Sport manipulation, particularly match fixing, has become a serious threat to the integrity of sport. Match fixing can be related to direct or indirect economic benefits and to cases of betting or not betting. Matters relating to sport and athletes are subject to the jurisdiction of disciplinary and arbitration courts and therefore immune from state control. This principle is known as lex sportive (global sports law) and derives from the doctrine of the autonomy of sport. Under this doctrine, SGBs are a private regulatory body outside the scope of state regulation. Therefore, SGBs produce a distinct and separate body of law. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThis is demonstrated by the first case at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), FK Pobeda et al. See UEFA, where match fixing was sanctioned because the court allowed the burden of proof only to the extent of a comfortable satisfaction with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Following this case, the SGB made it a condition that athletes submit to a code of conduct before entering this field. The Kaneria v The England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd case is just another example where the principle of the autonomy of sport has been respected. However, such 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 have shown concern in curbing the principle of sports autonomy through allowing state intervention and the creation of an independent sports body other than the SGB. It has been argued that the problems presented by modern sports professionalism cannot be solved by the simple application of the principle of autonomy by SGBs and require political and state interference. Increasing corruption on the ground requires a collaborative force of both states and SGBs. Illegitimate financial gain through match fixing often sometimes involves a criminal element within the criminal laws of a particular country. For example, corruption has been defined by Transparency International as obtaining preferential treatment in exchange for a bribe. The crime of corruption is applied in match-fixing cases in many countries such as Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland and France. In addition to corruption, crimes such as money laundering, financial fraud, organized crime and extortion are also addressed. Considering the increase in criminal elements in match-fixing, bills have been passed in various countries to combat criminal offenses in sports match-fixing. Furthermore, under Articles 7 and 8 of the Finnish Criminal Code, private corruption is equated with business corruption, punishable by a fine or imprisonment. The French penal code defines active corruption as the act of offering or exchanging gifts for any sporting activity, therefore comparable to sports gambling. 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 instances of betting or not betting, it primarily revolves around gaining an unfair monetary advantage in one way or another. It will always include elements of corruption, fraud, cheating, money laundering, etc. Therefore, in recent years, a.