Some major motivations behind match fixing are gambling and team advantages. According to investigative journalist
Declan Hill it has also been linked to
corruption,
violence and
tax avoidance. In Eastern Europe,
organized crime is linked to illegal gambling and score fixing. In Russia, people have disappeared or been murdered after acting against bribery in sports.
Agreements with gamblers There may be financial gain through agreements with
gamblers. The
Black Sox Scandal of 1919, in which several members of the
MLB's
Chicago White Sox conspired with gamblers to fix that year's
World Series for monetary gain. One of the best-known examples of gambling-related race fixing (in motorsports) is the 1933
Tripoli Grand Prix, in which the winning number of the lottery was determined by the number of the race-winning car. One ticket holder held the number belonging to
Achille Varzi, contacted him and agreed to share the winning should he win. Varzi contacted other drivers who agreed to share the money if they deliberately lost. Despite a poor start, Varzi won the race after his opponents deliberately underperformed throughout the race. A large match-fixing ring in the lower levels of professional tennis, centered around gambling, was broken up in 2023. At least 181 players were involved. A similar organized effort in Chinese and NCAA basketball was uncovered in 2026.
Competitive advantage Match fixing can also occur when teams or athletes manipulate the outcome of a match to gain a strategic or competitive advantage rather than direct financial benefit. In such cases, the aim may be to influence standings, improve seeding, or create conditions that benefit a particular competitor. In sports such as
Formula One, where each team fields two drivers, teams have at times used one driver to create a strategic advantage for the other. While team orders themselves are not inherently match fixing, controversies such as
Crashgate demonstrate how the pursuit of competitive advantage can motivate deliberate manipulation of a sporting event. In this case,
Renault driver
Nelson Piquet Jr. was instructed to crash deliberately, exploiting the
safety car rule to benefit his teammate
Fernando Alonso, enabling him to win the
2008 Singapore Grand Prix.
Better playoff chances Many sports have tournaments where the result of one round determines their opponent in the next round. As a result, by losing a match, a team can face an easier opponent in the next round, making them more likely to win. The
National Basketball Association (NBA) is the only one of the four
major professional sports leagues of the
United States and
Canada in which home advantage in the playoffs is based strictly on regular-season records without regard to seeding. The top six teams earn an automatic playoff berth, while the seventh through tenth teams compete for the last two seeds in a "play-in tournament". In the
Canadian Football League, since the introduction of the
cross-over rule,
Western teams have been occasionally accused of losing near the end of the season in situations where a loss would cause them to finish fourth place in their division and where such a finish was still good enough to secure a berth in the league's
East Division playoffs. In recent years, the East has often been viewed to be a weaker division than the West; however, if any Western team has attempted such a strategy, it has not paid significant dividends for them since teams who qualify for the playoffs via crossover have gone a combined 5-7 in the East Division Semi-Finals, and 0-5 in the East Division Finals. As of the
2022 season, no Western team has advanced to the
Grey Cup championship game from the Eastern bracket. A more recent example of possible match fixing occurred in the
ice hockey competition at the
2006 Winter Olympics. In Pool B,
Sweden was to face
Slovakia in the last pool match for both teams. Sweden coach
Bengt-Åke Gustafsson publicly contemplated losing against Slovakia, knowing that if his team won, their quarterfinal opponent would either be
Canada, the
2002 gold medalists, or the
Czech Republic,
1998 gold medalists. Gustafsson would tell Swedish television "One is
cholera, the other
the plague." Sweden lost the match 3–0; the most obvious sign of match fixing was when Sweden had a five-on-three
powerplay with five
NHL stars –
Peter Forsberg,
Mats Sundin,
Daniel Alfredsson,
Nicklas Lidström, and
Fredrik Modin – on the ice, and failed to put a shot on goal. (
Sports Illustrated writer Michael Farber would say about this particular powerplay, "If the Swedes had passed the puck anymore, their next opponent would have been the
Washington Generals.") If he was seeking to tank, Gustafsson got his wish; Sweden would face a much less formidable quarterfinal opponent in
Switzerland. Canada would lose to
Russia in a quarterfinal in the opposite bracket, while Sweden went on to win the gold medal, defeating the Czechs in the semifinals. The
1998 Tiger Cup – an international
football tournament contested by countries in
Southeast Asia – saw an example of two teams trying to lose a match. The tournament was hosted by
