The picture that emerged of England striker Ivan Toney on Friday when the written reasons for his eight-month football ban were released by the FA was of a man addicted to a disease, one fed and watered by sport who banished him. .
Toney deserved to be punished for his 232 gambling rule violations and the details of the offenses he committed shed light on a self-assured football subculture of degenerate young men overrun with disposable income and leisure, bombarded by gambling advertisements, ripe for exploitation.
Toney was diagnosed with a gambling addiction by a psychiatric expert as part of an investigation into his gambling activities, which only heightens concerns about the mixed messages being sent to players running onto the field with the names of gambling companies on their shirts and perimeter boards on any terrain.
There was nothing in the written reasons, sobering and comprehensive as they were, to change the mind of those who still believe that the punishment imposed on Toney – specifically the ban on even training with Brentford for the next four months – not fair is harsh but counterproductive.
Some hailed the revelation in the written reasons that Toney had bet his own team would lose 13 times with the horror such a statement would normally earn. Only, in Toney’s case, he wasn’t really playing for his “own team” when he bet on it.
Ivan Toney (pictured) should not be made a pariah after he has been diagnosed with a gambling addiction
Toney didn’t bet against his own team in games he could influence
When Toney bet Newcastle would lose, he was loaned out to Wigan. The few times he bet Wigan would lose he wasn’t even in the match squad let alone on the bench or in the team.
He broke the rules. He shouldn’t have bet on football at all. He should have known better.
And again, he deserves to be punished. But let’s not try to make this look worse than it was by pretending that he could have influenced the results.
More than 60 years ago, English football was rocked by its last major gambling scandal.
Sheffield Wednesday players Peter Swan, Tony Kay and David ‘Bronco’ Layne each bet £50 on their team to lose at Alf Ramsey’s Ipswich Town in December 1962 at odds of 2–1.
Every man played in the match and although they claimed to have done their very best and Kay was rated the best player in the game, Wednesday lost 2-0 and the three men made a £100 profit.
When their crime came to light, they were banned from football for life.
Betting against your own team is, rightly so, an emotional subject because it increases the possibility that a player would have thrown a match.
The striker must be brought to talk about the dangers of betting in schools and football clubs
Gareth Southgate hit the right note when he questioned the sanctions Toney faces
It’s legitimate to wonder if Toney’s punishment could have been handled better
Brentford striker Toney’s suspension should be half what it is and he shouldn’t be placed in isolation
It hits right at the legitimacy of the game, which is why Swan, Kay and Layne were given such heavy penalties, as outrageous as they now seem.
Toney’s offense isn’t remotely comparable.
Toney didn’t bet against his own team in games he could influence. That is the key to that particular part of the crimes he has committed.
He definitely deserves a ban. Strange as it may be that football encourages betting with one hand and throws the other hand in disgust at the reality of it, Toney knows the rules.
There are those who argue that if Manchester City are found guilty of some of the 115 charges the Premier League has brought against them, they should be spared punishment because they play wonderful football.
However, rules in sports don’t work that way.
However, it’s legitimate to wonder if Toney’s punishment could have been handled more resourcefully and constructively.
What’s the point of not training him for four months when isolation is one of the reasons he’s in this situation?
Toney’s situation has raised concerns about the mixed messages being sent to players with the names of gambling companies on their shirts
Toney deserves to be punished, but we shouldn’t pretend he can influence the results
Toney’s ban should be half of what it is. And instead of making him a pariah, the FA should let him serve part of his suspension by putting him on a gambling team, visiting schools and football clubs across the country and warning them of the misery which can be caused by betting on football.
There are more positive ways to make an example of him than throwing him into the wilderness.
That is why England manager Gareth Southgate hit the right note earlier this week when he questioned the sanctions imposed on Toney.
“I don’t like the idea of us just leaving someone so they can’t be part of the football community,” said Southgate.
“I don’t think we should work that way. I don’t think the best rehabilitation programs work that way.”