Explained: Ivan Toney’s ban, his bets and why he could have missed next season
The Football Association released the written reasons for Ivan Toney’s eight-month ban from football and all football-related activity on Friday morning. The 25-page document details the extent of the striker’s gambling activity.
The FA originally charged Toney on November 16 with 232 alleged breaches of their betting rules between February 2017 and January 2021. An extra 30 charges were added a month later.
During that period, Toney was initially contracted to Newcastle United but spent time out on loan at Scunthorpe United and Wigan Athletic. Peterborough United signed him in a permanent deal in August 2018 and two years later he joined Brentford for around £5million ($6.2m in today’s currency).
Last week, the FA announced an independent regulatory commission had suspended the striker until January 2024 after he admitted breaching rules around betting on football 232 times while the FA withdrew 30.
It was revealed that Toney:
- Placed 126 bets on matches in a competition his club were participating in or were eligible to participate in
- Placed 13 bets on his own team to lose in seven different matches
- Placed 16 bets on his own team to win in 15 different matches
- Accepted that he lied to the FA when he told them in an interview “I don’t bet on football”
- Admitted when he was being cross-examined that he had used other people’s accounts to bet on football
- Has been diagnosed with a gambling addiction
- Could have been banned for 15 months if he had not pled guilty, and if not for mitigation
What did Toney do?
To fully understand what happened we need to run through a quick timeline of events. The process started last May when the FA requested to interview Toney. They spoke to him for the first time on July 20 and he handed over his mobile phone. In September and October, the striker provided the FA with redacted bank statements for two separate accounts.
The FA conducted a second interview with Toney on October 10 and they asked for unredacted copies of his bank statements which were provided two days later. On October 26, it was confirmed Toney had access to a third bank account and the FA asked to be provided with statements for this too.
After collating all of this information, the FA decided to charge Toney in November with 232 breaches of rule E8, which prohibits people involved in football from betting on the sport. An extra 30 charges were added a month later.
On February 17, Toney admitted 190 breaches of the FA’s betting rules and disputed 72 charges. Toney still played in Brentford’s next 13 fixtures with his final appearance coming against Liverpool on May 6.
In March, the FA withdrew 30 charges and pursued the remaining 42. On April 21, Toney admitted to these 42 charges and the next day he scored in Brentford’s 1-1 draw with Aston Villa. It should be pointed out he initially denied these charges because he did not think he was responsible for them but pleaded guilty to draw a line under the proceedings as soon as possible.
It turns out that 126 of the bets Toney placed were on matches in competitions his club were participating in or eligible to participate in. The written reasons mention 50 of those 126 breaches as being the most serious.
A total of 29 bets or instructions to bet were placed on clubs Toney was registered with or on loan with. Toney placed 16 of those 29 bets on his team to win in 15 different matches. He played in 11 of those fixtures and was an unused substitute in another.
The other 13 bets were placed by Toney on his own team to lose in seven different matches between August 22, 2017, and March 3, 2018. This covers the period of time when the forward was at Newcastle and then got sent out on loan to Wigan and Scunthorpe. Of those, 11 of the bets Toney placed were against Newcastle and two relate to a game between Wigan and Aston Villa. Toney did not play in any of these matches — and this is a crucial detail which will get on to later.
Toney also placed 15 bets on himself to score in nine matches he played in. Those bets were placed before it was public knowledge he would be involved in the matchday squad. There were six bets on particular occurrences within a game that Toney did not play in too, while there was one charge of passing on inside information after telling his friend he would be starting in his club’s next match.
After Toney pleaded guilty to the 232 charges, there were some other key issues which were raised at the disciplinary hearing he attended on May 16. The commission wanted to determine if Toney had knowingly given the FA false information on the two occasions they interviewed him, if he had bet through third parties to conceal his gambling activity from the FA or to conceal it from his parents, whether he deleted messages from his phone related to football betting and if he had a second phone.
Did he know the rules?
This question was at the heart of the entire investigation. Toney’s lawyers argued that he only became fully aware of the FA’s rules around betting after he joined Brentford in September 2020. Toney watched a video at Brentford and claimed “at that point, I began to appreciate that there was an issue with the bets I had previously been placing on football matches”.
