Asked on Thursday about the issue, he said the term match-fixing needs to be better defined.
He said: If Swansea play the last game against a team and a third team pays Swansea to win the game, I really dont see anything bad about that.
But the Dane said today: I am well aware that it is against the rules to accept or receive money to influence the outcome of a football match.
I am in full support of these match-fixing rules and certainly do not advocate any payments of any kind.
The point I was trying to make was that the term match-fixing needs to be defined because there are different levels.
If two teams playing each other both needed a draw and the scores are level with 20 minutes to go, then I wouldnt expect either team to throw men forward looking for the winner.
That to me is not match-fixing.
The worst case of match-fixing I heard was in Italy in the early 80s, before I went there, when three or four players were paid to lose a game.
Can you imagine what the other players felt when they got to know about that after they went out to win.
People like that should be banned for life, not a few years. They should be out of the game forever.
The other point I was trying to make regarding defining the word match-fixing, and which was hypothetical and perhaps taken out of context in relation to the whole interview, was that if someone wanted to pay us to win, then fine, because we go out to win every game anyway. Thats what I meant by a bonus.
Laudrup was asked about the issue because he played for Lazio and Juventus in the 1980s, and Italian football continues to be dogged by match-fixing claims.
As many as 13 Italian clubs mainly from the second division are under investigation.