Match-Fixing in Esports: A German Criminal Law Perspective

Criminal Statutes Applicable to Esports Match-Fixing

Fraud (§ 263 StGB): The most fundamental criminal law tool against match-fixing is the offense of fraud, which in German law involves deceiving another to cause a financial loss. In a match-fixing scenario, fraud can arise if the manipulation causes bets to be paid out or accepted under false pretenses.

For example, if a player or team intentionally throws a match after bets have been placed on them, the betting operators and honest bettors are deceived into believing the contest is fair, leading to wrongful payouts – a classic fraud scenario. German prosecutors have used fraud charges in traditional sports match-fixing: notably, in the 2005 Hoyzer football scandal a referee admitted taking bribes to fix matches and was convicted of aiding and abetting fraud, sentenced to prison.

By analogy, an esports player who accepts a payoff to lose a match and enables accomplices to profit from bets could similarly be liable for fraud. The key elements are a deceptive arrangement (the secret fix) and a resulting monetary loss (the bookmaker or bettors losing money on rigged bets). As with any §263 case, prosecutors must prove intent to deceive and a concrete financial harm – which is usually clear when illicit betting profits are made off a fixed match. Even without betting, fraud might be considered if prize money or sponsorship is obtained under false pretenses, though betting-related fixes are the clearest fit for §263.

Bribery in Commercial Practice (§ 299 StGB): Another relevant law is §299 StGB, which criminalizes “Bestechlichkeit und Bestechung im geschäftlichen Verkehr” – bribery and acceptance of bribes in commercial business transactions. This provision, aimed at corruption in the private sector, prohibits employees or agents of a business from accepting or granting undue advantages that breach their duties or distort competition.

In a sports context, courts and scholars have viewed a sports competition as a sort of commercial enterprise, and players or referees as persons with duties toward their club or competition organizer. If an esports player (who is often an employee or contractor of a team or organization) accepts a payment to intentionally underperform, that bribe could be seen as inducing them to violate their duty to compete honestly, thus undermining fair competition.

For instance, a player paid to throw a tournament match is breaching their contractual and fiduciary duty to their team/tournament and giving an illicit advantage to the opposing side. This mirrors the elements of §299: an agent of a business (the player) accepting an undue advantage without the employer’s consent in exchange for acting against the employer’s interest (losing rather than trying to win).

Similarly, the act of offering or giving such a bribe to a player or team could be prosecuted under the same statute. The law’s purpose is to protect fair competition in business, and by extension it can protect the “business” of esports competitions from corrupt interference. Penalties under §299 range up to 3 years’ imprisonment (or fines) in ordinary cases, and higher (up to 5 years, or even 10 in especially serious cases) if aggravating circumstances like commercial-scale or repeated offenses (§300 StGB) are proven.

While §299 was not written with esports in mind, German authorities have considered it in past sports corruption cases. It provides a means to charge the act of bribery itself (the corrupt deal between fixers and players) even if, for some reason, a fraud charge for the betting aspect is difficult. In sum, commercial bribery law can catch the “supply side” of match-fixing – the paying and taking of kickbacks to throw matches – treating esports corruption as an issue of unfair trade practice within the industry.

Sports Betting Fraud & Competition Manipulation (§§ 265c and 265d StGB): In 2017, Germany introduced two sport-specific criminal offenses directly targeting match-fixing. Section 265c StGB, “Sportwettbetrug,” is sports betting fraud, and §265d StGB, “Manipulation von berufssportlichen Wettbewerben,” covers manipulation of professional sports competitions even apart from betting.

These laws were enacted to fill gaps in existing law and to explicitly criminalize match-fixing in sports, with the legislature emphasizing the need to protect the integrity of organized sport. Under §265c, it is a crime for an athlete, coach, or referee to conspire to fix a “competition of organized sports” in order to influence a public sports bet on that event. In essence, if someone involved in a sporting match accepts or offers a bribe to shape the result for betting gain, they face up to 3 years’ imprisonment (or up to 5 years in serious cases). See Germany-Chapter here.