In Toney’s first interview with the FA in July, he was asked what he knew about the rules and he replied “can’t bet on football”. A follow-up question tried to determine how long he had been aware of the rules. Toney said “you guys (the FA) used to come at Peterborough when I was there to say you can’t bet on football”. Toney then said he was “sure” the FA visited Peterborough and Brentford prior to the start of every season to provide education on betting rules.
It emerged Toney’s cousin was charged with a breach of the FA’s betting rules in 2017 too. During interviews and cross-examination, Toney said he was aware of the charges against his cousin and that they related to betting on football.
On the basis of this evidence, the independent regulatory commission came to the conclusion Toney was aware of the rules when he breached them.
What was Toney’s argument?
When Toney was interviewed by the FA in July and October, he denied that he bet on football and that he used other people’s accounts to place bets. When he was cross-examined at the disciplinary hearing by Brian O’Neil, the FA’s legal counsel, he admitted he had lied.
During the cross-examination, he was then shown a message he sent to an individual which said “what was that app I gambled on your phone this time?” Later on in these messages, Toney says “can’t have one of them in my name”.
O’Neil then asked Toney if he had used other people’s betting accounts and the forward said “that’s correct”.
The next important part of the case was about the exact nature of Toney’s attempts to conceal his betting activity. Was he trying to hide his behaviour from the FA or from his parents?
Toney’s defence was that he used other people’s accounts to reduce the amount of betting activity which was visible on his bank statements that were delivered to his house and could have caused his parents, Ivan Toney Snr and Lisa Shaw, concern.
The commission did not accept this argument and said he was betting via other people’s accounts to hide what he was doing from the FA.
The FA contended Toney deleted text messages between him and another individual ahead of one of his interviews because they would have been relevant to the investigation. The commission ruled in Toney’s favour and said if he wanted to hide any messages he would have “most likely deleted all of the messages that related to football betting”.
Toney opened up an account with William Hill on February 27 2017, made four bets and then closed it on the same day. The FA argued he tried to hide his identity by using a fake date of birth and telephone number. The commission found Toney opened it in his own name, with his own bank account details and with the correct postcode, which did not “suggest an intention to conceal identity”.
The FA wanted to discover if Toney had another mobile phone which he had not handed over to them as well. Toney denied having a second phone but admitted to using another individual’s device to place bets. During the hearing, the FA suggested there was a third phone that was not Toney’s phone he handed over or the other individual’s phone. The commission said the FA’s case was “vague” and the issue was dropped.
Was there any mitigation?
There was a significant amount of mitigation, which is what led to the eventual length of Toney’s suspension.
Dr Philip Hopley, a consultant psychiatrist, interviewed Toney twice and came to the conclusion in his report that Toney “has a clear history of gambling addiction”. He also said Toney required professional help. He also said Toney had an impulsive/compulsive disorder. These are disorders where a person fails to resist an impulse, an urge or a temptation.
The commission accepted the fact Toney had a gambling addiction, which was further highlighted by the fact he has been gambling on other sports and casino games. He has, however, ceased gambling on football.
Toney will seek therapy to address the issue.
Other mitigating factors were the fact it was not a “match-fixing case”, Toney’s genuine remorse, his previous good record and his relative youth at the time of the bets.
How long could the ban have been?
In the worst-case scenario for the striker, he could have been suspended for the entire 2023-24 season and missed next summer’s European Championship. The commission was prepared to give him a 15-month ban if he had not pled guilty to the charges.
Toney’s guilty plea meant the ban was initially reduced to 11 months. The commission then considered the striker’s age at the time he committed these rules breaches, the “genuine remorse he expressed” and Dr Hopley’s diagnosis that he has a gambling addiction. After weighing up all of these factors, they decided on an eight-month ban.
The FA then argued in favour of the ban starting after the summer, which would have increased the ban to encompass most of next season. This was not accepted by the commission.
While he will not play again until January next year, this is significantly less time than Toney could have spent on the sidelines.
What have Brentford said?
Brentford released a statement on their website after the written reasons were published which said “Ivan and Brentford accept that offences were committed and sanctions were inevitable”.
“The commission noted that none of the charges related to events where Ivan could negatively impact his own team. The club will now be doing everything possible to provide support to Ivan and his family to deal with the issues raised in this case. Conversations regarding this and all matters relating to the case will remain confidential in order to protect the player and his family.
“We consider this matter closed and look forward to welcoming Ivan back to training in September and seeing him representing Brentford in the Premier League in January.”
