> 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?