Section 265d is a parallel offense for situations not involving bets: it criminalizes an athlete, coach, or official manipulating a “professional sports competition” (for example, throwing a game to affect standings or for a bribe unrelated to betting. Like §265c, it carries a maximum 3-year sentence in ordinary cases. Both provisions were clearly “made for football and traditional sports” in reaction to past scandals. They define their scope by referencing organized sports governance: a “competition of the organized sports” or a “professional sports competition” under these laws means an event organized or sanctioned by a national or international sport federation and conducted under that federation’s rules.

This definition is crucial when we turn to esports – because if an esports tournament does not fall under a recognized sport federation, it may not qualify as a “competition of organized sports” or a “professional sports competition” under §265c/d. In practice, major esports events are run by game publishers (e.g. Riot, Valve) or independent organizers, not by traditional sport governing bodies.

Moreover, esports is not formally recognized as “sport” by the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB) or lawmaking bodies (at least as of 2025), despite some debate on the topic. Therefore, a literal reading suggests that the new match-fixing offenses (§265c, §265d) do not automatically cover esports. Indeed, legal commentators note that these sections apply only to competitions held by or under endorsement of official sport organizations with universally binding rules – a criterion esports leagues typically do not meet.

Unless esports somehow falls under the statutory definition of sport (a contentious issue), a prosecuted esports fixer could argue that §§265c/d StGB are inapplicable. In short, traditional sports enjoy tailor-made criminal provisions against match-fixing, but esports currently exist in a gray area outside those specific definitions. This doesn’t mean match-fixing is legal in esports – it simply means prosecutors must rely on the more general statutes like fraud and commercial bribery described above, rather than the sports-fraud laws that a crooked soccer player or referee would face.

It’s worth noting that German lawmakers have begun to acknowledge esports in other legal contexts. For example, in a 2021 regulation under the lottery and betting law, esports competitions are explicitly deemed to be “sport” for betting purposes. This allowed licensed bookmakers to offer esports bets as a form of sports wagering. However, that administrative recognition does not automatically extend to criminal law definitions. Thus, until the Strafgesetzbuch’s wording or interpretation evolves, match-fixing in esports will be prosecuted under the general fraud and bribery laws – unless the esports event in question happens to be integrated into the structure of organized sports (a scenario that, at present, is rare or nonexistent in Germany).

Esports vs Traditional Sports: Legal Treatment of Match-Fixing

Germany’s criminal law approach to match-fixing has rapidly advanced in the realm of traditional sports, whereas for esports it remains partially uncharted. In traditional sports, the passage of the 2017 law (introducing §§265c/d StGB) was a landmark. It signaled that conspiring to fix a match is unequivocally a crime, with players, coaches, and referees now facing up to three years’ imprisonment (five in severe cases) for such conduct. The football authorities applauded this move, seeing it as an “important building block” to protect sports integrity. The law also gave police and prosecutors clearer powers – for instance, to conduct searches and surveillance in match-fixing investigations.

Before 2017, as discussed, prosecutors had to get creative with general laws. The Robert Hoyzer case is illustrative: Hoyzer, a Bundesliga referee, was involved in fixing several matches in 2004 by calling biased penalties and other acts in exchange for money from a betting syndicate. Because there was no sports-fraud statute at the time, he was prosecuted for conventional fraud (specifically, as an accomplice who helped deceive betting companies) and was convicted and jailed for 2 years 5 months.

Likewise, members of the betting ring (such as Ante Sapina, the scheme’s financier) were convicted of fraud. These cases proved that existing law could reach match-fixers, but also highlighted difficulties – fraud requires proving a deceived party and a financial loss; creative legal theories had to treat the act of staging a corrupt match as a “deception” upon bettors or bookmakers. With §§265c/d in place for sports, prosecutors no longer need to stretch concepts – a fix can be charged directly as the crime it is, without parsing who was tricked in a monetary exchange.

