STURRIDGE STORM
FA livid over striker’s soft six-week ban for transfer betting tips
THE FA are furious after Daniel Sturridge was banned yesterday for just six weeks, despite evidence he provided his family with inside betting information on an impending transfer.
The FA wanted Sturridge banned for at least six months for breaches of betting regulations and will appeal against a suspension that allows him to resume playing in 12 days.
It was confirmed yesterday that the former England striker, without a club after being released by Liverpool, has been fined £75,000 and banned for six weeks, with four suspended, by an independent commission.
The evidence, handed over to investigators by Sturridge, showed the 29-year- old had provided his brother with inside information regarding a possible loan move to Sevilla in January last year.
There were conversations between Sturridge and other family members
and friends about possible moves away from Anfield in January 2018. The messages often included references to betting and odds. Had they been successful in placing all the bets, bookmakers would have lost more than £300,000.
In one WhatsApp message to his brother Leon, Sturridge said: ‘Put the grand on Sevilla I’ll give it you back if you lose. But wait until 6pm. They’re having their meeting at 3 so will know for sure my outcome after that.’
Detailed in the evidence was also the fact that Anthon Walters, the cousin of Sturridge’s father, tried to place a bet with Paddy Power for £13,830 on the player moving to Inter Milan. The bet was rejected.
The evidence continued: ‘However, shortly after 2am Anthon succeeded in placing a bet for £10,000 on the same transfer at odds of 17/10.’ Eighty- three other bets were placed or attempted to be placed on Sturridge moving to Inter Milan around that time. The Inter Milan bets were placed prior to Sturridge’s representatives meeting
the Italian club. A deal was not concluded.
The Sevilla bet was never placed, with Sturridge claiming he had separately made it clear he was not happy that he was being nagged for the information and was therefore against any betting.
The FA’s case concluded that betting on Sturridge’s potential moves was a ‘family affair’ with ‘Daniel Sturridge providing the inside information, Leon using his contacts to ascertain the best available odds and his father Michael Sturridge liaising with Anthon in order for the bets to be placed’.
It seems they were not terribly successful. ‘ The total sum wagered by those connected directly or indirectly to Mr Sturridge (“the connected bettors”) was £ 13,755.82, returning £ 10,762.56,’ the commission stated.
‘ In addition, the connected bettors attempted to place bets worth £20,560 on Mr Sturridge’s potential transfer moves.
‘These bets were refused. Had they been accepted, however, and had they been successful, these bets would have returned a further £317,006.
‘Even if Mr Sturridge did not know that the inside information was being used in this way, the FA submitted that he ought reasonably to have known that it would be. This is particularly so in relation to his brother, Leon, who was a frequent recipient of the inside information in question.’
After an eight-month investigation, the FA believed they had a strong case. In submissions to the regulatory commission, the FA argued Sturridge had shown a ‘cynical determination’ to provide the best available inside information and that a ‘sporting sanction is the only realistic outcome... and a sanction of any shorter duration than six months would wholly fail to reflect the gravity of the case’.
The FA said: ‘ Mr Sturridge faced 11 charges. Nine of those concerned alleged breaches of the inside information rule. It was said Mr Sturridge had provided inside information to friends and family about his possible transfer moves in January 2018, which information had then been used for, or in relation to, betting. Those charges were dismissed by the Regulatory Commission.
‘The Regulatory Commission proved charges 3 and 4, which alleged that, in that same transfer window, Sturridge had instructed his brother, Leon, to bet on a possible move by him to Sevilla. In issuing that instruction... Mr Sturridge had provided his brother with inside information for that purpose.
‘By way of sanction, the Regulatory Commission imposed on Mr Sturridge a six-week suspension.
‘The FA respectfully disagrees with the Regulatory Commission’s findings and will be appealing against the charges which were dismissed and the sanction which was imposed.’
The regulatory commission did accept that Sturridge had misled FA investigators in the first of two interviews he gave.
The commission added: ‘In his second interview, which took place after messages had been retrieved by the FA, it was suggested that Mr Sturridge was unable to provide any sensible explanation for them, nor realistically could any such explanation be given.’
Sturridge and his legal team strongly contested the FA’s evidence, stating that the ‘FA’s overarching allegation of a “family affair” is wrong’.
The commission appear to agree, also arguing that the lack of precedent made it difficult to ascertain what an appropriate punishment should be. ‘None of the guidelines deals with the offence of instructing a person to bet,’ said the commission.
They also took into account that ‘Mr Sturridge has no previous disciplinary record with the FA’, adding that ‘Daniel told Leon not to be so stupid’ when he first suggested putting a ‘grand’ on Sevilla.
Sturridge claimed the instructions he did give, however, were ‘out of character’ at a time when he was ‘facing a number of significant challenges, both personally and professionally’.
He also ‘expressed remorse for his actions in instructing Leon to bet on 19 January 2018’.
The commission said: ‘ This experience has been stressful for Mr Sturridge and has placed a number of his relationships under strain.’
The commission took into account some difficult personal circumstances — leading sports psychiatrist Dr Steve Peters was called to give evidence — and Sturridge was also described as suitably remorseful and credited with setting up the ‘ Sturridge Football Academy’ for young footballers.
The bets did not concern matches and therefore would not have undermined the integrity of the game.
Former Sports Minister Tracey Crouch believes the suspension is too lenient. The MP tweeted yesterday: ‘I’m afraid it makes a mockery of the FA rules.’
In a statement, Sturridge said he is disappointed that the FA are appealing. He said: ‘I am pleased that nine of the 11 charges were dismissed and that the panel found me to be an honest and credible witness, and that my actions on one particularly difficult day were out of character. I will continue to defend the case and the appeal.’