Table of contents

Approximate read time: 15 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate a motion to take note of the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (the Macolin Convention) on 15 September 2026. The debate is sponsored by Lord Johnson of Lainston (Conservative), chair of the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. The committee has been scrutinising the convention.[1]

1. Key points

  • The Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (Macolin Convention) aims to prevent, detect and sanction match-fixing and related sports corruption, particularly where this is linked to sports betting.
  • The UK signed the convention in 2018 and the government intends to ratify it this year. The current government has said the UK already meets the convention’s requirements through existing legislation and operational arrangements.
  • The government argues that ratification would strengthen international cooperation, facilitate information sharing and allow the UK to participate fully in the convention’s governance structures.
  • The House of Lords International Agreements Committee has taken evidence on the convention. Witnesses were generally supportive of ratification and emphasised the importance of international cooperation in responding to online betting markets and organised crime operating across jurisdictions.
  • Evidence to the committee highlighted changing risks, including the growth of online betting products and prediction market platforms, as well as expansion of sports manipulation into more types of sport.
  • In a report published on 11 September 2026, the committee welcomed the convention as the first binding international instrument specifically designed to protect the integrity of sports competitions from risks of manipulation. It also welcomed the government’s intention to ratify the convention. However, it added that ratification alone would not solve the issue of the manipulation of sports competitions and that the convention would not address the existence of unregulated betting markets in third states.

2. Manipulation of sports competitions

Sports competition manipulation can undermine confidence in both sport and betting markets, while generating significant illegal profits for those involved.[2]

The manipulation of sports competitions includes any act in which an involved person, such as a competitor, coach or official, changes an event or outcome to remove its unpredictability.[3] An example could be deliberately losing a competition (match-fixing), or intentionally getting carded in football.

This is done either for financial reward, through the placing of bets on the predetermined outcome, or for a benefit such as gaining promotion, avoiding relegation, or getting an easier draw in a future competition.

The Gambling Commission has said it receives around 600 reports annually about concerns of match-fixing or potential corruption associated with sport.[4] It is estimated that less than one percent of sporting events are affected by manipulation.[5] However, large bets placed on them mean this represents millions in illegal gains.

3. Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions

In 2014, the Council of Europe produced ‘The Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions’ (the Macolin Convention). The convention was intended to address the increasingly international nature of sports manipulation by promoting cooperation between governments, sports bodies and betting regulators.

Its main objectives are to:[6]

  • prevent, detect and sanction national or transnational manipulation of national and international sports competitions
  • promote national and international cooperation against manipulation of sports competitions between the public authorities concerned, as well as with organisations involved in sports and in sports betting

Essentially it seeks to end match-fixing and similar fraud, particularly linked to betting.

The convention requires signatories to have a range of measures in place, including:[7]

  • coordination of sports organisations, competition organisers and sports betting operators to cooperate on identifying risks and combating manipulation of sports competitions
  • supporting the above organisations to have relevant procedures, rules and disciplinary systems in place, where appropriate backed by legislative measures
  • identifying a national platform for cooperation and information sharing

The convention came into force in 2019, after it was ratified by five countries including three Council of Europe members.[8] It is open to Council of Europe member states as well as other states due to the global nature of sports competition and related risks. The UK is a member of the Council of Europe.[9]

The UK signed the convention in 2018 but has not yet ratified it.[10]

The government laid the treaty in Parliament on 4 June 2026. The current government’s position is that ratification would strengthen international cooperation rather than require significant changes to domestic law.

The government’s explanatory memorandum, published alongside the laid convention, said ratification had been delayed due to “competing priorities” including Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic.[11]

The government said the UK can comply with the convention using existing domestic legislation and operational arrangements:

The UK has a strong existing framework for addressing the manipulation of sports competitions, including criminal offences, regulatory oversight and established cooperation between stakeholders. Ratification of the convention formalises and strengthens these arrangements and enables the UK to participate fully in the convention’s governance structures, including the Convention Follow-up Committee.[12]

The government listed relevant legislation including the Gambling Act 2005, the Fraud Act 2006, the Bribery Act 2010 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It said operational delivery was provided through existing structures, including the Gambling Commission, the Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU) and the Sports Betting Integrity Forum (SBIF), which fulfils the convention’s requirements to have a national platform for coordination.[13]

The Gambling Commission is Great Britain’s gambling regulator and licensing body.[14]

The SBIU is a unit within the Gambling Commission which deals with reports of betting-related corruption.[15] It works with the betting industry, sport governing bodies, and the police to understand potential threats and help protect the integrity of sport and betting.