Esports, on the other hand, currently lacks a bespoke match-fixing law. The question often boils down to: Is esports considered “sport” under German law? If it were, then a match-fixing incident in an esports league might be prosecuted just like a football fix under §§265c or 265d. In practice, however, German authorities have not yet treated esports as falling under those provisions.

The German government and DOSB have historically been reluctant to recognize esports as a sport (often citing the lack of physical activity, etc.), though this stance has been softening as esports’ popularity soars. As a result, an esports match-fixing case in Germany would likely be handled under the general provisions we outlined (fraud, commercial bribery) rather than the sports-specific ones.

This is a notable discrepancy – effectively a legal gap where traditional sports have an extra layer of protection that esports currently doesn’t. For example, if two Counter-Strike teams collude to fix a match in a privately run tournament, the act clearly undermines competition integrity, but German prosecutors could not charge “sports betting fraud” unless the event is under a recognized sport federation, which is usually not the case. They could still charge fraud (if betting was involved) or bribery (for the corrupt deal), but not invoke the full symbolic weight of the sports integrity law. By contrast, if the same type of scheme happened in a Bundesliga soccer match, §265c/d would squarely apply.

Despite this formal difference, it’s important to emphasize to the esports community that match-fixing is by no means a legal gray area or minor infraction. Even without an “esports fraud” statute, the combination of general laws covers the misconduct. A fixer in esports is likely to face a comparable range of penalties as in traditional sports – potentially multiple years in prison – if caught. In fact, one could argue that German law’s general provisions are robust enough to punish esports corruption, but the lack of explicit inclusion of esports in §265c/d could pose interpretive issues until clarified.

There have been calls in legal scholarship to either recognize esports as sport for the purposes of these criminal laws or create an analogous statute for esports competitions, to ensure no enforcement hurdles exist. As esports continues to professionalize (with many players now full-time salaried competitors and esports tournaments filling arenas), the gap between esports and traditional sports in the eyes of the law is narrowing. We may see future legislation or court decisions bringing esports under the “integrity of sports” umbrella. For now, though, the comparison stands: traditional sports match-fixers face both general and sports-specific criminal liability, while esports fixers face general criminal liability – which is serious, but not purpose-tailored.

Case Examples of Match-Fixing: Traditional Sports vs Esports

Traditional Sports Cases: Germany’s history provides cautionary tales that underline why match-fixing is criminalized. Apart from the aforementioned Hoyzer case in football, a larger European match-fixing scandal was exposed in 2009-2011 (often dubbed the “Bochum” case, after the city where prosecutors led the investigation). In that scheme, an international syndicate bribed dozens of players and officials in football matches across Europe (including Germany’s lower leagues and other countries’ leagues) to fix outcomes and profit from bets. German authorities worked with Europol to indict the perpetrators, and German courts convicted several under fraud charges (since this was pre-2017). These events were a driving force for Germany to strengthen its laws.

It’s notable that even outside Germany, match-fixing in sports has led to criminal consequences that German law now mirrors. For instance, in Italy’s 2006 “Calciopoli” scandal and subsequent soccer betting scandals, and in numerous Asian football match-fixing cases, perpetrators have faced prosecution. The international consensus is that match-fixing is akin to fraud/bribery and is treated as such. Dagmar Freitag, the chair of the Bundestag’s sports committee, noted that Germany’s new anti-fixing law attracted international attention and that many countries saw it as a model – but she also acknowledged that national laws alone have limits when the fixers operate transnationally.

Esports Cases: In competitive gaming, unfortunately, match-fixing has already surfaced around the world – and while Germany has yet to witness a major public prosecution of an esports fix, international cases illustrate the criminality and the possibility that German law could be engaged if circumstances connect to Germany. One of the earliest notorious incidents occurred in South Korea’s StarCraft scene. In 2010, a StarCraft: Brood War match-fixing ring was uncovered, involving a famous pro player Ma “sAviOr” Jae-Yoon among others.

