[dataflow]

> Taking a dive in a fight (losing) in order to fix the fight (for those gambling on it) would be an example of a rigged fight.

That doesn't make sense... the fight is rigged (and you're claiming this would be illegal in the fight) because people happened to gamble on it? I've never seen a sport where the legality of a move depends on whether some outsider had gambled on it.

Wouldn't it be the gambling that would be rigged at that point, instead of the fight?

[nickthegreek]

OP’s boxing example was a perfect illustration of the common use of the word rigged. It’s rigged because the outcome was predetermined but not presented that way to the outside viewer.

[dataflow]

But it's still legal, no? That's my point. I'm not saying it's good, just that it's an entirely different beast from illegal conduct. US elections have always been rigged (see: legally required electoral college) but they've never been "stolen"/"illegitimate" AFAIK.

[weeblewobble]

No. It’s illegal to fix a sanctioned boxing match. Both in the sense of being against the rules of the entity putting on the match, and in the sense of violating the law.

Wrestling is a different beast but boxing is heavily regulated in the US

[dataflow]

Is this true even if there is no betting/gambling/etc. on the match?

[nickthegreek]

You can rig a game of monopoly, you can rig a jury. The act of something being rigged is separate from it being legal. Sometimes it is both, sometimes it is not.

[jki275]

If the fighter is paid to take a dive, then the fight is rigged and the bettors on the outside know which way to bet. It's fraud, and yes, generally illegal.

[weeblewobble]

Just want to add another voice in favor of OP. They have explained this extremely clearly, it’s hard for me to imagine demanding more