The UFC is back in the firing line after the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) banned Tabcorp from taking bets during the record breaking UFC 193 which was held at Etihad Stadium in Melbourne on the 15th November, 2015.
As reported by The Sydney Morning Herald a commission spokeswoman confirmed it had prevented Tabcorp from taking bets on any fights at UFC 193 amid allegations that the sport was “vulnerable to corruption and money laundering by organised criminals.” This is the first time the VCGLR has refused an official request to allow betting on a sporting event, taking a hard stance on the UFC, stating that the promotion “does not have appropriate policies or measures in place as required by Victoria’s gambling laws.” Despite denying the application by Tabcorp, which is currently the only betting agency controlled by the VCGLR, the commission cannot refuse interstate or international gaming operators from targeting punters in Victoria, an issue that is currently under parliamentary review.
UFC Executive, Tom Wright, has been on the PR trail in recent months to lift the cage ban in Western Australia and spoke out in light of the allegations asserting that the UFC’s global compliance unit dealt with “each and every complaint,” and furthermore ensured that all competitors were required to sign a code of conduct which is strictly enforced. Despite the UFC having staged hundreds of events on multiple continents, without a hint of corruption, the Sporting Integrity Intelligence Unit, which was established in 2013, believes that mixed martial arts is exposed to a heightened risk of match fixing.
“Any sport where there are two people competing against each other and where a betting agency is taking bets, is open to corruption. The risk of corruption increases where the betting agency operates offshore and is not under the regulatory environment of the VCGLR,” the Victorian Police Spokeswoman said.
It is unknown at this time whether conclusive fraud data, or insider information, formed the basis of the ban.