Again in 2015, another scandal hit StarCraft II: several players (including a world champion) and a coach were arrested and later convicted for fixing matches in exchange for money from gambling brokers. These Korean esports fixers received prison sentences and lifetime bans. For example, Lee “Life” Seung-hyun – the 2014 StarCraft II world champion – was sentenced to 18 months in prison in 2016 for match-fixing two matches for roughly USD 60,000 in bribes. These cases, prosecuted under South Korean law, demonstrate that esports is not a lawless realm – if a country has the legal tools, it will put even star gamers behind bars for fixing outcomes.

In the Western esports scene, a well-known episode was the North American CS:GO betting scandal of 2014, often referred to by the name of the team “iBUYPOWER.” Members of that professional Counter-Strike team conspired to throw a match in an online tournament after placing bets (through intermediaries) on their own loss. While this occurred in the U.S. and no criminal charges were ultimately filed there at the time, it led to indefinite competitive bans for the players once it came to light.

The case raised awareness about esports betting fraud globally. Hypothetically, if such a scheme were hatched or had effects in Germany (for instance, if the match was on a platform based in Germany or German bettors were defrauded), German authorities could pursue it as a fraud case. There is precedent for cross-border gambling fraud cases being tried in Germany when the betting company or some victims are German – the jurisdiction can extend to crimes committed abroad that produce effects in Germany, especially under fraud statutes if a German entity was deceived.

A more recent real case occurred in Australia in 2019, marking that country’s first criminal esports investigation. There, a group of six individuals (young CS:GO players) were caught allegedly coordinating to throw matches in a small tournament and betting on those losses. The Victoria police, acting on a tip from a betting operator, arrested the players. They were accused of offenses under Australian law akin to engaging in corrupt conduct with respect to betting outcomes.

The players face up to 10 years in prison if convicted. This Australian case underscores a few points: esports betting is on law enforcement’s radar, and collaboration between betting companies and police can expose fixers. It also shows that countries are willing to apply existing gambling-fraud laws to esports (Australia did not have a special “esports law” – they used their general sports integrity and gambling statutes).

So far, Germany has not publicly prosecuted an esports match-fixing case, but that may simply be a matter of time and detection. Esports is hugely popular in Germany (Berlin even hosted the 2015 League of Legends World Championship finals, for example), and bets are placed on esports matches by German punters through both licensed sportsbooks and unregulated online markets. A match-fixing scandal with a German nexus could arise in various ways: a German esports organization’s match is fixed, German players are involved in an international fixing conspiracy, or German bettors are defrauded by a fix in an overseas match. In any of those scenarios, German prosecutors could step in.

Given the existing legal toolkit, they could charge fraud (if German bettors or betting firms were affected financially) and/or commercial bribery (if a German team’s player was bribed to betray his team). If the esports event happened to be under the auspices of an international sports federation (imagine, say, if esports were part of an International Olympic Committee event or a DOSB-recognized championship), then §§265c/d might directly apply – but as discussed, that is a rare case at present.

It’s also conceivable that German authorities could prosecute non-Germans for an esports fix that took place largely abroad if the betting losses occurred on German soil (for instance, if a German bookmaker took bets on a fixed match). Germany has fairly broad jurisdiction in fraud cases when domestic interests are harmed.

In summary, real-world cases have shown that esports match-fixing is treated with the same gravity as match-fixing in traditional sports. Players in Korea have gone to jail; players in the U.S. have had careers ruined; and players in Australia are facing lengthy sentences. Would-be fixers in Germany should not assume any immunity – even if the laws don’t say “esports” by name, the conduct is squarely criminal. The esports industry, too, is increasingly vigilant: the Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) has been actively investigating and issuing bans for match-fixing, and they cooperate with law enforcement where crimes are found. We are likely to see more prosecutions globally as the cooperation between esports bodies, betting companies, and police grows.

