How Bad Is It? Football Fans’ Perceptions of the Frequency, Moral Wrongfulness, and Harmfulness of Match-Fixing in Asia and Europe

Abstract Match-fixing is widely considered a major threat to sport integrity, yet systematic cross-national evidence on how fans perceive its frequency, moral wrongfulness, and harms remains scarce. This article examines fans’ perceptions of match-fixing in football across five countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, China, and Malaysia), considering both betting-related and sporting-related forms of manipulation. A cross-sectional online survey of adult football fans ( n = 2,055) measured perceived frequency of match-fixing, moral wrongfulness of seven match-fixing scenarios, and stakeholder-specific harmfulness for seven stakeholder groups. Fans, on average, estimated that roughly one quarter of matches are fixed, with very similar perceived frequency in grassroots and professional football, but substantially higher perceived frequency in Asian than in European countries. All match-fixing scenarios were judged as highly morally wrong and harmful across all countries. However, certain scenarios, such as betting-related match-fixing, were evaluated as more wrongful and more harmful than other scenarios, such as sporting-related manipulation. Athletes were perceived as more harmed than collective stakeholders, although the difference was modest. Overall, moral wrongfulness and harmfulness were high in all countries, with less cross-national variation than perceptions of frequency. Contrary to our hypotheses, fan behaviour (viewing, attendance, or betting frequency) did not meaningfully predict moral wrongfulness or harmfulness assessments. Although the findings are based on perceived assessments, they offer a cross-national empirical baseline to inform the design of integrity policies and sanctioning frameworks. They also raise the question of whether sanctioning practices are aligned with the perceived estimations of harm.