Sadie Goyins – Even at the pinnacle of athletic achievement, the Olympic Games are not immune to gamesmanship. In particular, the Winter Olympics condense years of preparation into seconds-long performances watched globally, and a single slip, jump, or call determines not only medals, but reputations and national pride. When integrity falters on this stage, it does so dramatically with the whole world watching.
Olympic history shows that competition manipulation takes many forms, ranging from strategic underperformance to direct betting-related violations, and governing bodies have repeatedly been forced to respond as these risks evolve. The risks of strategic manipulation became impossible to ignore at the 2012 London Summer Olympics, when the women’s badminton tournament turned into a public scandal. Eight athletes were disqualified after deliberately losing matches to secure more favorable draws. The scandal resulted in removal of top-seeded pairs from China, Indonesia, and South Korea, showing that even Olympians may attempt to game competition when incentives collide. Four years later, another noteworthy incident unfolded at the 2016 Rio Games. The International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Integrity Betting Intelligence System (IBIS) detected that three Irish boxers had placed small wagers on Olympic events, each totaling less than £200. Despite the relatively small sums, the consequences were severe: the athletes’ betting accounts were suspended, disciplinary investigations were launched, and each was found to have violated the Olympic Code. Together, these incidents highlight the range of integrity threats that the IOC now seeks to prevent using more proactive monitoring systems.
With the 2026 Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics underway, the IOC has expanded its monitoring efforts to address the realities of modern sports wagering and protect competition integrity. The IOC recently announced a partnership with Italian authorities to track betting activity during the Games using coordinated intelligence systems and real-time information sharing. These initiatives reflect a broader shift in sports betting governance toward stricter, proactive oversight. As sports betting becomes widely legalized and increasingly digital, regulators and sports governing bodies are moving away from relying primarily on after-the-fact investigations and instead emphasizing continuous monitoring, mandatory reporting of suspicious activity, and cooperation between private betting operators and law enforcement. This modern model prioritizes prevention and rapid detection rather than subsequent punishment alone.
For decades, legal sports betting has coexisted with concerns about match-fixing, spot-fixing, and other forms of competition manipulation. In particular, spot-fixing, where an athlete or official intentionally manipulates a discrete aspect of performance rather than final outcome, brings difficulty for regulators because it only affects narrow betting markets and leaves results unharmed. While professional U.S. leagues such as the NFL, NBA, and MLB face persistent integrity risks due to long seasons and high-value wagering markets, Olympic competition has historically presented fewer betting-related scandals.
Many Olympic athletes rely on modest stipends and medal bonuses from their national committees rather than professional salaries. For example, the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee pays $37,500 for a gold medal, $22,500 for silver, and $15,000 for bronze, and many athletes earn less than $15,000 annually from training and competition support. These amounts are relatively small compared to professional league salaries. This financial context creates an integrity concern because even relatively small financial incentives or betting opportunities can bring heavy influence in a short-term, high-pressure environment for athletes. The brief duration of the Games also heightens the stakes of integrity enforcement itself. Unlike professional leagues that can investigate suspicious betting activity over an entire season, the IOC must assess potential match- or spot-fixing in real time, while competitions are underway and betting markets remain open. Decisions to suspend wagering or intervene following alerts must be made quickly, often before a full investigation is possible. These rapid decisions heighten legal risks on all sides. Betting operators face regulatory liability if they fail to report suspicious activity or continue offering markets linked to manipulation, while premature market suspensions or voided wagers can trigger consumer complaints, contractual disputes, or licensing scrutiny from gaming regulators. Athletes and teams may also challenge provisional sanctions through arbitration, arguing violations of due process or disciplinary rules. As a result, regulators, operators, and sporting bodies must balance integrity protection against contractual obligations, administrative law requirements, and procedural fairness for athletes under significant time pressure.
