First of all, Donaghy provided this information in hopes of a reduced sentence, so take it with a grain of salt.
Second, like I said, he did not suggest that game 6 of Lakers Kings came from the league office. He says that the two refs were company men that would act in the leagues interest. A "company man" will act in his company's interest without being ordered to do so. The document cited says that the referees themselves wanted to fix the game, not the league. This is different from the examples he gives where he says "top executives" ordered things, below.
Third, if you read the document cited, which, again, is a document written by his lawyer to justify a downward departure from federal sentencing guidelines, the examples he gives of "top executives" manipulating games are as follows:
1. Telling officials not to eject star players. Is this one a surprise, if true? Of course not. you don't think a ref should get reprimanded if he tosses Michael Jordan from a game for mouthing off?
2. Telling refs to call moving screens against a player on a team that was up 2-0 after the losing team complained. No where does Donaghy suggest the player was not committing moving screens. I mean, this is why coaches complain to refs before, during, and after games. What is wrong with the league reviewing the game tape and deciding that one player's illegal conduct is giving that team an unfair advantage and instructing the refs to flag that illegal conduct? Every coach in every sport complains with the hopes of obtaining this result.
So, in total, these are the incendiary allegations against league executives: 1. Instructing refs not to toss stars from games (duh) and 2. Instructing the refs to call fouls against one guy because the other team complained. If these are equivalent to "match fixing" then we have a different definition of the term.
Here is the link to the actual document his lawyer filed with the court.
http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/080610/donaghy03.pdf