不能容忍的灰色地带
经过伪职业足球在中国二十年的教育，我逐渐学会了辨析”假球”和”默契球”这些专有名词之间的细微差别，甫一听到都感觉不可思议且义愤填膺，对于那些骗子掮客，绳之以法是刻不容缓的。然而这样的场景一再重现——十多年前，”渝沈之战，绝对假球！”这样的标题，让我无比震撼，可是震撼完了之后，哪怕我们都没忘记这样比赛的存在，我们也只能在无可奈何中继续承受着。
所以社会公认：球迷是中国最苦逼的群落。现实的不堪与肮脏，或许你还能找到一些办法排遣和缓释，可足球本来是给大家一个闲暇时聚众的机会、让社会群落在聚众的环境下找回部分心理平衡，然而中国足球显然只有让你心理更严重失衡的作用。
如此的弄虚作假，光天化日之下进行，手段拙劣嚣张，所以有人说天津辽宁这样的”默契球”，”比’假球’技术含量低多了”。在严格的职业足球环境里，这样的职业比赛，呈现给观众的就是一种具备观赏价值和地域归属感的产品，从而换取观众支付的门票现金、通过电视观看的收视率，并且将这些关注度在第二级市场上形成转化，得到广告赞助收入。社会契约关系，是职业体育商品化的属性组成。天津辽宁的比赛，倘若被认定是”默契球”，那么就是对所有观看这场比赛的现场观众、电视观众以及中超乃至足球所有观众的一次欺骗。这样的欺骗，本质上和售贩假冒伪劣产品，有何差别？
因此对待这样的问题比赛，早已不是一个中国足协风纪问题，而应该是对违背社会契约关系嫌疑行为的深入调查。这是公检法机构应该承担的责任。
一个像中国足协这样的行业管理机构，假如注重行业的规则建立，势必会有相应的条文，来针对这种”默契球”或者”问题比赛”，而不需要一旦发生丑闻，总是被媒体或者球迷推动，最终在迫不得已情况下做出应对。倘若像天津辽宁这样的比赛确实洁白无瑕，中国足协也应该第一时间主动应对，来控制失实新闻的传播，维持行业以及自身形象。
我相信对于类似嫌疑问题，中国足协的各种条文和管理规定里，肯定有相应的调查乃至惩处措施，否则这几年打假杀赌扫黑反腐的风暴，等于白刮了。另一方面，基于对中国足协的认识，有这样的管理规定，能否执行，绝对是疑问。现在的情况是，中国足协能否对这场”问题比赛”有及时反应，都是个大问号——卡马乔和615丑剧的阴云，还远远没能揭过去，这个管理机构在应对这样的危机问题时，毫无公关手段，遑论拨乱反正的能力。
和一些国际体育管理机构相比，类似危机发生时，不是没有可以参照的先例。NBA有明文规定，对消极比赛的惩罚，上赛季打进总决赛的圣安东尼奥马刺，就因为联盟赛程安排不合理，背靠背比赛球队精力不济，波波维奇安排了非最强阵容出战，结果被罚。2009年12月，狼队和曼联的联赛，较上一场更换10人先发，明显对客场挑战曼联采取放弃姿态，两个月后，英足总罚款狼队25000英镑。足球之外，2010年4月，丁俊辉在欧巡赛对梁文博时，被认定”消极比赛”，罚款2000英镑；田径自行车等项目都有过先例。最著名的，莫过于2012伦敦奥运会羽毛球的”消极比赛”，如今仍然是中国羽球界及媒体界的一段公案。
有规定可以遵循，有案例可以参考，只是中国足协有规定怕也难以执行。
不过从一个更大视角看、在公众层面上，对于”默契球”的认定，尤其如何惩处”默契球”以及”消极比赛”，伦敦2012留下的阴影，折射出的更是社会文化差异——”默契球”、”消极比赛”以及”假球”，实际都是利益驱动，如果伦敦2012的中国羽球选手不应该受罚、受罚不公平，那么中超或者CBA出现”默契球”，是否就该受罚？
我们很容易上升到一种自以为是的道德高度，去审视职业体育中的欺骗行为，却没能用社会哲学去分析这些现像。倘若为国效力的国际舞台上出现的欺骗行为，遭受惩罚就是”不公平”，规则倘有漏洞、规则制定者愚蠢，那么去利用规则就是有理的，凭什么国内比赛牵涉到的并非国家利益时，这些职业体育人的行为就”道德败坏、唯利是图”？
谁又比谁高尚？抑或为国争光，可以成为体育欺骗的一种道貌岸然的幌子？
非黑即白的绝对二元对立分析问题，造成中国社会没有继承，只有不断的推倒革命。但是在诚实与欺骗的体育道德问题上，我很难看到游离其间的灰色地带。
体育是直指人心的普众行为，体育不能容忍欺骗，不论利益有多么崇高伟大。
John Yan: A tacit-understanding match
How do you differentiate a fixed match and a ‘tacit-understanding match’?