Vietnam, with the eight countries competing split into two groups of four. The top two in each group advanced to the semi-finals with the winners playing the runners-up of the other group. In the first group,
Singapore finished on top with
Vietnam finishing second; this meant that the winners of the second group would have to travel to
Hanoi to play the host nation in the national stadium on their national day, while the runners-up would face Singapore in
Ho Chi Minh City where the final group match was taking place. As the two teams involved –
Thailand and
Indonesia – had both already qualified for the semi-finals, it was in both teams' interest to lose the match and finish in second place. As the game progressed, neither side seemed particularly concerned with scoring, while the defending was lackadaisical. As the match entered stoppage time, Indonesian defender
Mursyid Effendi scored an
own goal, overcoming the efforts of several Thai players and the goalkeeper to stop him. Both teams were fined $40,000, and Effendi was banned from international football for life. In the final month of the
2010 Major League Baseball season, the
New York Yankees and
Tampa Bay Rays were in a tight race for the
American League East division title and by the final week, both teams had already clinched at least the wild card. The Yankees went 3–7 over the final 10 games, losing their regular-season finale, while the Rays went 5–5 and won theirs, giving the Rays the AL East title by one game and the Yankees the AL wild-card berth. Winning the division would have given New York an ALDS matchup against the
Texas Rangers, who at the time had star pitcher
Cliff Lee; the Yankees instead defeated the
Minnesota Twins, a team they historically have had more postseason success against. Allegations of the Yankees purposefully settling for the wild card, presumably to avoid facing Texas in the ALDS, began to surface after the Yankees defeated the Twins. Additional allegations came up in 2012 when Yankees general manager
Brian Cashman commented in response to a possible playoff expansion that his team had "conceded the division" and that winning it meant "nothing more than a T-shirt and a hat". However, Cashman insisted that the Yankees were not motivated by any desire to lose games, but were merely ensuring their best players were well-rested for the postseason, which he contended was perfectly ethical behavior. In 2012, Major League Baseball added a second wild card in each league, with the two wild cards playing a single-elimination game in order to give more importance to winning the division. In 2022, the postseason was further expanded, adding a third wild card and making the round a best-of-three series. The
2012 Summer Olympics saw two examples of match fixing of this type: • Members of four
badminton teams from
China,
Indonesia and
South Korea were ejected from the women's doubles tournament for intentionally losing matches to allow better pairings in the knockout stages of the competition. In what the BBC called a "night of shame", players made simple errors throughout the match, despite booing and jeering from the crowd, and warnings from the match umpire and tournament referee to cease and desist. The
Badminton World Federation found the four pairs guilty of "not using one's best efforts to win a match" and "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport." • In the
women's football tournament,
Japan intentionally played a draw with
South Africa in
Cardiff, allowing it to finish second in its group so it would not have to travel to
Glasgow, more than 300 miles away, for the first round of the knockout stage. Instead, Japan remained in Cardiff and defeated
Brazil in their quarterfinal en route to the gold medal match. Match fixing can also happen in high-school level sports. For example, In February 2015, two girls' basketball teams representing
Nashville-area
Riverdale and
Smyrna High Schools were both intentionally trying to lose during a consolation match of their district tournament. The winner of the game would enter the same side of the regional tournament bracket as defending state champion The loser would thus avoid Blackman until the regional final, a game whose participants would both advance to the sectional tournament (one step short of the state tournament). Some argue that a coach should not only have the right to select a starting lineup for a match that gives the team the best chances of winning titles in the long should this be a different lineup than the one that gives the team the best chances of winning the game at but that doing so is the smartest course of action. For example, during
Euro 2004 the
Czech Republic rested nearly all of its starters from the first two group matches for the final group match against
Germany. Since the Czechs had already clinched first place in the group, this move was seen to have the potential to allow Germany a better chance to get the win they needed to advance at the expense of the winner of the
Netherlands–
Latvia game. As it happened, the Czechs' decision to field a "weaker" side did not matter since the Czechs won the match anyway to eliminate the Germans.
