The beautiful game? You bet!

Ethics in sports has become a big talking point. In North America, we are just at the end of a humongous news cycle on Lance Armstrong’s ‘confessions’ on the Oprah Winfrey Show. Armstrong’s story very much turned – as many ethical issues tend to – into a story of character, personal integrity and individual morality. Even though most people know by now that doping in cycling is endemic and that he is probably much more the product of entrenched practices in the business of professional cycling. We have commented on ethics in sports here and there in the past and this week’s installment of scandals in professional sports seems another good occasion to add some observations from a business ethics angle.

We are talking about the news from Europol (the pan-European crime investigation unit) revealing large-scale match fixing activity in global professional football (or soccer, for our North American readers). They claim to having identified 380 manipulated games (at all levels) and 425 individuals implicated in making some €8m by betting on games with individual players, referees or officials accepting bribes up to €140,000 in one case! The international network of criminals betting on football games by bribing those with influence on the outcome of the games was allegedly run out of Singapore. With football being a multibillion industry itself this case of corruption seems to have all the trimmings of a good business ethics case.

To understand the reasons, dimensions and mechanisms of such an ethics scandal we always find it useful to look at the structure of an ‘industry’ and the basic characteristics of the environment in which it operates. Our colleague Wolfram Eilenberger (former University of Toronto Philosophy Professor and football wonk)  has done so in an interview this week on German radio. Here are some of the take-aways.

Uncertainty. ‘Folks go watching football because they don’t know the outcome’, Eilenberger cites the legendary German coach of the 1954 world cup winning team Sepp Herberger. Uncertainty is a core element of football – but also its Achilles heel. It is a game which despite any such intimation has never been able to be fully determined by money, skill, legacy or past glory. Just one example: when Roman Abramovic took over the English Premier League Club Chelsea F.C. in 2003 with endless amounts of cash, despite a buying spree of the top players and coaches, it still took the club seven years to finally win the ultimate prize in European football, the Champions League. This has always been the fascination of football. It is at once the strongest temptation to manipulate the game and the reason why this betting scandal is also its greatest threat.

Rare events. Football is not basketball or cycling. Success is not measured by many scores, many moves, multiple chances and efforts on the pitch, or by a long period of competition. It may be one lucky goal – or even in some cases in a tournament no goal at all - which may win the game for one side. It is therefore a relatively minor effort to link bets to the outcome of football games. It is not about orchestrating a complicated team of actors, or manipulating a complex set of circumstances. If you can somehow influence this one event, this one goal (or its absence for that matter), you can have a fairly strong handle on the outcome of the game.

Small number of key actors. Closely connected is the fact that in order to manipulate the outcome of a football game you only need to manipulate a relatively small number of actors. Most prominently the referee, the goalkeeper, and maybe one of the key strikers would come to mind here. The temptation then to bribe these individuals is very high as the limited number makes it not only economically more viable but would also allow for better chances to keep the entire thing under the carpet. This then makes the manipulation of the game relatively easy (compared to other sports). For a referee: an extra penalty given, another red or yellow card can very directly change the result; for a goalkeeper: to deliberately jump into the ‘wrong’ corner at a penalty kick, to make simple ‘errors of judgment’ which lead to a goal; for a striker: to make the ball miss the goal, to make a ‘sloppy’ pass or to give a corner kick to the opposite side.

Global execution networks. The scandal uncovered by Europol involves a global network of actors based in Asia (most notably Singapore), which operate from different jurisdictions, use opaque channels of communication and dispose of a clandestine network of financial transactions.

All these characteristics apply to other infractions in business ethics. Insider trading comes to mind, where often a small number of players, focusing on rare events (such as the insider information about an impending innovation, losses etc of a company), in a climate of uncertainty (such as the stock market) collude in global networks to perpetrate their crimes. We discussed the recent example of Raj Rajaratnam and his small network of executives perpetrating one of the largest insider scandals in recent history.

