Martha Gill

Irrational Animals: a neuroscience take on the news

Badminton scandal: the game's flawed, not the players

Shuttlecocks at dawn.

By Martha Gill Published 01 August 2012 17:52

A badminton player. Photograph: Getty Images

When following the best tactics for winning gold gets you disqualified for match-throwing, something is wrong with the game.

Eight badminton players have been kicked out of the Olympics for manipulating the quarter-final draw - two from China, four from South Korea and another two from Indonesia. The players tried to deliberately lose points in round one in order to set up an advantageous round two. Score lower points in the first match, and you'll be pitched against weaker players in the second.

This meant that Tuesday's matches weren't all that that fun to watch, and the subsequent scandal attracted criticism from former British Badminton star Gail Emms (amongst others). She told BBC Five Live:

"You cannot do this in an Olympic Games, this is something that is not acceptable and it just makes not only our sport but the organisers and the poor crowd who had to watch, who pay good money to watch two matches....it was just disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.

"I would disqualify them."

But the problem with condemning what these players did is that they weren't fixing matches for betting purposes - they were just trying to win overall. The structure of the game, in fact, dictated this move. Perhaps we should be examining all the players who didn't try to exploit the loophole. Are they serious about winning gold?

Bridget Jones said it best:

"I got in the lift to go home and found Daniel in there with Simon from marketing talking about the footballers being arrested for allegedly throwing matches. "Have you heard about this, Bridget?" said Daniel. "Oh yes," I lied, flailing for an opinion. "Actually, I think it's all rather petty. I know it's a thuggish way to behave, but as long as they didn't actually set light to anyone, I don't see what all the fuss is about."

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: olympics Badminton

More from Martha Gill

View the discussion thread.

21 comments

Tue, 2012-08-14 09:13 — Tris (not verified)

Read Sirlin on this. He's been talking about it in the context of fighting games, and has a very good article up on his blog discussing the situation that occurred in the badminton at the Olympics.

Sun, 2012-08-12 18:50 — Indu Pendent

This is a worrying article.

What they did was morally wrong and against the spirit of the Olympics. "they weren't fixing matches for betting purposes" - but they were still fixing matches for personal gain.

Is NS condoning what in essence is corrupt? Does it reflect a say-anything, do-anything approach to winning power prevailing in Labour?

Fri, 2012-08-10 12:03 — Ron Graves (not verified)

If rules are created that encourage participants to take advantage of them to gain a competitive advantage, the fault lies with those who created the rules, not the players.

A straight-forward knock-out competition is the solution.

Sun, 2012-08-05 21:09 — Chris_S (not verified)

I didn't like what the badminton players did. I'll start by saying that. However, is the issue that they lost or didn't try. In swimming, athletes often don't try their hardest in qualifying rounds. Try watching Usain Bolt jog home in the 100 metres when he could post a thrilling time. It seems that not trying is ok; losing isn't.

Sun, 2012-08-05 17:00 — hugh markey (not verified)

British Olympic cyclist alleges a crash was engineered because the British Cycling Team had not started that well.
Tighten up the rules and leave no loopholes that invite participants to seek tactical or strategic advantage.
This has been a shuttle-cock-up!

Bicycle-made-for-Two

Fri, 2012-08-03 06:40 — Asian_Angelic

Complain complain... All is dirty nowadays. Maybe not 100% yet but if we people don't realize or accept it is then there is no way we can clean it up. Olympics 2012 is really a big fail.

Thu, 2012-08-09 12:15 — Larry Sportello (not verified)

Putting aside the fact that "fail" is the more tiresome and overused word of 2012, I can't see that the London Olympics as a whole has in anyway been a failure; except for the Australian team.

Thu, 2012-08-02 16:16 — Murder most Fowl (not verified)

It's happened before in Football (The Tiger Cup 1998; Final Group A match
Thailand against Indonesia)

More interesting (this is from my slides on the topic)
- Shell Caribbean Cup 1994
Barbados vs Grenada
Barbados need to win the match by two goals to advance in the tournament
If they fail, either by losing the match or winning by only one goal, their opponent Grenada would advance instead
If the match is a draw after 90 minutes, extra-time is played, and then penalties - standard US TV requirement that there must be a winner for every match
- Special rule for this tournament
Goals scored in extra-time are not only Golden (sudden death victory) but will count double
The idea is to reward winning teams in close matches, so that an extra-time victory would be as if a team won by two goals
- The Barbados - Grenada match
Barbados score in first half, and again in 79th minute: score now 2 – 0
Start to play defensively
Nevertheless Grenada score in 83rd minute: score now 2 – 1
Barbados now attack again
In 87th minute, score still only 2 – 1
- Barbados options at 2-1
Barbados need either to score one more goal in the last three minutes (winning by two)...
... or force the game to extra time where one goal would count as if they had won by two
Coach instructs Barbados players to score an own-goal
Now 2 - 2 so up to 30 minutes extra-time looms!
- Granada options at 2-2
If Grenada can score against Barbados in the remaining normal time, they will win the match and go to the next round
If no goals then in effect they face another 30 minutes
But if they concede a goal, they will lose by one goal which means that they will still advance
For two minutes, Grenada try to score in either goal; the Barbados players simultaneously defend their own goal and that of their opponents!
(Excerpts are on Youtube)
- What happened next?
Normal time ends 2 - 2
In extra-time, Barbados score and advance
eliminated from the tournament in the next round
No punishment for the players in this game
Both teams were clearly trying to go through to the next round!