Better draft position Most top-level sports leagues in
North America and
Australia hold
drafts to allocate young players to the league's teams. The order in which teams select players is often the inverse of their standings in the previous season. As a result, a team may have a significant incentive to tank games to secure a higher pick in the league's next draft, and a number of leagues have changed their draft rules to remove (or at least limit) potential incentives to tank. From
1966 to
1984, the
NBA used a coin flip between the teams with the worst records in each of the league's two conferences to determine the recipient of the top pick. In the , several teams were accused of deliberately losing games in an attempt to gain a top position in the
1984 draft, which would eventually produce four
Hall of Fame players. As a result of this, the NBA established a
draft lottery in advance of the
1985 draft, involving all teams that did not make the playoffs in the previous season. This lottery system prevented teams from receiving fixed draft positions based on record place, which the league hoped would discourage them from deliberately losing. Even though the lottery in place through the 2018 draft gave the team with the worst record only the same chance at the top pick as the 2nd and 3rd worst teams (with that team guaranteed no worse than the fourth pick), there was still perceived incentive for a team to tank. Responding to these perceived incentives, the NBA further tweaked its lottery rules shortly before the start of the 2017–18 season. Effective with the 2019 draft, the teams with the three worst records have equal odds of landing the #1 pick (barring one of these teams also owning another lottery team's pick), and the top four picks are allocated in the lottery instead of the top three. This limits but does not eliminate the incentive to tank, particularly when there is at least one exceptional prospect. The
Australian Football League, the main competition of
Australian rules football, has used a system of
priority draft picks since
1993, with poorly performing teams receiving extra selections at or near the start of the draft. Prior to 2012, a team automatically received a priority pick if its win–loss record met pre-defined eligibility criteria. However, that system led to accusations of tanking by several clubs—most notably by
Melbourne in 2009 (the club was found not guilty, but the head coach and general manager were found guilty on related charges). Since 2012, priority picks are awarded at the discretion of the
AFL Commission, the governing body of both the AFL and the overall sport. Until the
2014–15 NHL season, the
National Hockey League assured the last place team of at least the second position in its entry draft, with the first overall pick being subject to a draft lottery among the five worst teams. As NHL drafts typically include only one NHL-ready prospect, if any at all, in any given year (most others must continue developing in
junior ice hockey or the
minor leagues for several years before reaching the NHL), this rudimentary lottery has historically been enough of a deterrent to avoid deliberate tanking. However, in 2014–15, two elite prospects widely considered to be "generational talents",
Connor McDavid and
Jack Eichel, were projected to enter the
2015 NHL entry draft, thus ensuring the last place team at least one of the two prospects. This was most prominent with the
Buffalo Sabres, whose fans openly rooted against their team in the hopes they would clinch last place in the league for much of the season (the Sabres themselves denied they were tanking and openly criticized their fans for suggesting the notion). Beginning in 2015–16, the top three picks in the draft are subject to lottery, with all fourteen teams that did not qualify for the playoffs eligible to win the picks. However, as the worst team is guaranteed one of the first three picks, tanking is still contemplated when the draft field is deep.
More favorable schedule next year NFL teams have been accused of throwing games to obtain a more favorable schedule the following season; this was especially true between 1977 and 1993, when a team finishing last in a five-team division would get to play four of its eight non-division matches the next season against other last-place teams. In the current scheduling formula which has been in place since 2002 and slightly amended in 2021, only three games in a team's schedule are dependent on a team's placement the previous season. The remaining eight non-division games are the same for all teams in a division.
Match fixing by referees In addition to the match fixing that is committed by players, coaches and/or team officials, it is not unheard of to have results manipulated by corrupt
referees. Since 2004, separate
scandals have erupted in prominent sports leagues in Portugal, Germany (
Bundesliga scandal), Brazil (
Brazilian football match-fixing scandal) and the United States (see
Tim Donaghy scandal), all of which concerned referees who fixed matches for gamblers. Many sports writers have speculated that in leagues with high player salaries, it is far more likely for a referee to become corrupt since their pay in such competitions is usually much less than that of the players. On December 2, 1896, former
Old West lawman
Wyatt Earp refereed the
Fitzsimmons vs. Sharkey boxing match, promoted as the
Heavyweight Championship of the World. Earp was chosen as referee by the National Athletic Association the afternoon of the match after both managers refused to agree on a choice. In the eighth round of a fight dominated by Fitzsimmons, Sharkey suddenly went down, clutching his groin, yelling foul. Referee Earp conferred with both corners for a few seconds before he disqualified Fitzsimmons for a foul that virtually no one saw. Eight years later, B. Brookes Lee was arrested in Portland, Oregon. He had been accused of treating Sharkey to make it appear that he had been fouled by Fitzsimmons. Lee said, "I fixed Sharkey up to look as if he had been fouled. How? Well, that is something I do not care to reveal, but I will assert that it was done—that is enough. There is no doubt that Fitzsimmons was entitled to the decision and did not foul Sharkey. I got $1,000 for my part in the affair." One of the most recent and infamous cases of match fixing by referees in association football involved referee
Ibrahim Chaibou from
Niger, whom FIFA banned for life in January 2019 after an investigation proved that he had received bribes and fixed matches during many years, leading controversial games of high-stakes national teams where Chaibou made several controversial decisions.