It is way beyond my English capability to explain the intricate and subtle meanings under the descriptions of a match in the 17th round of the Chinese Super League between Tianjin Taida and Liaoning Hongyun on July 14t. The away team, Liaoning, lost 1:3, and media in China has been crying for a thorough investigation into this match.
It was a very strange match. Three days before this league match, there was a round of the CFA cup, and Liaoning won at home 5:0 against a weak Tianjin team made up mostly of reserve players – that was also the opening day of a new stadium for Liaoning’s home matches. Therefore, the home team looked very favouable in their new home opener. Three days later, Liaoning sent a team to play in the league without any foreign players – and foreign players are widely considered to be key members of any CSL team – then Tianjin, who have been fighting a relegation battle all season, got their positive match result, easily. With this win Tianjin move out of the relegation zone.
This is a blatant ‘tacit-understanding match’, which is not a fixed match by any bookmakers, illegal underground gamblers, but by both clubs. They traded each other with favorable results and felt reasonably comfortable with that.
This is nothing new. We are still wondering what happened in the 2004 European Championship Finals, when teams were playing the last final group match, only if a result of 2:2 between Sweden and Denmark could get Italy relegated. Then the result was 2:2 exactly, with some impressive goals. Was that a fixed match? Maybe we can’t use that strong language, but a ‘tacit-understanding’ between Sweden and Denmark was there and they promoted themselves out of the group stage over the dead body of Italy.
It is up to the game’s regulators to make a decision. These kinds of matches happen all the time, and even those clubs’ fans could live with that cheating. However, for the sake of the sport, this is the time for the sport’s custodian to show up.
There were some interesting international cases: for an EPL match on December 15, 2010, Wolverhampton was visiting Man Utd at Old Trafford. The then Wolves manager, Micky McCarthy, sent a totally different team with nine changes from his usual starting eleven – Wolves lost 0:3. This is definitely not a fixed match, but Wolves’ negative attitude was a serious offence to the sport as well to the league. They were guilty both in the spiritual and commercial sense, and a fine of £20,000 was issued.
Not only football has been very careful about these kinds of cases in both ethical and commercial senses. The NBA had similar cases in which San Antonio Spurs received hefty fines last season.
What should the Chinese Football Association (CFA) do? They would rather do nothing, but they have to act and investigate and dig out some facts. This could be an prededent-setting case in China – cheating is not accepted in professional sport, because in all cases, it damages the sport to no end.
But the CFA seems to be more interested in the national team. Fu Bo, a former striker of Liaoning, was confirmed as the interim manager of the national team, which departed for Korea on July 18 for the East Asia Cup.
Before the whole team’s leaving, a two day camp was held in Beijing, not for training, but for political propaganda education. The CFA and its boss, the National Sport Administration, could not afford any more PR disasters in regarding to the national team. Team China doesn’t have the capability of defeating Korea nor Japan in this cup competition, but the bottom line is very clear: you could lose the matches, but you cannot lose faces any more.
Then how about the ‘tacit understanding match’ that happened in the league and cup competition? The bosses are too occupied to care about the ethics of the game.
John Yan is Deputy Editor of Netease.com