A new investigation has put the FA (Football Association) under heavy fire. The board has been accused of double standards for allowing club owners to bet on football.
It has not been a while since the FA banned players for violating the gambling rules. The latest investigation claims that a Premier League club owner has gained from betting on games placed under his name.
The report named Brentford FC’s owner, Matthew Benham. The club was also in the spotlight for similar issues, as its striker, Ivan Toney, was banned for 8 months for breaching the gambling guidelines.
According to the gambling news, Matthew Benham is among the multimillionaire club owners who like the opaque arrangement by the FA. The system allows them to benefit from betting, as shown in the latest report. The investigation revealed that Benham gambled on football games on MSPP Admin, a UK-based gambling syndicate.
However, the club owner is not budging about the same. The Football Association has a reputation for enforcing strict gambling regulations and maintaining the sport’s integrity. Therefore, the association is under pressure to disclose all of its agreements and provisions with club owners.
It is the first time such a proceeding has been exposed in the past 10 years of the association. The FA also allows some club owners to run a betting business, such as the Coates family (Stoke City and Bet365) and Tony Bloom (Brighton). However, there are no signs that the owners have gained from placing bets under their name.
The board has been adamant about not sharing any details regarding their deals with club owners. The FA has repeatedly stated that any party with a significant involvement or interest in a football club must not be directly involved in placing bets or betting odds.
According to the investigation, Benham is the majority beneficiary and funder of MSPP Admin. Moreover, the owner has placed bets on the platform under his name.
Given the severity of the situation, several parties are being involved before taking any action. The FA has not made any official statement, and everyone is wondering how the board will address the tricky situation.