Enforcement Challenges in the Esports Context

Tackling match-fixing in esports via criminal law presents unique challenges, many of them stemming from esports’ cross-border and digital nature. While the laws on the books in Germany can punish an offender, gathering the evidence and exercising jurisdiction can be difficult when the wrongdoing spans multiple countries.

German officials have openly acknowledged that national laws have limits against what is fundamentally an international phenomenon: “Doping and betting fraud and match fixing also have an international dimension, which we cannot combat with our national laws alone,” as Bundestag Sports Committee Chair Dagmar Freitag observed. This rings especially true for esports, where a single online match might involve players in Sweden and Russia, a tournament organizer in the US, a betting server in Malta, and viewers (or bettors) worldwide.

Jurisdiction and Cross-Border Enforcement: German criminal jurisdiction generally covers acts committed on German territory or acts elsewhere that produce effects in Germany. With online esports events, determining the location of the “crime” is complex – is it where the players played from? The server location? The betting company’s location? Or the residence of those defrauded? Any of those could potentially anchor jurisdiction. In practice, German authorities would need cooperation from foreign counterparts to investigate an esports fixing case that isn’t entirely domestic.

This means working through international legal assistance treaties to obtain chat logs, betting records, bank transfers, etc., from other countries. If, say, a German gambler lost money betting on a fixed match in an Asian tournament, German prosecutors might open a fraud case but then have to rely on the other country to extradite or charge the fixers themselves. Unified frameworks (like the Macolin Convention on sports manipulation, to which many European states including Germany are signatories) are starting to facilitate cross-border investigations, but these are still geared more toward traditional sports.

Digital Evidence: Much of the evidence in esports fixing is digital – communications on Discord/WhatsApp between fixers, transaction records for payments (which might be in cryptocurrency or even in-game virtual items), and betting data. Ensuring admissibility and reliability of such evidence requires cybercrime expertise. German enforcement agencies have been adapting, but it’s an evolving field. Unlike a physical meeting with an envelope of cash (as might happen in a football fix), esports fixes could involve anonymous online interactions and payments via Bitcoin or skins (tradable in-game items) to avoid money trails. Tracking these requires technical investigation methods and often the cooperation of game publishers or platforms (for chat logs, account info).

Lack of Central Governance in Esports: Traditional sports often have well-established governance structures (federations, player unions, etc.) that actively monitor and report suspicious behavior. In Germany, organizations like the DFB (German Football Association) have integrity officers liaising with law enforcement. Esports is more fragmented. Each game title is its own ecosystem, often governed by the publisher (a private company) or third-party tournament circuits. There isn’t a single German esports federation with authority over all esports competitions (though there is a German Esports Federation, its role is mostly promotional/organizational, and it’s not universally recognized as a governing body).

This fragmentation can make it harder to detect patterns of match-fixing – information is siloed between different games and organizers. It also means there’s no standardized way in esports to report suspicious betting to authorities (whereas in football, for example, betting monitoring companies flag odd betting patterns to sports bodies and police). That said, bodies like ESIC are filling some of this gap by acting as a centralized watchdog for multiple esports. ESIC has even referred cases to law enforcement (for instance, they have worked with the FBI on North American cases, and presumably would with German police if a case touched Germany).

Regulatory Recognition: Another enforcement challenge is the aforementioned uncertainty about whether esports is “sport” legally. If someday a defense lawyer argues that his client’s esports match-fixing cannot be prosecuted under, say, §265c StGB because esports isn’t sport, a court might have to decide that issue. Until then, prosecutors might shy away from invoking §§265c/d to avoid that legal debate, sticking to safer charges like fraud. This could slightly complicate prosecutions – for example, §265c is actually somewhat easier to prove in a betting-fix case than §263 fraud, because §265c does not require pinpointing a specific deceived victim or proving a monetary loss (it criminalizes the agreement and the illicit advantage as such).