Thu, 2012-08-02 13:32 — choen (not verified)

Yes they were playing dirty but they were playing dirty legally. It wasn't pretty but they were just strategizing for a few stages ahead.

Thu, 2012-08-02 12:55 — Des Demona (not verified)

They are playing in front of spectators who have paid good money to see a competitive game, not a race to lose - so yes chuck them out. And what about their coaches who presumably endorsed this tactic?

Thu, 2012-08-02 12:25 — Lucidus (not verified)

So why don't they just seed, like they do at at Wimbledon, so strong players only meet as they approach the finals?

Thu, 2012-08-02 11:48 — Dick England (not verified)

Would intelligent people organise a competition in such a way that losing matches is a superior strategy for winning a gold medal? The badminton officials didn't have the brains to organise a sequence of properly competitive matches, but they certainly expected the public pay good money to watch the dud ones. And then there are the journalists so quick to condemn the (Asian) competitors. Well, is there anything lower in the animal kingdom than a British Journalist?

Wed, 2012-08-01 21:52 — The grand old Duke of talk (not verified)

It does display a lack of courage though. They should have wanted to thrash the pants off the most worthy opponent, not try to pick off an easy win. Courage, that is what people lack.

Wed, 2012-08-01 20:32 — matthew fox (not verified)

Waiting for Osborne to smear Balls by accusing of him rigging the matches.

Wed, 2012-08-01 18:44 — Livers (not verified)

NO NO NO!!!

Politicians 'played by the expenses rules', Bankers 'did not break regulations', Tax Avoiders 'don't break the law'. Too often we say if it isn't against the rules then it isn't wrong.

What about doing the right thing, what about ethics and morals?

Bravo to the Badminton Federation and IOC for punishing behaviour that is reprehensible and flies in the face of the Olympic spirit.

There is a deep meaning in this action and I for one applaud it. We need to see much more of it from those with authority and influence.

Thu, 2012-08-02 11:33 — Dave Dave Dave (not verified)

There's a difference, though, between (a) doing something which is technically within the law/rules although "bad" or "contrary to the spirit of the [whatever]"; and (b) breaking the rules.

It's quite legitimate for people to criticise those who do (a), to try and pressure them to stop doing (a), and to try to get the rules changed to outlaw (a).

I'm not sure it's actually legitimate for the authorities (in the badminton case, the sport's governing body; in the tax case, the state) to punish someone for doing (a); that, I think, must be reserved to those who do (b).

Thu, 2012-08-02 14:28 — Livers (not verified)

You need to explain why you think it must be reserved to (b)...

Thu, 2012-08-02 16:14 — Dave Dave Dave (not verified)

Because official punishment should be given - and should only be given - in accordance with the law. That's what it means to believe in "the rule of law".

Thu, 2012-08-02 17:27 — Livers (not verified)

There's no rule about bribing your opponent to lose, should that be allowed?

Thu, 2012-08-02 17:55 — Dave Dave Dave (not verified)

That's not correct. There is a rule about bribing your opponent to lose.

The tournament is sanctioned by the BWF; the players' code of conduct indicates that offering a bribe is a "major offence" - Players' Code of Conduct, rule 5.3

Offering such a bribe may also be criminal under the Bribery Act 2010, s.1.

But, if you really want to play devil's advocate, then, OK, if there was no rule against it, then no, it should not result in disqualification. You still shouldn't offer the bribe, we should still criticise you for it, we should seek to introduce a rule against it, but you should not be disqualified.

Incidentally, rule 4.5 of the Players' Code of Conduct proscribes "not using one's best efforts to win a match," so there actually is no rule-of-law objection to the disqualification in this case (although my general point still stands, I believe). Whether such a rule makes sense is another (highly debatable) matter - what are one's "best efforts"? Does a swimmer fail to use "best efforts" in the heats if she saves her best swim for the final? Does Usain Bolt fail to use "best efforts" when he chooses to eat McChicken Nuggets?

Thu, 2012-08-02 18:37 — Livers (not verified)

Then we will have to disagree. FWIW, 4.1 Inappropriate conduct pretty much covers this anyway, if you want to only abide by rules :)