Currently, the debate on how to tackle this form of corruption is in full swing. The majority of suspects are allegedly in Germany, Turkey and Switzerland. Obviously one focus is on how to change the incentives of the few individuals who can change the outcome of the game. A clear indication seems to be incentives: often match fixing occurs (or starts) on lower level leagues or leagues with relatively low pay of players and referees. That seems to be one of the reasons why the English Premier League shows relatively lesser cases of criminal incidents in this context. By the same token, the debate now seems to focus on increasing the punishment of convicted game-riggers.

It remains to be seen if this approach is going to work. It currently seems that the very nature of football seems to invite this specific type of crime. And very little seemingly can be done about it without avoiding changes in the fundamental structure of the game.

Photo by gnews pics. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence.

Sex, privacy and media ethics

Sex sells. And sex really sells in the media business. With their profitability in free-fall, newspaper businesses especially are always on the look out for a salacious front page story to help them grab some precious market share. Unfaithful soccer stars "playing away from home", celebrity match-ups and break-ups, trysts with prostitutes, or accusations of sexual assault are all highly newsworthy, especially at the tabloid end of the market. But recent events in the UK and elsewhere have led many to question whether the sex lives of celebrities can be afforded some degree of privacy protection from an intrusive media, or whether in the interests of press freedom, and the growing uncontrollability on online social media "reporting", they are simply fair game.

In the last few weeks the Ryan Giggs super-injunction affair in the UK has brought these issues to a head. Why all the excitement? Well until a few days ago, Giggs, one of the UK's best known soccer players, was the mysterious unnamed figure who had successfully been granted a so-called super-injunction by the English courts. The injunction had been given to protect Giggs' privacy in the wake of an attempted kiss-and-tell story by Imogen Thomas, a former reality TV star, who claimed to have had an affair with the married, and previously squeaky-clean, soccer star. It not only prevented newspapers from reporting the story but also from even referring to the injunction or the claimant.

Super-injunctions like the one granted to Giggs have become the legal instruments of choice for individuals and companies in the UK looking to prevent their activities from being reported in the press. They are granted by the courts to protect privacy under the Human Rights Act. The newspaper industry is predictably waging a war of words against them because they shackle some of the traditional freedoms that they are used to and which they rely on to act as the fourth estate. Super injunctions also raise the hackles of the public because with a price tag that starts at something like US $100,000 they appear to allow special legal treatment for the rich and famous. Moreover, as the Giggs affair and the 2009 pollution case of the oil company Trafigura have shown, the rise of social media platforms such as Twitter through which stories can be circulated outside the remit of the formal TV and newspaper industries, the limits of existing legal protections for privacy are being severely tested. Giggs' name was connected to the injunction through Twitter long before the press could report on it, raising legal questions about the culpability of Twitter and it's tweeters for being in breech of the injunction.

There are all sorts of ethical questions arising out of this, but from our point of view, it largely boils down to the question of when our sex lives should be private and when could or should they also be public knowledge? Let's sort out some of the considerations here:

1. Consent
Obviously the starting point here is consensual sex between adults. Coerced sex or sex crimes fall into an entirely different realm of privacy. The media has a legitimate right to publish in these cases provided legal protections for victims and the accused (which differ between jurisdictions) are respected. But clearly Dominic Strauss Kahn's alleged assault on a hotel chambermaid should be held to a different standard of privacy than his consensual affairs. Affairs with subordinate employees, even when supposedly consensual, might fall somewhere in the middle given the power dynamics involved.

2. Public interest
Where there is a potential public interest at stake the media also has a stronger case for investigating and publishing, such as where politicians campaigning on "family values" are accused of marital infidelities, anti-gay advocates are caught with rent boys, or legal enforcers break the law by paying for sex. A weaker but sometimes defensible case can also be made for leaders in a position of authority and trust whose trustworthiness might be questioned when extra-marital affairs come to light. The sex lives of celebrities rarely have a public interest component .... however much the public may be interested in hearing about them!