Match fixing to a draw or a fixed score Match fixing does not necessarily involve deliberately losing a match. Occasionally, teams have been accused of deliberately playing to a draw or a fixed score where this ensures some mutual benefit (e.g. both teams advancing to the next stage of a competition.) One of the earliest examples of this sort of match fixing in the modern era occurred in
1898 when
Stoke City and
Burnley intentionally drew in that year's final "test match" so as to ensure they were both in the First Division the next season. In response,
the Football League expanded the divisions to 18 teams that year, thus permitting the intended victims of the fix (
Newcastle United and
Blackburn Rovers) to remain in the First Division. The "test match" system was abandoned and replaced with automatic
relegation. A more recent example occurred in the
1982 FIFA World Cup,
West Germany played
Austria in
the last match of group B. A West German victory by 1 or 2 goals would result in both teams advancing; any less and Germany was out; any more and Austria was out (and replaced by
Algeria, who had just beaten Chile). West Germany attacked hard and scored after 10 minutes. Afterwards, the players then proceeded to just kick the ball around aimlessly for the remainder of the match. Algerian supporters were so angered that they waved banknotes at the players, while a German fan burned his German flag in disgust. By the second half, the ARD commentator
Eberhard Stanjek refused any further comment on the game, while the Austrian television commentator
Robert Seeger advised viewers to switch off their sets. As a result,
FIFA changed its tournament scheduling for subsequent
World Cups so that the final pair of matches in each group are played simultaneously. Another example took place on the next-to-last weekend of the
1992–93 Serie A season.
Milan entered their match needing only a point to secure the title ahead of crosstown rivals
Inter, while
Brescia believed a point would be enough for them to avoid relegation. In a 2004 retrospective on the "dodgiest games" in football history, two British journalists said about the match, "For over 80 minutes, the two teams engaged in a shameful game of cat-and-mouse, in which the cat appeared to have fallen asleep and the mouse was on tranquilisers." Milan scored in the 82nd minute, but Brescia "mysteriously found themselves with a huge overlap" and equalised two minutes later. The 1–1 draw gave Milan their title, but in the end did not help Brescia; other results went against them and they suffered the drop. Twelve years later, former Sevilla goalkeeper
Frode Olsen admitted the team had lost intentionally in order to relegate Betis. Similarly, a
National Football League (NFL) team has also been accused of throwing its final regular-season game in an attempt to keep a rival out of the playoffs. An alleged example of this was when the
San Francisco 49ers, who had clinched a playoff berth, lost their regular-season finale in
1988 to the
Los Angeles Rams, thereby knocking the
New York Giants (who had defeated the 49ers in the playoffs in both 1985 and 1986, moreover injuring 49ers quarterback
Joe Montana in the latter) out of the postseason on the intra-conference record tiebreaker; after the game, Giants quarterback
Phil Simms angrily accused the 49ers of "laying down like dogs."
Increased gate receipts In addition to the aforementioned incidents of alleged fixing of drawn matches to ensure replays, mutual fixes have sometimes been alleged in "best of X" knockout series where draws are either not possible or very uncommon. Early versions of baseball's
World Series were a common target of such allegations. Because the players received a percentage of the gate receipts for postseason games (a privilege they did not enjoy in the regular season), there was a perception that the players had an incentive to fix an equal number of early games in favor of each team so as to ensure the series would run the maximum number of games (or very close thereto). Partly as an effort to avoid this sort of controversy, early World Series sometimes saw all scheduled games played even if the Series winner was already determined. That did not prove satisfactory since few fans were willing to pay to watch
lame duck contests. Eventually, following the controversy at the conclusion of the 1904 season in which the
New York Giants boycotted the World Series in part because of dissatisfaction with the financial arrangements surrounding the Series, Major League Baseball agreed to a number of reforms proposed by Giants owner
John T. Brush. Among other things, the so-called "Brush Rules" stipulated that the players would only receive a share of ticket revenue from the first four games, thus eliminating any financial incentive for the players to deliberately prolong the World Series.
