The case involves Daniel Köllerer, an Austrian professional tennis player, who was found guilty of three counts of attempted match-fixing by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), the International Tennis Federation (ITF), the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA), and the Grand Slam Committee (collectively referred to as the Governing Bodies). The charges stemmed from allegations that Köllerer had attempted to fix matches on multiple occasions between 2009 and 2010 by offering financial incentives to other players to lose matches. The Anti-Corruption Hearing Officer (AHO) dismissed two of the five initial charges but upheld three, resulting in a lifetime ban from participating in any events organized or sanctioned by these bodies, along with a $100,000 fine. Köllerer appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the charges were not sufficiently proven and requesting the sanctions be overturned.
The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, examined the case and upheld the AHO’s decision. The panel determined that the standard of proof required—preponderance of the evidence—was appropriate, meaning it was more likely than not that Köllerer had committed the offenses. The panel rejected arguments that a higher standard of proof should apply due to the severity of the charges, emphasizing that reliable witness testimony was sufficient to meet this standard. The panel also affirmed the lifetime ban as the appropriate sanction, stating that match-fixing is among the most serious offenses in tennis as it undermines the integrity of the sport. The panel noted that the success of the fixing attempts was irrelevant; the mere attempt warranted severe punishment to serve as a deterrent.
The case involved detailed testimonies from witnesses, including players who reported Köllerer’s attempts to fix matches. One incident involved Köllerer approaching a player during breakfast, repeatedly asking for his room number, and later proposing a match-fixing offer. The player declined and reported the incident to tournament supervisors, who then contacted the Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU). Other charges involved Köllerer offering €10,000 to two different players to lose their matches in separate tournaments. Both players declined the offers, though they did not immediately report the incidents. The AHO found the testimonies credible and concluded that Köllerer’s denials were not truthful.
Köllerer’s defense included claims of a language barrier and alleged conspiracies against him, but the panel found these arguments unconvincing. They emphasized that thorough investigations and multiple testimonies under oath were required to substantiate allegations, and no evidence of a conspiracy was presented. The panel also addressed procedural issues, such as the Governing Bodies’ attempt to file a counterclaim regarding dismissed charges, which the CAS ruled was no longer permitted under the 2010 version of the CAS Code.
Regarding sanctions, the panel upheld the lifetime ban, deeming it necessary to protect the integrity of tennis. However, they found the additional $100,000 fine disproportionate, considering Köllerer’s financial situation and the fact that the lifetime ban itself had significant financial consequences by eliminating his future earnings from tennis. The panel noted that similar cases in other sports, such as football, resulted in lifetime bans without fines. Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld Köllerer’s appeal, confirming the lifetime ban but setting aside the fine. The decision underscores the zero-tolerance approach to corruption in tennis while ensuring sanctions remain proportionate to the circumstances of the case.