent Action to Protect Construction Workers, 27 September 2017.

[2]    John G. Ruggie, For the Game. For the World. FIFA and Human Rights, p. 32.

[3]    IOC, IOC Approves New Candidature Process for Olympic Winter Games 2026, 11 July 2017.

[4]    To the best of my knowledge, Calgary (Canada), Salt Lake City (United States), Sapporo (Japan), Sion (Switzerland), and Telemark (Norway) consider bidding.

[5]    The Dialogue Stage runs from September 2017 to October 2018. Interested cities can join until 31 March 2018. See IOC, Candidature Process for the Olympic Winter Games 2026, pp. 11-17.

[6]    Ibid.

[7]    On 15 October 2017, a referendum was held in the Austrian province of Tirol. A negative outcome prevented the city of Innsbruck from launching a bid to host the 2026 Games.

[8]    This report is to be drawn up by the Olympic Winter Games 2026 Working Group overseen by an IOC member and consisting of individuals representing the International Paralympic Committee, the IOC's Athletes Commission, International Winter Sports Federations, and National Olympic Committees. See Candidature Process for the Olympic Winter Games 2026, p. 16.

[9]    Ibid.

[10]   The capital of Argentina will host the 2018 Youth Olympic Games.

[11]   IOC, Candidature Process for the Olympic Winter Games 2026, p. 18.

[12]   Ibid. p. 22.

[13]   IOC, Candidature Questionnaire for the Olympic Winter Games 2026, pp. 86, 88.

[14]   Ibid.

[15]   These include, at a minimum, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the principles concerning fundamental rights in the eight ILO core conventions as set out in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. See UN Guiding Principles, Principle 12.

[16]   The Evaluation Commission may be assisted by experts. See IOC, Olympic Charter, Bye-Law to Rule 33.

[17]   UEFA, Bid Regulations for the UEFA Euro 2024, Article 5.05.

[18]   Ibid. Article 14.

[19]   Ibid. Articles 6.02 and 6.04.

[20]   UEFA, Tournament Requirements for the UEFA Euro 2024, Sector 03 – Political, Social and Environmental Aspects, p. 5.

[21]   Ibid. pp. 5-6.

[22]   UEFA, Bid Dossier Template for the UEFA Euro 2024, Sector 03 – Political, Social and Environmental Aspects, p. 5.

[23]   Ibid.

[24]   UEFA, Tournament Requirements for the UEFA Euro 2024, Sector 03 – Political, Social and Environmental Aspects, p. 6.

[25]   Jonathan Watts, Rio Olympics linked to widespread human rights violations, report reveals, 8 December 2015. See also Human Rights Watch, Race to the Bottom: Exploitation of Migrant Workers Ahead of Russia's 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, 6 February 2013. See also Human Rights Watch, 'One Year of My Blood': Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in Beijing, 11 March 2008.