by You’d think Nottingham Forest had been under a bit of pressure following the performances of Brentford’s reserve side. The friendly against Como was 2-2 and then, last Saturday, a 5-1 win over Southampton Under-23s.
Ivan Toney scored in the first and got a hat-trick in the second. It’s not Premier League B-team football but the suggestion is that the England striker is in form and ready to return from an eight-month suspension for breaching gambling regulations.
Related: Stick or spin? January transfer window wish lists for Premier League fans
Forest could feel that the fixture calendar was a little unkind to them. If they had landed in the other half of the winter break and played the game this weekend, Toney would not be available. And this is a fairly crucial game: six pointers for the sides looking a little anxiously over their shoulders and wondering if Luton are better than everyone thought. Why couldn’t they beat injury-hit Brentford who have lost five in a row in the league this weekend?
But that’s treating Toney’s return as a sporting issue – which it is, but it’s also about something far more significant. The response to Toney’s ban seemed generally sympathetic, as it should be for an addict, reflecting a more general unease about the prevalence of gambling in football.
People will take different moral positions but, in the UK, sports betting is legal. Many people enjoy gambling and, for many, sports such as horse racing and greyhound racing are unimaginable without it. Some people suffer from severe addictions and deserve support, but just as the presence of alcoholics would not lead to serious calls for a total ban on gambling, so gambling addicts should not lead to a total ban on betting.
More than anything else, history shows that outlawing betting is impossible, that it will continue to be legislated against – and it’s not legitimate bookmakers who fix matches or send someone around to break debtors’ fingers.
In a competition that attracts as much gambling as the Premier League, betting, paradoxically, acts as a safeguard against fixing. Bookmakers have their edge and make money if the sport is fair. Their algorithms recognize suspicious patterns and warn accordingly, which led to the investigation into Oxford United’s FA Cup tie against Arsenal a year ago after a certain player was booked for unusual sums of money, although the FA ultimately took no action. .
But that’s not to say that all is well when it comes to betting and football. Numerous investigations have uncovered bookmakers who deliberately target vulnerable people, fueling addiction. Cases of dubious foreign betting firms sponsoring clubs by registering on the Isle of Man are a clear problem.
Then there are questions about advertising. Especially given how easy it is to bet online or through an app, an addict should be able to watch sports without constantly wanting to flutter; you wouldn’t think it a good idea to wave an open bottle of whiskey under the nose of alcohol a few times a week. Restrictions on sponsorship, television advertising in the immediate build-up and visible advertising during matches seem reasonable.
Whether that falls under the purview of the proposed football regulator, the Football Association or the Gambling Commission, it is something that needs urgent attention. But that does not absolve players of responsibility. If football is to have an open, regulated relationship with gambling, there needs to be strict liability – and that means long bans for footballers caught betting. Most professions have their codes of conduct – even journalism; this is just part of football – and has been for some time.
Toney’s lawyers claimed it was only when he joined Brentford in September 2020 and saw a video that suggested he could be in trouble. Although his cousin was charged with breaching the gambling regulations in 2017 and admitted that he remembered explaining the rules to the FA when he was at Peterborough, the commission which imposed the ban concluded that he is aware of the regulations. Either way, his case should remind players and clubs how important these regulations are, not just to the integrity of the game but to understanding integrity.
Whether Toney recognizes that is another matter. His complaints about the timing of his case and the length of his ban undermine the insistence that he has learned a lesson and accepts full responsibility. It also sits alongside the two occasions when he was recorded as being sacked by Brentford to create a less-than-stellar image of entitlement.
At least Toney has expressed his gratitude for the way Brentford stood up to him while serving his ban, and the strong implication is that he is not planning a move this month. With his contract up in June 2025, it could be different in the summer but taking eight months wages while on due to his own actions to immediately jump the ship and be available to play again.
It’s good news for Brentford, who were having a decent season until Bryan Mbeumo was injured against Brighton in the first of their five consecutive wins, leaving them with few attacking options. But there is probably not much good news for Arsenal and Chelsea, both sides seem to be missing a centre-forward who has established a record for scoring goals in the Premier League that could, at least, be able to find the courier room within the profit and sustainability regulations. to give him. Brentford will be needed in the second half of this season, the possible financial consequences of the play-off having pushed his price to levels that are not worth paying.
And then we’ll go again, no doubt going back to what this means on the field and what that means for the balance sheet. Toney’s is a football story, but it’s also about much wider questions about how football interacts with the wider world.