3. Privacy vs free speech
In the absence of coercion or public interest, there is much less chance of the press claiming a prima facie right to publish. Privacy (and after all sex is pretty private) will usually trump rights to speech unless free speech can lead to other public benefits. It's a matter of avoiding harm being prioritized over some fairly minimal free speech benefits.  The media may claim that the right to privacy is critically weakened in the case of marital infidelities and other ethical infractions. But even the unjust should be able to expect justice.

4. Harms and benefits
Without public interest, for the equation to fall on the side of publishing, there will often have to be some meaningful moral benefits for one or more of the parties to the "private" act. A spurned lover with an illegitimate love child for instance might be looking to tell their side of the story in the media and thereby gain some kind of apology or recompense from a celebrity. Here the ethical equation between speech and privacy should shift more convincingly towards publishing.

5. Reasonable expectation
Where the waters really get muddied is in the question of reasonable expectation. Privacy is typically attributed when there is a reasonable expectation that something will remain so. A telephone call or a conversation in a private residence should reasonably be expected to remain private, for example. That is why the UK newspaper, the News of the World, is in such hot water for it's illegal phone hacking of celebrities. These conversations took place in a reasonable expectation of privacy and should remain that way unless one of the participants chooses otherwise. But phone hacking is a case of the ethics of media tactics. A newspaper offered a story by a willing kiss-and-tell informant is very different. Here it is one of the participants looking to rewrite the "contract " of privacy established between themselves and their sexual partner. And in this case we have to ask ourselves whether soccer stars and other celebrities really have a reasonable expectation that their affairs with glamour models and reality TV stars will remain private. However much they wish it to be the case, there appears to be a lot of evidence to the contrary. Sure, this may be a case of a highly pragmatic interpretation of rights to privacy, but it's in the real world, a world of privacy for sale that we increasingly find ourselves in. Celebrities should be protected from direct intrusions into their privacy by the media. But maybe they should not be protected from their own decisions about who to be "private" with in the first place.

Photo by AtilaTheHun. Reproduced under creative commons licence

Is too much transparency a bad thing?

It’s been quite a week or so for transparency. The incendiary WikiLeaks release of almost a quarter of a million classified cables from the US diplomatic service has set news media across the world alight with daily revelations that have acutely embarrassed politicians everywhere. Last week also saw the FIFA bribery scandal reach new heights with the screening of the BBC Panorama program alleging corruption, followed by last Thursday’s selection of Russia and Qatar as the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups respectively. Yes, that’s Russia, the country labeled a “virtual mafia state” in one of the WikiLeaks cables. Both cases involve a whole host of ethical issues, but perhaps more than anything they pose critical questions about the appropriate limits of transparency. How much should we know about what goes on behind the scenes in organizations such as the US diplomatic service or a global sporting body such as FIFA? And can too much transparency really be a bad thing?

WikiLeaks is clearly the most significant case of the two, and it looks set to be something of a landmark on the ethics of transparency in the digital age. On the one side, high profile rightwingers in the US, including Presidential hopeful Mike Huckerbee, have responded by suggesting the source of the leaks should be tried for treason. “Anything less than execution is too kind a penalty,” he commented. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is under investigation in the US and Australia, wanted for questioning in Sweden (for an unrelated charge), and on Interpol’s red list – not to mention being cast by Sarah Palin as an “anti-American operative” who should be pursued with “the same urgency [as] al Qaeda and Taliban leaders”. Bradley Manning the army private who is supposedly the original source of the material is sitting in a military jail awaiting court marshal and a possible 52 years in jail. US internet companies Amazon, Paypal and EveryDNS, meanwhile, have responded to pressure by US authorities and ceased supporting WikiLeaks by allow it to use their servers, domains, and payment services respectively. As a result, the organization has been forced offline several times in the last week.

On the other side of the debate, five respected news organizations – the New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, El País, and Der Spiegel – received prior access to the cables and have shown little hesitation in splashing front page stories over the past 10 days. Various commentators, hackers, and net activists have heralded the leaks as a new phase in the radical transparency of digital information. Columbia, meanwhile, has offered Assange immunity, whilst Amazon has been touted as a boycott target for caving to “censorship” and political restrictions on “free speech”. Clearly, things are complicated, to say the least.