The SBIF is a forum for coordinating the delivery of the UK’s ‘Sport and sports betting integrity action plan’ including representatives from sport governing bodies, betting operators, sport and betting trade associations, law enforcement and gambling regulation.[16]

4. House of Lords International Agreements Committee scrutiny of the convention

Parliament usually has 21 sitting days to scrutinise an international agreement under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG), known as the ‘objection period’. The original end of the objection period would therefore have been 13 July 2026. However, on 17 June 2026 the House of Lords International Agreements Committee requested additional time so it could take evidence relevant to the convention.[17] The government agreed to extend the scrutiny period to 12 October 2026.[18]

4.1 Evidence sessions

In oral evidence sessions on 9, 14 and 21 July 2026, witnesses were generally in favour of ratification of the convention.[19] They agreed international cooperation was crucial, particularly in the context of global online betting and organised crime working across jurisdictions.

For example, Dr Madalina Diaconu, an associate professor at the University of Neuchâtel involved in the drafting of the convention, said there had been an increase in competition manipulation due to globalised, online exchanges.[20] Dr Diaconu said the convention and international cooperation were necessary due to the involvement of international organised crime syndicates, some of which are laundering the proceeds of other crimes such as trafficking.[21]

Karen Moorhouse, chief executive of the International Tennis Integrity Agency, set out the global scope of the issue:

[…] matches were played in one jurisdiction, players were from another jurisdiction, the bets were placed in a third jurisdiction, and, to the extent that we knew who they were, the corrupters were in yet another jurisdiction.[22]

John Pierce, director of enforcement and intelligence at the Gambling Commission, agreed on the importance of international coordination. Mr Pierce said ratification of the convention would “really strengthen what already is a solid framework” of international cooperation, speed up information sharing, and make sure the UK has “a seat at the table” to drive further change.[23]

Looking at developing issues, Nigel Mawer, co-chair of the Sports Betting Integrity Forum, observed that a wider number of sports were having betting products offered on their events, and more bets were available on different tiers of sports, including lower leagues.[24] Mr Mawer said that the SBIF had been taking an approach in line with the Macolin Convention since 2018.[25]

Moses Swaibu, a former footballer now campaigning for sports integrity following his experience of match-fixing, also spoke to the committee. Mr Swaibu was in favour of ratification and emphasised the importance of strong governance frameworks and better education about sports integrity.[26]

The committee also heard from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Simon Mason, deputy director of sport, reiterated that the government had assessed the UK met the convention’s standards.[27] Mr Mason mentioned the support provided by UK Sport and Sport England to sports governing bodies. Speaking about moving forward, Emma Floyd, DCMS director of sport and gambling, said:

[…] we have more to do on the enforcement side, working together through what that looks like going forward. There is a lot of work that national governing bodies are doing, but that often means you are catching the poor athlete who has probably been exploited in some way. Getting to the people at the top of the tree is much more challenging.[28]

Witnesses for the DCMS also said the Gambling Commission uses a range of enforcement tools to tackle illegal gambling, beyond prosecutions.[29] For example, it issues notices ordering operators to stop unlawful activities, reports illegal gambling websites to search engines for removal, and works with sports governing bodies that can suspend or ban people involved in wrongdoing. Prosecutions are relatively uncommon because they require a high level of evidence. The government said it has also provided an extra £26mn to the Gambling Commission through the Illegal Gambling Taskforce to strengthen this enforcement work.[30]

A key future challenge identified during scrutiny was how sports integrity frameworks should respond to new forms of online betting activity. The committee considered the convention in the context of changes to online gambling, including the emergence of prediction market platforms.[31] These are online exchanges where users trade contracts on the likelihood of outcomes of future events. For example, one might hold a contract on a footballer getting a yellow card in a certain game. Unlike traditional bookmakers, prices are determined by the behaviour of market participants and are intended to reflect the perceived probability of an outcome. DCMS said the wording of the convention was future-proof.

4.2 Report

The committee published its report on 11 September 2026:

It concluded:

We welcome the convention as the first binding international instrument specifically designed to protect the integrity of sports competitions from risks of manipulation.

We support the convention’s pragmatic approach and welcome the government’s intention to ratify the convention. We note that UK ratification is expected to create meaningful opportunities and benefits for the UK and its international partners, and that the costs and burdens presented by ratification are expected to be limited.

