2026 оны хөлбөмбөгийн ДАШТ-ий үеэр мөрийтэй холбоотой эргэлзээтэй үйлдлүүд илэрлээ

An international advisory body has raised seven notices relating to possible match manipulation from potential betting irregularities identified in the 2026 men’s World Cup.

The findings from the Group of Copenhagen — an independent international network dedicated to detecting, sanctioning, and preventing the manipulation of sports competitions — follow its integrity monitoring operation across the tournament’s 104 matches.

The full report has not yet been published but a summary of its conclusions has been released by the Council of Europe. According to sources briefed on the report, who spoke anonymously as they were not authorised to do so publicly, among the in-game notices to raise potential irregularities were:

• The red card shown to South Africa’s Themba Zwane in the 84th minute of his side’s tournament-opening game against Mexico
• American cryptocurrency-based prediction market Polymarket receiving $4.8 million (£3.6m) on markets for Spain not to defeat Cape Verde in their group-stage game, which ended in a goalless draw
• The three-and-a-half-minute delay from the video assistant referee (VAR) team to disallow a goal from Spain’s Ferran Torres in its 4-0 win over Saudi Arabia

The findings, sources say, also detailed how Polymarket opened a market on July 2 asking, “Will Folarin Balogun play against Belgium?” That was opened on the same day the U.S. forward was shown a red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last-32 stage.

FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee only confirmed that Balogun would be available to play, having had his ban suspended, on July 5. Sources say the Group of Copenhagen’s report said no other such markets were opened for the other 14 players who were shown a red card during the tournament — none of whom had bans suspended.

The Group of Copenhagen — which operates under the Council of Europe’s Macolin Convention, a multilateral treaty which seeks to address fixing by changing international law — has said it has sent an official request for a written explanation to FIFA regarding the Balogun case. The Athletic has approached FIFA and Polymarket for comment on the Group of Copenhagen’s findings.

Christian Kalb, a gambling industry expert who has worked with several governments on betting regulatory issues, has worked with the Group of Copenhagen before, though was not part of this report, toldThe Athletic that irregularities flagged may be because of other factors aside from manipulation.

The Group of Copenhagen’s operation was conducted in coordination with FIFA’s Integrity Task Force — of which it and the Council of Europe, which are independent, are members.

On Tuesday, FIFA’s Integrity Task Force published findings reporting that “no suspicious betting activity or indications of match manipulation in connection with any fixture” had been identified across the entirety of the competition.

On Wednesday, however, the Group of Copenhagen detailed that seven “yellow notices” were raised within its own monitoring of the World Cup.

Per the group’s definition, these notices are flagged due to “several different indications of irregularities” which can include “unexplained fluctuations in odds, rumours on social media or source information.”

The group categorises events based on four colour-coded categories: green (normal), yellow (slightly increased alert), orange (increased alert) and red (highest alert).

“The Group of Copenhagen’s notices can be explained by atypical behaviours such as changes in odds or hedging liquidities, there are many explanations that are not manipulations,” Kalb toldThe Athletic.

“The major problem is when there may be a conflict of interest and potential inside information on those issues. When we speak of prediction markets, we can detect some unusual behaviours but we must be very careful as they can be used for hedging markets.

“If you are a traditional bookmaker, there will be matches when everyone bets on a very strong favourite to win. So maybe, from a bookmaker’s perspective, there are too many people betting on this outcome. If they are a small company, this may be a risk: so they could use a prediction market like Polymarket to hedge that risk.

“By doing that, they can use the outcomes of the strong favourites not winning as a de facto insurance policy. It is selling those outcomes against the possibility of a favourite winning to minimise potentially big losses.”

FIFA’s Integrity Task Force was established in 2019 for that year’s women’s World Cup and has been in place for each World Cup since, with the Group of Copenhagen co-ordinating with them in each tournament.

The Group of Copenhagen estimates that $240bn was placed in bets across the World Cup, approximately twice the amount from the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

It says it placed 15 World Cup matches under increased surveillance, particularly during the final round of group-stage matches and “12 major controversies analysed in light of integrity risks.”

“The volume of betting in a World Cup is so huge, it is very difficult to make any extrapolations from that,” said Kalb.“Each match represents billions of pounds.”

For the first time, the Group of Copenhagen provided continuous monitoring of prediction markets, such as Polymarket and Kalshi (an official partner of FIFA), which operate in a fragmented and rapidly evolving regulatory environment, with rules varying by jurisdiction.

The performance of prediction markets during the World Cup “surpassed every estimate that any of us have projected,” Chad Beynon, a gaming and lodging analyst at the financial services firm Macquarie Group, told the New York Times earlier this week.

The Group of Copenhagen said in its report: “These prediction markets raise unprecedented issues: they allow betting on a very wide range of events, often anonymously and using payment methods that are difficult to trace. Monitoring them is a first for an international competition.”