FA AS GUILTY AS STURRIDGE
THERE were only a few hours between Trabzonspor’s announcement that Daniel Sturridge’s contract had been terminated and the specific explanation, but Sky Bet had already made a book on his next destination.
A move to Major League Soccer was favoured: 2-1 Atlanta United, 3-1 Inter Miami, 5-1 LA Galaxy or Rangers, 6-1 Newcastle United, 8-1 New York City. And feel free to have a flutter, unless you know something. If you know something they’ll refuse to pay out and try to get Sturridge nicked by the FA for conspiracy.
Only if you are betting blind, basically having a guess, do the bookies seek your money.
This is how the FA want it, too. They do nothing to protect those who play the game from predators, but they’ll hire the finest legal minds to keep bookmakers from harm. Sturridge is currently serving a four-month ban for breaching FA betting rules by passing on information for gambling purposes. He did wrong.
Nobody is going to defend him over that. Yet the fact Sky Bet continue to blithely court publicity by making sport with his career shows how twisted football’s sense of right and wrong has become.
Sky Bet demonstrate no consideration for the mixed messages around gambling, for potential entrapment. They are brazen about the way markets are manipulated to the advantage of the house. And the FA are their accomplices.
While purporting to act for the good of the game, they are in league with the creators of the problem. Sturridge has at no time asked betting companies to make a book on his career. He sees no profit from this market. His crime was to talk or exchange messages with friends and family, guiding them on his future. Even though no winning bets were made, and in some cases no bets placed, Sturridge was found guilty of divulging sensitive information in four instances. In one of them the recipient was based in New York, where at the time it was impossible to get a bet on, due to America’s gambling laws. As for the infamous £10,000 bet, Sturridge was found to have no influence over that, and mystery surrounds it still. But this we do know. At 2.11pm on January 17, 2018, Paddy Power issued a press release saying thousands had gone on Sturridge signing for Inter in the last few hours. His odds had been slashed from 10-1 to 1-14. The release, signed from ‘UK PR and mischief champion’ Amy Jones was written with the affected chumminess and laddish vernacular that is the bookmaker’s trademark. ‘Studge — remember him? He has been bench-warming at Liverpool but it seems he’s off to sunnier climes.’
Leaving aside the ignorance of a typical northern Italian winter, one possible motive was clear. If bookies regard Sturridge to Inter Milan as a certainty, so does the media, and it has to credit Paddy Power as the source. Is national publicity worth a liability of £17,000 — the £10,000 bet being placed at 17-10 — or did someone simply mess up by taking it?
Accepting a huge stake on a punt of that nature is irregular. Maybe by then the betting patterns had failed the sniff test and Paddy Power knew they would not be paying out, even if the wager came in. Ultimately, it lost.
Still, a lot of money was being made off dear old bench-warmer ‘Studge’ that day.
Not by gamblers, obviously. By bookmakers. They are the ones who can take over the life of a player and make it so he cannot even discuss his career with his family, in case a neighbour finds out and places a bet.
There is no defence of Sturridge here, but the precedent the FA has set to protect the sanctity of bookmakers’ fun markets is the greater outrage. It is not up to any footballer to make this defective, corruptible game work.
The reason there is so much scepticism around the £10,000 wager is that transfer bets invariably have liability limits not far north of £200, because they are so vulnerable to inside
information. Sky Bet currently have transfer specials on all the most anticipated summer moves: but try to bet £10,000. Paddy Power’s website tells gamblers their limits. Want to put 10 grand on Jadon Sancho joining Juventus at 10-1? Unlucky. You can have 25 quid. So whoever took £10,000 on Sturridge to Inter either knew the file was being handed to the authorities, or wasn’t the brains of the operation. Maybe it was the same person who packs a sarong for Milan in mid-winter.
AS FOR champions of mischief, bookmakers don’t want any of that. To the layman, mischief might be hitting Paddy Power up for a nice few quid on something you know is a certainty.
But try that type of mischief and they cry foul. The mischief they like is creating a market in which only those having an uneducated guess can participate. So not mischief at all, really. Daylight robbery, in fact.
A new job is exciting. It is also disruptive. In football, it could involve changing cities, even countries. Arrangements will have to be made, personal options considered. Of course, footballers should be able to discuss career moves with family and friends without fear an unguarded whisper will get them banned.
It is the bookmakers who should be censured, because there should be no market. Want to make one, then you do so at your own risk. It is not up to any player to prop up this dubious process.
The FA will argue that their rules on gambling are very clear. How come, then, it has taken at least three QC-led legal teams to define and rule on Regulation E8 in the case of Sturridge?
How come the FA had to appeal against the verdict of their own panel for being too lenient?
A precedent has been set in which a bet does not even have to be placed, and even an innocent conversation, unwittingly passed on, can be turned against a player — and for what? To make sure the mischief makers, the cynics, the grubby little opportunists can continue to siphon their cash from the game, and from those who play it.
nobody is disputing Sturridge’s ban, but the FA are complicit in its cause. They are not on the high moral ground here. They are waist-deep in the worst of it.