Despite Olympic betting integrity historically receiving less scholarly and regulatory attention than professional sports, the IOC recognizes that betting markets exist for Olympic events and that advanced monitoring systems are necessary for detecting suspicious activity. Through IBIS, the IOC gathers betting data and alerts from bookmakers and regulators worldwide to identify irregular wagering patterns. The IOC’s latest initiative established a Joint Integrity Unit (JIU) in collaboration with Italian law enforcement and sports disciplinary bodies. During the Milan-Cortina Games, the JIU will continuously track betting markets by reviewing thousands of real-time wagers as events occur.
This monitoring model is not merely operational; it is closely tied to legal compliance. In regulated betting jurisdictions, licensed operators are typically required to report suspicious wagering activity and cooperate with integrity investigations as a condition of their gaming licenses. IBIS alerts can therefore trigger mandatory reporting obligations, regulatory inquiries, or temporary market suspensions under national gambling laws. Likewise, information shared with law enforcement may support fraud or corruption investigations where manipulation is suspected. The IOC’s emphasis on early detection and rapid response reflects a legal environment in which failure to monitor, report, or act on suspicious betting activity can expose operators and regulators to licensing penalties, enforcement actions, and contractual disputes with bettors.
Unlike traditional enforcement systems that rely primarily on statutory prohibitions and after-the-fact criminal investigation, Olympic betting integrity is enforced largely through private governance mechanisms rooted in licensing rules and contractual agreements. While criminal statutes typically address conduct such as fraud, bribery, or illegal gambling only after manipulation has occurred, the Olympic model operates preventively. Betting operators must comply with integrity provisions written into gaming licenses, supplier agreements, and participation rules, which require continuous monitoring and immediate reporting of suspicious activity even when no crime has yet been proven.
These mechanisms combine real-time data sharing, monitoring technologies, and contractual obligations among operators, regulators, and governing bodies. IBIS illustrates this framework by aggregating wagering data to detect irregular patterns and triggering compliance obligations before a statutory violation is established. Operators may be required to restrict betting markets, flag customer accounts, preserve records, and notify regulators and event organizers when irregularities appear. As a result, safeguarding integrity functions not only as legal compliance but also as structured data governance, in which betting operators share information about wagering patterns, account activity, behavioral history, and event-specific betting trends to identify competitions at risk of manipulation.
The IOC’s approach is comparable to other regulated sportsbooks in major markets. In the U.S. and Europe, licensed operators collaborate with regulators to monitor wagering activity and maintain public confidence. In Great Britain, for example, licensed operators must report unusual betting patterns to the Betting Integrity Support Unit, which coordinates with event organizers and governing bodies to address potential risks. Regulatory frameworks increasingly impose affirmative duties to monitor and report, exposing operators to investigations, regulation infractions, licensing penalties, or civil liability. Even when no manipulation is proven, operators can still face consequences for failing to follow required procedures. Regulators may find that a sportsbook failed to monitor activity adequately, did not report suspicious wagers, or allowed betting to continue after warning signs appeared. These compliance failures alone can result in fines, licensing action, or disputes with bettors and sports governing bodies.
Recent scandals in professional sports illustrate differences as well. In 2025, the MLB restricted certain prop bets following investigations into bribery and wire-fraud involving allegations of player-manipulated outcomes. The NBA faced similar scrutiny among investigations into irregular betting tied to individual player performance. In contrast, the IOC seeks to prevent manipulation in Olympic events before it occurs by combining real-time monitoring and compliance obligations with international coordination. As global betting markets expand, greater harmonization between reporting requirements and integrity standards is likely to follow. Ultimately, the IOC’s integrity initiatives for the 2026 Winter Olympics signal a broader transformation in sports betting governance, highlighting that compliance, rather than solely criminal enforcement, is now central to integrity regulation. For betting operators, monitoring and reporting obligations bring significant legal risks. For regulators and sports administrators, the Olympic framework highlights the growing function of proactive monitoring, data-driven oversight, and rapid response governance. As legal sports betting continues to intersect with global events, these compliance-based models are likely to shape integrity regulation well beyond the Olympics.