Abuse of tie-breaking rules On several occasions, creative use of tie-breaking rules have allegedly led teams to play less than their best. An example occurred in the
2004 European Football Championship. Unlike
FIFA,
UEFA takes the result of the game between the two tied teams (or in a three-way tie, the overall records of the games played with the teams in question only) into consideration before overall
goal difference when ranking teams level on points. A situation arose in Group C where
Sweden and
Denmark played to a 2–2 draw, which was a sufficiently high scoreline to eliminate
Italy (which had lower-scoring draws with the Swedes and Danes) regardless of Italy's result with already-eliminated
Bulgaria. Although Italy beat Bulgaria by only one goal to finish level with Sweden and Denmark on five points and would hypothetically have been eliminated using the FIFA tie-breaker too, some Italian fans bitterly contended that the FIFA tie-breaker would have motivated their team to play harder and deterred their
Scandinavian rivals from, in their view, at the very least half-heartedly playing out the match after the score became 2–2. The same situation happened to Italy in 2012, leading to many pre-game complaints from Italy, who many commentators suggested were right to be concerned because of their own extensive experience in this area. However, Spain-Croatia ended in a 1–0 win for Spain, and the Italians went through. The FIFA tie-breaker, or any goal-differential scheme, can cause problems, too. There have been incidents (especially in
basketball) where players on a favored team have won the game but deliberately ensured the quoted
point spread was not covered (see
point shaving). Conversely, there are cases where a team not only lost (which might be honest) but lost by some large amount, perhaps to ensure a point spread was covered, or to grant some non-gambling related favor to the victor. Perhaps the most famous alleged example was the match between Argentina and Peru in the
1978 FIFA World Cup. Argentina needed a four-goal victory over Peru in order to advance over Brazil, a large margin at this level of competition, yet Argentina won 6–0. Much was made over possible political collusion, that the Peruvian goalkeeper was born in Argentina, and that Peru was dependent on Argentinian grain shipments, but nothing was ever proven. Although the Denmark–Sweden game above led to calls for UEFA to adopt FIFA's tiebreaking formula for future tournaments, it is not clear if this solves the problem; the Argentina-Peru game shows a possible abuse of the FIFA tie-breaker. Proponents of the UEFA tie-breaker argue that it reduces the value of
blow-outs, whether these be the result of a much stronger team
running up the score or an already-eliminated side allowing an unusually large number of goals. Perhaps the most infamous incident occurred in December 1983 when
Spain, needing to win by eleven goals to qualify for the
Euro 1984 ahead of the
Netherlands, defeated
Malta by a score of 12–1 on the strength of
nine second half goals. Especially in
international football, such lopsided results are seen as unsavoury, even if they are honest. If anything, these incidents serves as evidence that the FIFA tie-breaker can cause incentives to perpetrate a fix in some circumstances, the UEFA tie-breaker in others. Tie-breaking rules played the central role in one of
cricket's more notorious matches. In a
1979 match in England's now-defunct
Benson & Hedges Cup, a
one-day league,
Worcestershire hosted
Somerset in the final group match for both sides. Going into that match, Somerset led their group with three wins from three matches, but would end in a three-way tie for the top spot if they lost to Worcestershire and
Glamorgan defeated the then-winless
Minor Counties South. In that event, the tie-breaker would be bowling
strike rate. The Somerset players calculated that a large enough loss could see them miss the quarter-finals. Accordingly, Somerset captain
Brian Rose determined that if Somerset batted first and declared their innings closed after one over, they would protect their strike rate advantage, assuring advancement to the quarter-finals. When Somerset won the toss, Rose implemented the plan, batting in the first partnership and declaring at the close of the first over after Somerset scored only one run on a no-ball. Worcestershire won during their second over. Rose's strategy, although not against the letter of the rules, was condemned by media and cricket officials, and the
Test and County Cricket Board (predecessor to the current
England and Wales Cricket Board) voted to expel Somerset from that season's competition.
