Sports manipulation, particularly match-fixing, has become a major threat to the integrity of sport. Match-fixing can be linked to both direct or indirect economic benefits and to cases of betting or not. Matters relating to sport and athletes are subject to the jurisdiction of disciplinary and arbitral tribunals and therefore immune from state control. This principle is known as lex sportive (global sports law) derived from the doctrine of the autonomy of sport. According to this doctrine, the SGB are a private regulatory body outside the scope of state regulation. Thus, the SGBs produce a distinct and separate body of law. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay This is demonstrated through the first case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), FK Pobeda et al. V. UEFA, where match-fixing was punished because the court only allowed the burden of proof to the extent of comfortable satisfaction, as opposed to proof beyond reasonable doubt. Following this affair, the SGB required athletes to submit to a code of conduct before entering this field. The Kaneria v The England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd proceedings are just another example where the principle of the autonomy of sport has been upheld. However, this transnational law has been criticized as being contrary to the rule of law and therefore lacking coherence due to the absence of any state interference. In this context, a handful of parliamentarians expressed a concern to curb the principle of the autonomy of sport by allowing State intervention and the creation of an independent sports body other than the SGB. It has been argued that the problems posed by modern sporting professionalism cannot be solved by the simple application of the principle of autonomy by SGBs and require political and state interference. The rise of corruption on the ground requires a collaborative force between states and SGBs. Illegitimate financial gains from match-fixing often involve a criminal element falling within the scope of a particular country's criminal laws. For example, corruption has been defined by Transparency International as obtaining preferential treatment in exchange for a bribe. The offense of corruption is applied in match-fixing cases in many countries such as Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland and France. In addition to corruption, offenses such as money laundering, financial fraud, organized crime and extortion are also dealt with. Considering the increase in criminal elements in match-fixing, bills have been passed in various countries to combat criminal offenses in match-fixing. Furthermore, under Articles 7 and 8 of the Finnish Criminal Code, private bribery is equated with commercial bribery, punishable by a fine or imprisonment. The French Penal Code defines active corruption as the act of offering or exchanging any gift within the framework of a sporting activity, assimilated to a sporting game. These laws indicate that states have begun to recognize the criminal intent of perpetrators involved in sports manipulation in general and match-fixing in particular. Since match fixing involves economic or non-economic benefits or betting or non-betting cases, it is primarily aimed at gaining an unfair monetary advantage in one way or another. This will always include elements of corruption, fraud, cheating, money laundering, etc. Thus, in recent years, due to the.