Does soccer reward cheating?

French striker Thiery Henry's recent dribbling the ball with his hand instead of his foot has lots of soccer fans asking this question. British economist Tim Harford thinks it does not; here's his reasoning:

Henry has been selfless. The rewards of his cheating go largely to his team-mates, who get to go to the World Cup with their names unblemished, and to fans of French football, once they get over the embarrassment – which they will. Henry himself faced all the risks. He might have been cautioned or sent off, but surely the far greater risk was what happened: only the TV cameras noticed the handball and a great striker’s reputation was tarnished. His subsequent pronouncements of guilt, shame and remorse have hardly put matters right. So, what would an economist have done? The answer is absolutely clear: economists would never cheat in front of the camera.

In other words, Harford thinks that when soccer players cheat it's because of an uncontrolled impulse rather than a deliberate response to incentives. From a single player's perspective, it doesn't pay to cheat, but sometimes the hand is just quicker than the head (or foot).

When it comes to Thiery Henry, Harford is probably right. There's no way the French striker could have though his blatant handball wouldn't be exposed on cameras, so it was probably just a reflex (that went unnoticed by the referee). But in general I think this is wrong; you don't always get caught on camera when you cheat. If your cheating is subtle enough, you'll have some room for plausible deniability despite the fact that the cameras will register what you did. Some blatantly dishonest plays don't look all that bad in replays.