If esports can’t use §265c, prosecutors lose that convenience and must go the fraud route, which demands demonstrating the betting company was deceived about the match’s integrity (a provable but extra element). Thus, ironically, not classifying esports as sport could make enforcement harder even though the same conduct is being punished. In the long run, clear legislative guidance – either adding esports explicitly into the sports fraud statutes, or creating parallel eSports fraud provisions – would help enforcement and remove any ambiguity.

International Consistency: Esports is global, and fixers might seek out the weakest link – jurisdictions with lax enforcement or no legal prohibitions. If, for instance, a country has no law against fixing an esports match, fixers might operate from there to target matches elsewhere. Consistent adoption of match-fixing laws worldwide is therefore important. Germany’s approach is quite strict, and many European countries likewise have updated laws; but some regions might not yet treat esports corruption as a priority. Cross-border enforcement will always be only as strong as its weakest link. German authorities, when dealing with international cases, must hope their counterparts share the will to crack down on the issue.

Preventative Measures: Enforcement is not only reactive. Part of meeting the challenge is prevention and education. Tournament organizers in Germany (like ESL, which is originally a German company) have started to implement anti-corruption codes, player education about gambling rules, and even contract clauses that impose penalties for match manipulation. While these are not criminal measures, they contribute to the ecosystem’s integrity and complement law enforcement.

Additionally, legalizing and regulating esports betting (which Germany has done to an extent by including esports under its sports betting regulations) can aid enforcement – regulated bookmakers are likelier to report suspicious betting patterns than black-market operators. Indeed, the Australian case was cracked because a regulated betting site noticed something fishy and tipped off police. In Germany, licensed sportsbooks are subject to oversight and would presumably alert authorities if odd betting on an esports match occurred. The more the esports betting market is watched, the greater the chances of catching fixers early.

Conclusion: Towards Clear and Effective Enforcement

Match-fixing in esports is unequivocally criminally illegal under German law, even if not mentioned by name in the statutes. Between the general provisions on fraud (§263 StGB) and commercial bribery (§299 StGB), and the strong public policy against corruption in sports, anyone attempting to rig an esports match for profit faces severe consequences.

While Germany’s specialized match-fixing offenses (§§265c, 265d StGB) were originally crafted for traditional sports and hinge on the definition of “sport,” this should not lull esports insiders into a false sense of security – fixing a video game competition for betting gain can and will be prosecuted just like fixing a football match. The treatment under criminal law is converging: the same acts (paying or accepting a bribe to throw a game, or otherwise manipulating an outcome) are viewed as an affront to fair competition and trust, whether on a soccer pitch or a digital battlefield.

That said, the legal comparison has highlighted a need for continued development. Esports is approaching the stature of traditional sports in economic terms and public interest, and the law is beginning to catch up. We may anticipate in the near future either judicial recognition that “sports” in statutes like §265c StGB can be interpreted to include esports, or legislative action explicitly naming esports.

Such clarity would simplify prosecutions and close any arguable loopholes. It would also send a strong symbolic message equating esports integrity with sports integrity – a message that many in the esports industry itself already embrace. In the meantime, industry stakeholders should err on the side of caution: assume that all anti-match-fixing laws apply and conduct robust internal integrity measures.

Finally, effective enforcement will require global teamwork. Esports transcend borders, and so must the fight against match-fixing. German law enforcement will continue collaborating with international partners to investigate and extradite offenders when esports fixes touch Germany. Tournaments hosted on German soil or involving German teams will be under the watch of both regulators and police for any signs of match manipulation. The recent laws empowering surveillance and searches in sports cases could, for instance, be used if there is suspicion of an esports fix occurring at a German LAN event.

The message to players and coaches is clear: Don’t do it. The short-term gain of a thrown match is not worth the risk of a criminal record, jail time, and the lasting infamy that comes with being a match-fixer (not to mention a lifetime esports ban by the organizers). Upholding competitive integrity is vital for the future of esports, and German law provides mechanisms to punish those who undermine it – just as it does in the world of traditional sports.