Here's a link to a paper that is written by the UChicago economist partly behind Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt:
The other day in class while talking about Ric Flair and wrestling I had an epiphany. I had seen thee narrative of fixing matches in another sport with a long history. That sport is sumo wrestling. A sport that is heavily fixed, but unlike wrestling it does not acknowledge it. Wrestling's "fakeness" is acknowledged and embraced, for Sumo wrestling it is the lube for the machine. It is not officially acknowledged but is widely-known.
I came across the rigging within Sumo wrestling when watching the Freakonomics film which detailed the Sumo underworld of rigging and throwing of matches. What amazes me is that the Sumo wrestlers seem to rig matches to to ensure the spectacle by allowing as many rikishi to make their quota of wins. In wrestling booking a match serves the same purpose as far as ensuring the spectacle, but this is achieved through giving the crowd what it wants as far as who is the victor. In Sumo for matches to be rigged money must changes hands. Ultimately I think the attitudes towards deciding matches before they happen within each sport depend on the culture of the sport itself. Wrestling knows that it is fake and the focus of the sport is on the crowd and the spectacle; this allows it to not have to deal with the consequences of being fake because it does not contradict any of wrestling's tenets. For Sumo wrestling, the focus on and preservation of Shinto purity rituals means that cheating openly is a definite no. It would, on the surface, present a contradiction that is much easier dealt with when denied than admitted.