Prize sharing A player can concede with the understanding that the opponent will share the prize equally with him or her. Depending on the game, this can lead to disqualification.
Protest action On occasion, teams tank games as a protest against actions in earlier games. The most lopsided professional football match in history,
AS Adema 149–0 SO l'Emyrne, was a result of SO l'Emyrne intentionally losing the game in protest against the referee's action in a previous game.
Conflicts of interest Sometimes, match fixing may simply be motivated by ownership having controlling interests in two or more teams. In such circumstances, there is often incentive for the common owners' poorer team to deliberately lose to a championship contender, or at least to make roster and/or coaching decisions that increase the contenders' chances of winning. Such collusion is often not limited to individual games, rather, owners may deliberately try to transfer all of their best players to the more lucrative team. A particularly notorious example occurred in the
1899 Major League Baseball season when the owners of the
Cleveland Spiders bought a more profitable team, the
St. Louis Perfectos, and brazenly traded Cleveland's best players to St. Louis. The Spiders finished the season 20–134 (by far the worst record in MLB history) and were contracted after the season. Modern
major sports leagues usually prohibit such ownership arrangements. Where it is necessary or desirable for a single ownership group to control two teams,
salary caps often limit the ability of owners to stack one roster at the expense of another. Typically, to forestall so much as any perception of impropriety, such teams will be prohibited from trading directly with each other and any head-to-head match(es) will usually be scheduled early in the season to ensure there are no obvious championship and/or playoff implications. An example of this arrangement occurred in the early 21st century in the
Canadian Football League; between 2010 and 2015, the
BC Lions and the
Toronto Argonauts were owned by the
same person.
Individual performance in team sports Bookmakers in the early 21st century accept bets on a far wider range of sports-related propositions than ever before. Thus, a gambling-motivated fix might not necessarily involve any direct attempt to influence the outright result, especially in team sports in which such a fix would require the co-operation (and prerequisitely the knowledge) of many people and/or perhaps would be more likely to arouse suspicion. Fixing the result of a more-particular proposition might be seen as less likely to be noticed. For example, the disgraced former
National Basketball Association referee
Tim Donaghy has been alleged to have perpetrated some of his fixes by calling games in such a manner as to ensure more points than expected were scored by both teams, thus affecting "
over-under" bets on the games whilst also ensuring that Donaghy at least did not look to be outright
biased. Also, bets are increasingly being taken on individual performances in team sporting events, which, in turn, has seen the rise of a phenomenon known as
spot fixing although it is now unlikely that enough is bet on average players to allow someone to place a substantial wager on them without being noticed. One such attempt was described by retired footballer
Matthew Le Tissier, who in 2009 admitted that while he was playing with
Southampton FC back in 1995, he tried (and failed) to kick the ball out of play right after the kick-off of a
Premier League match against
Wimbledon FC so that a group of associates would collect on a wager made on an early throw-in. Likewise, a tennis pro was paid to make sure she lost her first service game. She was free to play normally for the rest of the match. The scandal centred on three Pakistani players accepting bribes from a bookmaker,
Mazhar Majeed, during the Lord's test match against England. Following investigations by the News of the World and Scotland Yard, on 1 November 2011, Majeed, Pakistan's captain,
Salman Butt,
Mohammad Asif and
Mohammad Amir were found guilty of conspiracy to cheat at gambling and to accept corrupt payments. As a result, all three of the players were banned by the
International Cricket Council (ICC): Butt for ten years, Asif for seven and Amir for five. On 3 November 2011, jail terms were handed down of 30 months for Butt, one year for Asif, six months for Amir and two years eight months for Majeed.
Effect of non-gambling-motivated fixing on wagering Whenever any serious motivation for teams to manipulate results becomes apparent to the general public, there can be a corresponding effect on betting markets as honest gamblers speculate in
good faith as to the chance such a fix might be attempted. Some bettors might choose to avoid wagering on such a fixture while others will be motivated to wager on it, or alter the bet they would otherwise place. Such actions will invariably affect
odds and
point spreads even if there is no contact whatsoever between teams and the relevant gambling interests. The rise of
betting exchanges has allowed such speculation to play out in real time. ==History==