|（School of Law，South China Normal University，Guangzhou 510006，China)
Abstract: In China, match-fixing cases are convicted of a bribe acceptance crime, while the determination of the nature of matching-fixing behaviors is omitted, which has formed such a wrong orientation as considering anti-corruption more important than anti-match-fixing; the academic community’s researches on the determination of the nature of matching-fixing are not convincing as well. In jurisdictions abroad, matching-fixing is not convicted of a bribe acceptance crime, but convicted of a fraud crime; their experiences are worthy of our reference. In China, the nature of match-fixing should be determined as a fraud crime: a player fails to provide the organizer with a real competition and gets the interest of “debt exemption”; competition protection is the perfect fusion of property inter-est protection and sports honesty protection; the loss of subjective value of sports honesty should be considered during conviction; national interest shall not be used as an excuse for matching fixing. People who accept a bribe as a result of match-fixing will be guilty of both fraud and bribe acceptance crimes.
Key words: sports law；sports honesty；fraud crime；property interest；match-fixing