International cricket involving the test nations is mostly free from match fixing now. It would have happened a decade ago, but not now. The ICC has strict monitoring mechanism in place and this prevents any sort of match fixing from happening in international matches. But I can't guarantee the same, with matches involving smaller teams such as UAE and Zimbabwe. In fact multiple members of the UAE national team were suspended recently, for their involvement in match fixing.
Their suspensions show you that the game of Cricket is not as fair as you thought it is. Even if all indicators point towards a segment of the game being fixed, it still has to be proven and that is not necessarily an easy thing to do. In theory, the whole game can be fair besides the segment when one batsman is out to play. Players can underperform even without being bribed. Huge bets placed on a particular batsman and run total is a good indication, but still not definite proof that there is match fixing involved.
Maybe an oath and a salary more than enough to avoid this bit of cheating.
I think I understood what you are trying to say. When the documentary talked about how cricket groundsmen get bribed for manipulating the pitch, it was said that the match fixing fee they receive for one match is equal to 8 years of wages they earn by doing their regular job. And that's the problem. They are paid too little, and hence the possibility of getting involved in illegal business ventures increases dramatically.
It's always interesting reading about these sort of scandals and it is possible that I overlooked it, but you seem to be making a false allegation that the English team was involved.
The member of the gambling syndicate tells the reporter in the video that 3 players from the English side were bribed and will manipulate the score.
I have no doubt that the English players have the capacity to cheat, but reading that $60,000 was all it took set alarm bells off. Considering all the people that would need to be paid with that money, it doesn't seem to be worth anywhere near the risk for such a low amount from a professional cricketer perspective.
The $60.000 was the money the reporter was supposed to pay to receive the tip about the fix, nothing else. I don't think it was mentioned in the video how much bribe money the players allegedly received. Also, the entire team wouldn't know about the fix. Only 3 players were allegedly involved. Therefore, the money isn't divided equally amongst all players. The way it works is they usually make a deal with a player. Let's say the deal is you will get $100.000 for batting badly, and that's it. The entire match is not fixed, only the segment when that particular player bats. It would be equal to bribing a football player who takes free kicks to always hit the wall when he shoots. But imagine you can bet on the outcome of the freekick. You aren't fixing the match, and your team might still win, you are just shooting like shit on purpose.
Also, the sum of $60,000 being paid by the Al Jazeera reporter seems unusually high in order to prove a story as legitimate? Did the reporter or source of funds end up taking advantage of the fraudulent betting knowledge to make the money back?
No, of course not, they just followed the game and pretended they made a huge profit from it. The deal was the money would be given to an intermediary and released in their next meeting after the reporter (who pretended to be a businessman) received the tips and made the bets. The segment they received the tip for played out exactly as the syndicate member said it would. At the next meeting, the reporter said who he was, they brought out the cameras, and revealed the whole thing.