The publishing of the embassy cables by WikiLeaks is in many ways a more ethically ambiguous act than many of their previous leaks, most notably the well known Iraq and Afghanistan war logs which detailed the hidden impacts of US military action. Other WikiLeaks though have also won acclaim focusing on documents alleging political and corporate corruption, public interest media reports suppressed by injunction, and secret Congressional research reports. The embassy cables, just by their sheer volume, represent a less focused campaign.

Yes, there are clearly some important public interest revelations in the material that has come to light. These include: the exposure of a US spying campaign targeted at UN leaders; the naming by US diplomats of China’s propaganda chief Li Changchun as the orchestrator of the Google hacking late last year; and disclosures that the Brazilian government deliberately covered up the existence of terrorist suspects within its borders to protect the country’s image, to name just a few. Oh and of course claims that the media organization al-Jazeera is heavily influenced by state foreign policy in Quatar, where the 2022 World Cup is going to be held. But it has to be said that many of the big news stories are no more than allegations by diplomats in what they thought were confidential dispatches rather than necessarily well-founded or verified facts. There is also a whole lot more material that is just plain gossip and rumor-mongering rather than what you might genuinely call ‘intelligence’.

All this makes the WikiLeaks cables less clear cut in terms of making the hidden “truth” public. They provide us with a unique insight into how international diplomacy works, and what emerges is hardly pretty or a paragon of honesty and integrity. But it is hardly the case of a whistleblower bringing a miscarriage of justice to light or an exposé of corporate malfeasance or political corruption, except in the very broadest of terms. Sure the material in the leaks is incredibly interesting, but how we have to ask how much of it is genuinely in the public interest. If it doesn’t pass this test, then why should supposedly classified information become public?

On the other hand, the arguments emanating from the US that the release of the cables has injured the national interest and put lives at risk is also rather flimsy. Yes it has embarrassed the government, but then who hasn’t it embarrassed? Putin, Burlosconi, and others have been just as much the target as those in the US. And no one yet has managed to unearth anything that has genuinely put lives at risk even if it has probably hampered US diplomatic efforts in general. This of course begs the question of why so much information should be classified in the first place if it’s not actually protecting anything.

It is this – the transparency versus confidentiality issue – that is at stake here. Some would clearly like to see all but the most critical security information made public so that the state can be held to account. Others believe that a communication made under the presumption of confidentiality should remain that way unless there is a clear public interest reason for disclosing it. In the FIFA case, there seems little doubt that the BBC was right to go public with its allegations of corruption, even if some commentators were unhappy that it potentially hampered England’s bid to host the 2018 tournament. And even if FIFA President Sepp Blatter complained of “the evils of the media"

The WikiLeaks cables though are so indiscriminate as to fail the public interest test, at least when considered as a whole. However, with appropriate sorting and contextualizing (which the newspapers appear to be doing a pretty good job of), this changes the complexion somewhat. Newspapers like the New York Times and The Guardian have given a good account of their motives and methods. As the New York Times editor says:

"The more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name."

With appropriate journalistic selecting and framing, there is little doubt that there is an important if rather delicate media task at work here. This doesn’t condone the release of the cables en masse, though, which in our opinion is harder to defend from an ethical point of view, unless one’s view is that all government should be 100% transparent.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of WikiLeaks in this particular case, though, the broader lesson seems to be fairly clear. In business ethics, one of the standard rules of thumb is the New York Times test – if you wouldn’t want your actions to be reported on the front page of the newspaper then maybe you shouldn’t be doing it. No doubt US diplomats didn’t expect this to so literally come true, but in a digital world, the prospects for doing so are increasing exponentially. And if you don’t want to be a news star, then you’ll need to work a lot harder than the US government in making sure what is said in confidence stays that way.



WikiLeaks graphic by Anna Lena Schiller reproduced under Creative Commons Licence
America Shhh image reproduced from Boycott Amazon for Dumping Wikileaks