A recent case involving an unnamed English professional soccer manager has raised eyebrows as the Football Association (FA) decided not to sanction the individual despite evidence of substantial gambling activity. The manager’s betting activities came to light during an alleged blackmail case, further complicating the situation. The FA’s leniency starkly contrasts its recent punishment of high-profile players, garnering significant criticism.

The Alleged Offender Placed Regular Wagers

The manager’s identity remains protected by a court order regarding a 2022 blackmail case, which saw him accuse two professional soccer players, Alan Rogers and Steven Jennings, of extorting him. Both athletes denied the charges, and the manager ultimately withdrew his allegations, stating he wished to move on with his life.

However, court documents regarding the extortion case revealed the unnamed manager had engaged in extensive gambling, wagering £879,000 ($1.1 million) over two years. During this time, he incurred losses of £270,000 ($334,000). His bets notably extended to soccer matches within his league, but the data shows he did not bet on his team.

Such gambling behavior is strictly prohibited and can result in severe punishments. The FA has significantly tightened its enforcement policy, making its decision to pardon the manager highly puzzling. The Association likely decided that taking action could reveal the manager’s identity and risk legal action. However, this lack of enforcement has given rise to accusations of double standards and inconsistent enforcement.

Athletes Faced Harsh Punishments for Much Less

The FA’s renewed focus on sports integrity saw it sanction several high-profile athletes like Harry Toffolo, Chris Maguire, and Ivan Toney. The athletes may face significant repercussions for their careers, highlighting the Association’s focus on preventing potential conflicts of interest and maintaining a level playing field for all participants. 

By strictly enforcing these regulations, the FA hoped to demonstrate it would not tolerate any attempts to undermine the sport’s integrity. However, the decision not to sanction the unnamed manager severely undermines the Association’s image and casts a negative light on its harsh policies. The FA likely had valid reasons to avoid pressing the issue, but other offending individuals may attempt to use this ruling to avoid sanctions.

Although the contrast with the strict punishment meted out to Ivan Toney has fueled controversy and raised questions about the transparency and fairness of the FA’s approach, sports integrity must remain a priority. This case should prompt the Association to implement new policies and ensure that similar offenses cannot avoid sanctions in the future, promoting fairness and transparency.

The post English Pro Soccer Manager Involved in Alleged Gambling Scandal Escapes FA Sanction appeared first on Keno Wizard.

The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) discovered a Kwiff ad right next to an article on the Portsmouth FC website, urging young people to join the Junior Blues. The operator denied the accusations, noting that its online marketing software specifically avoided targeting minors. However, The ASA refused to change its decision, stating the circumstances surrounding the incident were sufficient cause for a sanction.

Marketing Mishaps Seem Increasingly Common

The ASA’s decision is part of its ongoing efforts to ensure responsible gambling practices and protect vulnerable individuals, particularly minors, from potential harm. The UK advertising regulator has been increasingly more vigilant regarding gambling operators following the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS)’s drive to evaluate the severity of the country’s gambling-related issues.

Online marketing, in particular, occupies much of the authority’s attention as policing the vast online landscape requires significant resources. Just mere days ago, the ASA received word of high-profile operator Coral allegedly targeted blogs frequented by new mothers. Even though companies try to avoid such cases, this case and the most recent Kwiff violation prove the need for effective regulation.

The Regulator Stood Firm in Its Decision

According to the ASA’s findings, a Kwiff ad had appeared next to an article titled “Join the Junior Blues,” informing youth how to join Portsmouth FC’s junior supporter groups. The regulator argued that, knowingly or not, the marketing content’s placement directed it at individuals under 18. The presence of Portsmouth FC’s cartoon mascot in the article further exacerbated the issue, contrasting the nearby gambling ad.

The Kwiff brand is the property of Eaton Gate Gaming, a UK-based gaming start-up. Company representatives disputed the ASA sanctions, denying targeting underage individuals. The business highlighted its automated behavioral targeting tool, noting it was precise enough to maximize ad revenue while limiting exposure to underage individuals. 

Eaton Gate claimed they strictly abided by the ASA guidelines and had implemented sufficient safeguards to minimize such cases. However, the regulator remained unconvinced, noting that, intentionally or not, the ad was visible next to content specifically aimed at minors. The ASA argued that the unfortunate placement was sufficient to warrant a response and did not withdraw their sanction.

Because the ad appeared in the context of a web page… directed at those younger than 18 years, it did not comply with the rules on gambling advertising.

UK Advertising Standards Authority statement

The ASA’s decision to sanction Kwiff sends a powerful message to the gambling industry about the importance of adhering to responsible marketing practices. It serves as a reminder that operators must remain vigilant in preventing underage individuals from accessing or engaging with gambling content and carefully monitor their campaigns for possible violations.

The post Kwiff Faces ASA Sanction for Underage Marketing Violations appeared first on Keno Wizard.