On Monday, with typical journalistic timing, Channel 4 sandwiched the somewhat inflammatory-titled How to Fix a Football Match in between Australia v Spain and Cameroon v Brazil.

As programmes go, some may have found it more interesting than the matches that it followed and preceded.

Dispatches were responsible for this piece in which, rather like the websites that instruct would-be terrorists on the complexities of assembling a bomb, they revealed the vital components required to fix a football match.

As with bomb-making, the message has to be: Don’t try this at home. In any event I am not sure how much practical use this programme will be to the average person. However, for those who may be interested, roughly translated these are the ingredients. First things first: surprise, surprise, you need a little help. It would also appear, in order to keep costs down it is advisable to recruit teams from Africa – a continent where Western money goes a long way.

The target match should be an international game, preferably a friendly, something like Gambia v Ghana.

Whereas the layman might consider an on-side goalkeeper would give all the help needed, it appears there is a cheaper and easier way to fix a result – and that is by bunging the officials. An offside decision here, a penalty there, a free kick, and before you know it, your desired score is achieved. Of course it is not that easy to predict the score line exactly, but you can narrow down the options: 2-1, 3-1, or 3-2 virtually guaranteed will do, particularly if you are getting up to 33/1 your money for any one of the three named possibilities on the correct score markets.

Sound good? Assuming you have no problem with cheating or breaking the rules, for an outlay of approaching £30,000 – considerably less in many cases – fixing a result to suit does not appear to be too difficult.

I am not sure we should be surprised at this information. After all, in the world we live in, it would appear anything can be manipulated or arranged; anyone can be bought from pop stars to politicians (we don’t have to delve too far back in our recent history to see an obvious example) – it is just a question of hitting on the right price, be that with hard currency or currency of a different kind.

The problem with Monday’s programme is that those of us that know a little about betting can immediately see the flaw in its assertion. And it is an obvious flaw. At a time when many punters are having a devil of a job placing a wager of £50 at 3/1 – how are the fixers supposed to strike the bets needed in order to cover their expenses, let alone make a profit? Folklore suggests the answer lies in the Far Eastern markets. However, the sort of bookmakers in Singapore and Hong Kong that will take these kinds of bets with impunity are likely to be illegal operators – meaning any winnings are not guaranteed. Also it is fair to say such operators have not just exited the womb. They are not stupid and know a thing or two about the business they are in. They are versed in the ways of the hothouse known as the betting jungle. Their very survival depends on it. Those assuming they can smuggle undetected bets past the system on a two-bit football match, hastily convened to provide a betting bonanza for those in possession of its result, need a reality check. The bush telegraph operated by bookmakers is acute. A steady stream of similar bets will be noticed quickly. And once a pattern is established the jungle drums will start to beat.

From then on the rules change. These bookmakers are not known for their sense of fair play. They are not nice people. Cross them and you can expect a knock on the door one night. Mr Wang wants a word, know what I mean John…

Those thinking they can buck the system are liable to find themselves playing outside their league. The men doing the calling can handle a baseball bat amongst other instruments…

The problem with programmes like the one presented by Dispatches is that they are at their most effective when watched by those that are ignorant of reality. In this case we know it is not possible to successfully place the kind of bets needed to make this so-called sting work. What is more likely is that those arranging the fixing for the fixers will be paid twice – once by those mistakenly thinking a massive edge has been arranged: once by the bookmakers taking money on a result that in fact will never materialise because a deal within a deal has been made. After all, bookmakers have a history of only taking losing bets rather than winning ones. When bookmakers appear to be accommodating, punters should be wary.

Most probably out of ignorance, the practicalities of the situation have been ignored by Channel 4. In this case those of us conversant with the business can instantly spot the weakness in their argument. It begs the question how many flawed issues that we are less aware of are focused on by those pursuing a perceived weakness in any system they choose to highlight.

How To Fix a Football Match might make a good headline, but fixing a match without being able to cash in on its consequences seems an expensive pastime.