As of August 1 2014, it is an offence for any employee of a football club (including directors and some subcontractors) to place a bet on a football match anyone in the world.
This is a new ruling to come in from The FA and includes every employee of every club from the Premier League to Step 4 level .
The FA say they are monitoring global betting markets on a daily basis while English law demands that bookmakers inform the authorities of any suspicious betting patterns. Under new legislation, any betting company wishing to offer bets in the UK must have a licence, putting an end to unregulated offshore bookies. In theory this should make the markets easier to monitor.
http://www.thefa.com/news/2014/may/ban-on-betting-passed-by-fa-shareholders 
Comments
Ronnie was part of a family syndicate , we discussed it on this thread . I would have taken a different view if his fiver had been placed on Tranmere losing . I felt it was harsh.
http://www.charltonlife.com/discussion/62113/ronnie-moore
It's merely a rule of a "members club" which people and businesses choose to belong to.
You aren't going to get prosecuted as an individual.
In addition it's difficult to know what the FA's sanction could be against, say, a turnstile operator other than some pointless ban from working for an FA affiliated club and how would even that be monitored?
In addition there is, for example, currently a defence to any charges brought against "a participant" by the FA:
"It shall be a defence to a charge brought pursuant to sub-paragraph (e) if a
Participant can establish, on the balance of probability, that the Participant
provided any such information in circumstances where he did not know, and could
not reasonably have known, that the information provided would be used by the
other person for or in relation to betting".
So, in my view, it seems safe to assume that the aforementioned turnstile operator could have as their defence the fact that they were entirely ignorant of any inside info about their bet, and that any FA imposed ban on working in football would be very rapidly overturned by an employment tribunal or human rights court.
This is just silly FA bluster and it's really aimed, surely, at the higher echelons within clubs. If so, they really ought to say so. I think, too, that the FA probably need to employ better lawyers. (I guess The Football League's abject failure in the Leeds Utd takeover case hasn't managed to filter through to the FA's brain cell yet to serve as a lesson as to what is likely to happen when you make up rules on the hoof.)
It's merely a rule of a "members club" which people and businesses choose to belong to.
You aren't going to get prosecuted as an individual.
In addition it's difficult to know what the FA's sanction could be against, say, a turnstile operator other than some pointless ban from working for an FA affiliated club and how would even that be monitored?
In addition there is, for example, currently a defence to any charges brought against "a participant" by the FA:
"It shall be a defence to a charge brought pursuant to sub-paragraph (e) if a
Participant can establish, on the balance of probability, that the Participant
provided any such information in circumstances where he did not know, and could
not reasonably have known, that the information provided would be used by the
other person for or in relation to betting".
So, in my view, it seems safe to assume that the aforementioned turnstile operator could have as their defence the fact that they were entirely ignorant of any inside info about their bet, and that any FA imposed ban on working in football would be very rapidly overturned by an employment tribunal or human rights court.
This is just silly FA bluster and it's really aimed, surely, at the higher echelons within clubs. If so, they really ought to say so. I think, too, that the FA probably need to employ better lawyers. (I guess The Football League's abject failure in the Leeds Utd takeover case hasn't managed to filter through to the FA's brain cell yet to serve as a lesson as to what is likely to happen when you make up rules on the hoof.)
I agree. In betting shops, for example, most betting is anonymous. You could argue that the media are in a much better position to receive and make use of inside information, but the FA can't control what reporters do. Extending their rules to include, for example, catering staff betting on other matches in different jurisdictions means absolutely nothing and unless incorporated into each club's staff policies I don't see how a club could even act on it, still less the FA.
1. In the past a club's employee could bet on matches that did not involve his club; or the competitions his club plays in that season; or the competitions involving any club he has played for that season. So, for example, a Charlton player, signing from Aston Villa, this season would not be allowed to bet on the outcome of (or outcome of any game involving teams in) the Premier League, the FA Cup, the League Cup or the Championship. Other matches (eg League One or European matches) would be ok.
The new rule extends it to all matches.
2. Players used to be prohibited from match result betting; spot betting (ie number of goals, corners, yellow cards, etc); or competition betting (eg who is going to win the FA Cup). But other bets surrounding football (eg player transfers, hiring of managers, etc) are now included.
The bit I don't get is this: "Under new legislation, any betting company wishing to offer bets in the UK must have a licence, putting an end to unregulated offshore bookies". How does a new rule, that imposes an obligation on betting shops in the UK "put an end to unregulated offshore bookies"? That's a leap that I can't decipher.
When the new Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill finishes wending its way through Parliament all bookmakers, not just UK ones, will be required to get a license from The Gambling Commission if they wish to provide betting services to UK-based punters.
That puts them under the auspices of The Gambling Commission's enforcement regime and - if they wish to keep their license - means they will need to comply with the Commisssion's edicts. That will include the provision of data on betting if they are needed to demonstrate that there had been "unusual betting patterns".
Now, whether the proverbial turnstile operator putting a £5 bet on a match with a Gibraltar-based bookmaker is going to trigger any enforcement action..... well, I leave you to decide!
The other pertinent question, of course, is whether The Gambling Commission would be inclined to use its enforcement powers to work out whether a member of a private body had breached that body's membership rules. I think they may be more inclined to not waste their resources on such an enquiry unless there was the scope to demonstrate that there had been either widespread or high worth fraudulent activity.
In fact, the Commission's own policy statement, using phrases such as "risk assessment", "proportionality" and "offences under the Act" together with a clear focus on "the prevention on illegal gambling" rather indicates that the body with the enforcement powers is quite likely to tell the FA to FO.