It’s not down to Sturridge to keep a betting market honest
THEY must have been feeling very generous at Paddy Power the day they let Daniel Sturridge’s cousin place £10,000 on him going to Inter Milan.
Try it. Try to get 10 grand on a footballer going anywhere in the January transfer window. Try to put it on Anthony Martial, say. The market exists.
Martial to Inter Milan before February 1, 2019, is 3-1 with Paddy Power.
And here is how much of £10,000 they want to lay — 83 quid. Anything more and the customer is advised to contact them directly and we all know the way that conversation goes.
You will not find a serious gambler who believes Paddy Power took a £10,000 bet on a single football transfer, to leave them with a liability of £17,000.
To bet £83 on Martial to Inter pays out £249. Indeed, each price throughout the entire Martial market leaves the bookmaker with a liability of between £242 and £253. You can’t have £83 on Martial to Juventus, for instance, because that’s 4-1. So the maximum bet there is £63 and a pay-out of £252.
And on it goes: everton 9-1, maximum bet £28, pay-out £252; Monaco 10-1, maximum bet £25, pay-out £250; Lyon 11-1, maximum bet £23, pay-out £253; AC Milan 12-1, maximum bet £21, pay-out £252; Roma, Napoli 14-1, maximum bet £18, pay-out £252; Newcastle 22- 1, maximum bet £ 11, pay-out £242.
It is the same range of liability for bets on Jadon Sancho’s future, too.
So why would Paddy Power let one punter leave them facing a hit of £17,000, if his hunch came in? And why would anyone have £10,000 on a guess?
The size of the stake implies inside knowledge. Indeed, it couldn’t have been more plainly from the horse’s mouth, had Sturridge’s relative literally ridden into the bookmakers on horseback.
It could not have been more obvious if he had then asked for his winnings up front. Nothing about this story makes sense, least of all the supposed bet.
Noticeably in the email correspondence that emerged at the weekend — in a story alleging Sturridge’s cousin received inside information — no stake money is mentioned.
There is confirmation from Paddy Power that a bet was placed on Sturridge to Inter Milan on January 17 at 11.44 but no reference to the outlay, a crucial detail.
While the principle is the same, there would be considerable difference if the Sturridge family were attempting to unfairly relieve bookmakers of £17,000 or £25, say. Theft is theft, but the Brink’s-Mat robbers got more time than the office junior with a hand in the petty cash till.
In what circumstances would a bookmaker take such an obviously suspect wager? The only possible explanation would be if they wanted to expose a conspiracy.
If by its very nature, the supposed £10,000 bet as good as revealed the passing of information, the bookmakers were on a win-win. If the bet lost, as it did, they were £10,000 up. If it won, well, they wouldn’t be paying out anyway because the bet was crooked. Yet there are other ways to uncover nefarious activity.
The Football Association has placed nine charges against Sturridge, over a variety of bets covering a range of transfer outcomes. Not just Inter Milan and West Brom, his ultimate destination, but other clubs he was linked to, including Sevilla.
Other family members are involved and wagers were placed in the West Midlands area. Given the money in football — and without as yet hearing his side — it appears rather unsavoury.
YET it raises other questions which, in their desperation to do the bookmakers’ bidding, the FA do not seem inclined to answer.
What protection is there for the individual who does not want his life, professional or private, turned into a betting market over which he has no control?
Why should Sturridge, or anyone, have to take a vow of silence, even with family and closest friends, lest he passes on privileged information?
A person changing jobs tells family. It’s an exciting time. It
could affect social arrangements, involve a move closer to home, or one farther away.
yet amid this commotion, Sturridge has to issue the reminder, ‘Don’t have a bet on it.’ This is an insult to intelligence — his, theirs — and completely unnecessary. Sturridge didn’t ask Paddy Power, or anyone, to make their market. It is not up to him to keep it honest and not up to the FA, either.
They should be protecting their stakeholders — clubs, players, referees — not the bookmakers.
Indeed, considering the individual right to privacy, why is this even allowed? Horse racing as a sport trades on its relationship with gambling and one might say football does, too, when 95 per cent of advertising in commercial breaks during live matches is based on betting.
The betting companies help fund the television companies and they help fund the leagues. yet beyond that? Do players get a cut of the markets that are specifically about them? Should they? Shouldn’t they at least be asked?
Clubs, too, when the bets concern individual members of staff. Manchester United to beat Crystal Palace on Saturday is a very different market than Jose Mourinho to be sacked before Christmas, or Martial to join newcastle.
So if bookmakers wish to take bets on areas of the game that are highly vulnerable to inside information, isn’t it their job to ensure the model cannot be corrupted?
Put it like this, if Sturridge had to grant permission for his career to be a tool in Paddy Power’s revenue stream, then the FA charge would have considerably greater basis.
If Sturridge was financially rewarded for permitting that market and was then found to have deliberately corrupted it for his personal gain, or that of his family circle, then injustice is evident. He has deliberately corrupted a market that he helped create, disadvantaging those who are involved, whether as gamblers or bookmakers.
As it is, he has been landed with the unfair burden of protecting a flawed business model that exists to fleece mug punters and the unwitting.
It is not his responsibility, nor that of the FA, even if Paddy Power were daft enough to take £10,000. Those who bet for more than fun, however, are willing to wager they didn’t.