An independent sports integrity network has identified seven instances of potential betting irregularities during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, creating a contrast with FIFA’s own assessment that found no evidence of suspicious betting activity or match manipulation throughout the tournament.
The findings emerged from monitoring conducted by the Group of Copenhagen, an international body focused on preventing and detecting the manipulation of sporting events. While the organization has yet to publish its complete report, the Council of Europe released a summary of its conclusions following an integrity review covering all 104 matches played during the competition.
The Group of Copenhagen operates under the Council of Europe’s Macolin Convention and worked alongside FIFA’s Integrity Task Force during the tournament. Despite that cooperation, the two bodies reported different outcomes from their respective reviews.
FIFA’s Integrity Task Force announced earlier in the week that it had found no signs of betting-related misconduct. The governing body later reaffirmed that position, stating: “It was the result of a collaborative effort by a large number of independent expert groups. Betting-monitoring reports and other relevant data and information provided by Task Force members, as well as information received through available reporting mechanisms was analyzed and shared among Task Force members in line with operational procedures. As a result, no suspicious betting activity or indications of match manipulation in connection with any fixture was identified.”
Notices Linked to Match Events and Prediction Markets
According to information cited by The Athletic from the unpublished report, several incidents drew the attention of integrity monitors and resulted in what the Group of Copenhagen classified as “yellow notices.”
One case involved South African midfielder Themba Zwane, who received a red card in the 84th minute of his country’s opening match against Mexico. The dismissal became one of the events highlighted during the monitoring process.
Another notice related to activity on the cryptocurrency-based prediction platform Polymarket. Integrity analysts observed approximately $4.8 million in trading volume connected to a market predicting that Spain would fail to defeat Cape Verde during the group stage. Spain entered the match as a heavy favorite, reportedly carrying a 91% chance of victory, yet the contest ended in a scoreless draw.
A further alert focused on a video assistant referee review during Spain’s 4-0 victory over Saudi Arabia. The review lasted roughly three-and-a-half minutes before a goal scored by Ferran Torres was disallowed.
The report also examined a prediction market launched by Polymarket on July 2 asking users, “Will Folarin Balogun play against Belgium?” The market appeared on the same day the United States forward received a red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Round of 32.
FIFA later suspended Balogun’s ban, clearing him to play against Belgium on July 5. According to sources familiar with the report, no comparable markets were created for the other 14 players who were sent off during the tournament. None of those players had their suspensions overturned.
The Group of Copenhagen reportedly sent FIFA a formal request seeking an explanation regarding the circumstances surrounding the Balogun decision.
Yellow Notices Do Not Confirm Match-Fixing
The advisory body emphasized that the notices should not be interpreted as proof of match manipulation. Under its classification system, events are assigned color-coded categories ranging from green to red depending on the level of concern identified by monitoring systems.
Yellow notices indicate a relatively low level of alert and can stem from multiple factors. The Group of Copenhagen explained that such alerts may be triggered by “several different indications of irregularities” including “unexplained fluctuations in odds, rumours on social media or source information.”
Industry specialist Christian Kalb, who has previously worked with the Group of Copenhagen but was not involved in this review, cautioned against assuming that unusual betting patterns automatically point to wrongdoing.
“The Group of Copenhagen’s notices can be explained by atypical behaviors such as changes in odds or hedging liquidities, there are many explanations that are not manipulations,” Kalb said.
He added: “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 behaviors but we must be very careful as they can be used for hedging markets.”
Kalb further explained: “If you are a traditional bookmaker, there will be matches when everyone bets on a very strong favorite 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 favorites not winning as a de facto insurance policy. It is selling those outcomes against the possibility of a favorite winning to minimize potentially big losses.”
Record Betting Activity During the Tournament
The integrity review took place against the backdrop of unprecedented betting interest during the World Cup. The Group of Copenhagen estimated that approximately $240 billion was wagered on tournament matches, roughly double the amount recorded during the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The organization placed 15 matches under enhanced scrutiny and examined 12 major controversies from an integrity perspective. It also conducted continuous monitoring of prediction markets for the first time at a major international football tournament.
Platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi attracted significant activity during the event, with prediction markets reporting billions of dollars in trading volume. According to the Group of Copenhagen, the rapid growth of these platforms introduces new monitoring challenges.
“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,” the group wrote. “Monitoring them is a first for an international competition.”
While FIFA and the Group of Copenhagen reached different conclusions regarding irregularities observed during the World Cup, both reviews stopped short of identifying confirmed cases of match-fixing. The full report from the Group of Copenhagen has yet to be published.