Short answer, in my opinion, no. The explanation is simple economics mixed with a little cost-benefit analysis.

Let's use the Tim Donaghy example.  A referee like him gets paid, according to David Stern at yesterday's press conference, $260,000 a year.  Not to mention benefits, other income opportunities (i.e. conferences, freebies, etc.), and the potential to keep moving up in salary to, say, $300,000/yr or more.  So it's a well-paying job.  Again, it's comparable to a decent lawyer or doctor, and the lifestyle is perhaps even more prestigious (witness one newspaper account of Donaghy's run-in with a mailman, in which he supposedly screamed "Do you know who I am?  I'm an NBA referee!"). 

Now, how much would a mafia crew have to pay a referee to make it worth to endanger his job security, and possibly jail time?   Even if you presume you wouldn't get any jail time if you get caught, there goes your name, your reputation, your ability to earn a living.  I would guess you would need to pay me at least more than I make now to make it worth my time.  For a referee with Tim Donaghy's experience, that equals at least about $300,000 a year for me to endanger my career and life to fix games for you.  Minimum $300,000 to buy a formerly clean ref.  

How many Mafia outfits can afford to buy a referee?  According to the America Mafia website, there are only about 26 cities with mafia families in the US.  Tim Donaghy is being investigated in connection with the Gambino family of NYC, one of the 5 families that are alleged tied to the NYC mafia.  Actually, the Gambino family is probably the best known mafia in the country, formerly headed by John Gotti.  It has hit hard times, as have all of the NYC mafia families, because of crimebusting operations that have reduced these outfits to shells of what they once were.  Still, I'm sure there are plenty of outfits that can afford the cost of buying a ref.  But is it worth it for them?

Is it profitable for an illegal outfit, whether a mafia or some sort of other mafia/mobs (Russian, drug cartel, 3-6, whatever) to spend $300,000 or more a year to "fix" basketball games?  The question is how would they capitalize on this "asset"?  If you knew tonight's insignificant NBA game was definitely going to go "over", could you make enough coin off of it to justify the investment?  How would you do it?

See, most outfits make their money by accepting bets from clients, basically playing the role of bookie.  They use the standard Vegas line (most bookies don't have to create the lines themselves anymore), and hope to get equal action on both sides of the bet so that they offset each other, and the bookie keeps the 5% fee or whatever they charge for placing a bet with them.  It's the safest way for a bookie to insure a profit.  Fixing a game doesn't make a difference to an outfit that acts as a bookie, since they don't care which side wins.  It's doubtful they would adjust their spreads or lines they offer their clientale because they had insider info... wouldn't you be a little suspicious if the newspaper had the NYG +3.5, but your bookie was had the NYG +7?

Now, the insider info could make a difference to bettors.  The outfit doesn't just have to act as a bookie, they can act as a client, too.  But who would they make their bets with?   You got it, Vegas.  It also has the added benefit of "laundering" the money, making it seem like legit earnings, if they can get winnings from bets placed in Vegas.

So let's say tonight's Pistons-Bulls game has an over/under of 185.  The great Slate article about this topic suggests that is the typical game Tim Donaghy fixed:

"He reffed 12 games in which the over/under was 184.5 or less - those games went over 10 out of 12 times, a highly suspicious number... This makes sense intuitively.  In a low-scoring game, a quick whistle would ensure that each team get enough free throws to sufficiently pad the point total."

So tonight's game is a low-scoring game, right.  Your outfit knows that tonight's ref is Tim Donaghy, and that he's going to make sure the game is going over.  You lay down some money in Vegas on the "over".  How much money do you have to lay down on the "over" in a regularly season NBA game (not even NFL!) before Vegas gets suspicious?

Vegas' casinos are on top of all kinds of illegal activities, and sniffing them out:

"Any suspicious bets taken on college campuses or the corner bar get reported back to Vegas sports books, not the local district attorney. Think back to the point-shaving scandal that hit college football this spring. A Vegas oddsmaker thought the betting activity on University of Toledo games looked suspicious. He blew the whistle to the NCAA, and an investigation ultimately revealed Toledo players' connections to a Michigan gambler. That's how game-fixing gets snuffed out—usually."

It doesn't delve into specifics, but the point is clear: even if your outfit was smart, and broke up your bet into a thousand little bets, it would draw suspicion.  Let's look at it realistically, first: How would you place, say, a $50,000 bet (the minimum it would make sense for an outfit that is paying a ref at least $300,000 to fix games)?  You could have 500 people place $100 bets, which would be very unlikely to draw attention, at first anyway.  If you are smart, you'll break it up over as many casinos and bookies as you can.  Where you would get 500 people to bet $100 in Vegas,  I don't know, but that's besides the point.  Presuming you could pull it off, you might be able to fly under the radar.

Until Vegas notices that almost every time Tim Donaghy refs a low scoring game, it goes over, and there is unusually heavy betting activity (aggregate) on the "over".

Did Vegas know or suspect anything about Tim Donaghy?  Possibly.  We don't know, because they aren't exactly sharing their knowledge with outsiders.   And, as the article pointed out, the NBA doesn't want to work with Vegas (a short-sighted decision that will probably be reconsidered now).  But Vegas doesn't have to report anything or make it public;  if they have a suspicion on what's going on, they could maybe tip off some feds or something if they really feel strongly about it.  Nobody knows more about the ins and outs of basketball scoring patterns, and what's unusual, than a professional oddsmaker.  

So the final question is: Could Vegas buy a ref?  Indeed, they could.  They are the only outfit that has enough money to pay a ref off, and still make a tidy profit.   Who would they profit off?  I don't know, they could make the under very appealing... say, raise a low scoring game that should have a line of 184.5 to 200 pts, and hope smart gamblers gravitate to the low, so they can make a cleaning when the game scores over 210 points.  That's a reach, though.  And more importantly, what's their motivation?  Unless the action on the NBA games could yield millions of dollars in profit above their normal take, why bother?  Quote Jay-Z: "If ya'll not talking about large money, what's the point?"

But wait, you might ask: This whole post doesn't make sense.  We know Tim Donaghy is busted for fixing games!  

My point is this:  Here's a referee who got into heavy gambling debt with the mob.  He had to work for them, which means they got him for cheap (whatever his debt was), as oppose to outright "buying" him clean.  He did this to himself, put himself into this position.  The mafia didn't come to him and buy him; he pretty much cause this situation on his own, thanks to his gambling problems.

And I'm pretty sure that, despite all the rumors about "naming other officials and players" that people want to see, and the "NBA is fixed" storylines you might read, here is the deal:  I highly doubt this is anything but an isolated incident.  It could be that there are other refs caught up in this, but it seems very unlikely.  The only way another ref could be involved is if he, too, had a gambling problem and was indebted to the mob.  Buying NBA refs is financially unfeasible for most mobs. It might makes sense to buy NFL refs, since they are lower paid and the stakes is higher (more money is bet on the NFL), but not an NBA ref.

The NBA might be fixed by David Stern (that's a different topic, but I'm not the Sportsguy), but by outside forces... in my opinion, unlikely.

I don't know, that's my take. What do you guys think?

Prime Time Time: 

 Subscribe to my feed

4 Comments

Comments