However, we also note that ratification alone will not solve the issue of the manipulation of sports competitions and that the convention will not address the existence of unregulated betting markets in third states.

We report the convention to the House for special attention and debate, together with our comments [in the report]. We believe that a debate is merited in light of the convention’s legal significance as the first international legal instrument dealing specifically with the manipulation of sports competitions and its political significance due to the size of the UK sports sector and betting markets and the role the UK plays in shaping international standards in this area.[32]

5. Ratification in other countries

A total of 43 countries are signatories to the Macolin Convention, of which 17 have ratified at time of writing.[33]

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has argued that challenges from Malta over how illegal sports betting should be defined have stalled ratification of the convention in some countries.[34]

A number of online gambling operators are licensed in Malta. Malta had taken the regulatory approach of a ‘point of supply’ model, with operators providing services internationally in line with Maltese regulations, rather than seeking local licenses and being subject to local enforcement.[35]

The challenges from Malta were cited as the source of “institutional deadlock” for other EU states.[36]

PACE also noted that sports integrity was comparatively low on the political agenda of many countries.

6. Read more

Image by Yuval Zukerman on Unsplash.

References

  1. House of Lords International Agreements Committee, ‘Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions: Non-inquiry session’, accessed 11 September 2026. Return to text
  2. Sports Betting Integrity Forum, ‘Sport and sports betting integrity action plan’, 2021. Return to text
  3. As above, p 4. Return to text
  4. House of Lords International Agreements Committee, ‘Uncorrected oral evidence: Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions’, 14 July 2026. Return to text
  5. Europol, ‘Sports corruption’, accessed 1 September 2026. Return to text
  6. Council of Europe, ‘Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions’, 18 September 2014, p 3. Return to text
  7. As above, pp 4–14. Return to text
  8. Council of Europe, ‘Chart of signatures and ratifications of treaty 215’, 1 September 2026. Return to text
  9. Council of Europe, ‘United Kingdom’, accessed 1 September 2026. Return to text
  10. UK Parliament, ‘Treaties: Council of Europe Convention, adopted at Magglingen/Macolin on 18 September 2014, on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions’, accessed 1 September 2026. Return to text
  11. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, ‘Explanatory memorandum on the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (Macolin Convention)’, 4 June 2026. Return to text
  12. As above, pp 1–2. Return to text
  13. As above, p 2. Return to text
  14. Gambling Commission, ‘What we do’, accessed 3 September 2026. Return to text
  15. Gambling Commission, ‘Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU)’, updated 16 February 2026. Return to text
  16. Sports Betting Integrity Forum, ‘Addressing the risks of match-fixing and the threats to sports betting integrity’, accessed 1 September 2026. Return to text
  17. House of Lords International Agreements Committee, ‘Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions [MS No.7/2026]: CRAG extension deadline request’, 17 June 2026. Return to text
  18. House of Commons, ‘Written statement: Macolin Convention (HCWS284)’, 16 July 2026. Return to text
  19. House of Lords International Agreements Committee, ‘Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions: Non-inquiry session’, accessed 11 September 2026. Return to text
  20. House of Lords International Agreements Committee, ‘Corrected oral evidence: Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions’, 9 July 2026, p 4. Return to text
  21. As above, p 5. Return to text
  22. House of Lords International Agreements Committee, ‘Corrected oral evidence: Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions’, 14 July 2026, p 5. Return to text
  23. As above, p 4. Return to text
  24. As above, p 1. Return to text
  25. As above, p 8. Return to text
  26. House of Lords International agreements Committee, ‘Corrected oral evidence: Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions’, 9 July 2026, pp 2–4. Return to text
  27. House of Lords International agreements Committee, ‘Corrected oral evidence: Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions’, 21 July 2026, p 2. Return to text
  28. As above, p 10. Return to text
  29. As above, p 12. Return to text
  30. As above. Return to text
  31. As above, p 10. Return to text
  32. House of Lords International Agreements Committee, ‘Scrutiny of international agreements: Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, 11 September 2026, HL Paper 54 of session 2026–27, p 20. Return to text
  33. Council of Europe, ‘Chart of signatures and ratifications of treaty 215’, 1 September 2026. Return to text
  34. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ‘Time to act: Europe’s political response to fighting the manipulation of sports competitions’, 12 October 2020. Return to text
  35. IGA Group, ‘Malta’s article 56A dispute (updated)’, 14 July 2025. Return to text
  36. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ‘Time to act: Europe’s political response to fighting the manipulation of sports competitions’, 12 October 2020. Return to text