The Turkish Football Federation -TFF- has provisionally suspended 448 current and former club officials as part of its betting investigation, including Trabzonspor president Ertuğrul Doğan and Beşiktaş vice-president Hakan Daltaban. The decision, announced on Wednesday, affects people who held positions over the past five years at clubs in the top two divisions and who, according to the federation, placed bets while in office. All have been referred to its disciplinary committee. The case adds another dimension to the debate over football’s financial dependence on betting companies: the integrity obligations of those working within a sport that also earns revenue from the industry.
Doğan’s defence connects the two issues. “These companies sponsored clubs and held launch events. Nobody thought this would cause problems,” he told ‘A Spor’. The official said he had previously held a betting account and had disclosed it to the authorities: “If we made a mistake, we apologise, but we have done nothing wrong.” His remarks bring football’s commercial familiarity with these operators into the discussion, although sponsorship neither removes personal restrictions nor establishes what happened in each case. The measures announced are provisional, and a betting investigation does not, in itself, amount to a finding of match manipulation.
Betting from within football
The International Federation of Association Football -FIFA- explicitly acknowledges this dual relationship: “While this industry represents a source of funding for the game, it also represents a risk to the integrity of football.” Its rules prohibit officials, referees, players and other participants from betting directly or indirectly on football-related activities. The restrictions also cover certain transactions conducted through third parties and the use of confidential information for betting. A player may know about an injury that has not yet been announced; an employee, a team selection decision; an official, a pending deal. The prohibitions seek to protect competition and confidence in its results, without requiring proof of match-fixing before a betting breach can be punished.
The case of Ivan Toney illustrates how these restrictions coexist with commercial agreements. In May 2023, the Brentford striker received an eight-month suspension and a £50,000 fine after admitting 232 breaches of English betting rules between February 2017 and January 2021. When he was sanctioned, his club carried Hollywoodbets on the front of its shirts. That relationship has also continued beyond the removal of betting sponsors from that position in the Premier League: in August, Brentford announced a five-year extension with its official betting partner, including stadium advertising and other commercial rights. The player’s sanction and the club’s sponsorship are governed by different rules, but operate within the same sporting environment.
Sanctions and addiction treatment
The response to Sandro Tonali’s case also included treatment and awareness measures. In October 2023, the Italian Football Federation -FIGC- agreed an 18-month sanction, with eight months replaced by alternative requirements: an effective ten-month playing suspension, a €20,000 fine, at least eight months of treatment and a minimum of 16 public meetings at sports organisations, federation centres and gambling addiction recovery organisations. The agreement stipulated that the federation’s prosecutor would monitor compliance and could reopen proceedings if its terms were breached. The case therefore combined treatment requirements with punishment for betting, addressing an issue that also affects the welfare of football professionals.
Institutional responsibility had already prompted The Football Association -FA- to review its own revenue sources. In June 2017, it announced the end of its agreement with Ladbrokes, which had begun the previous year, and its decision to stop accepting sponsorship from betting companies. The official explanation was a three-month review of its position as an organisation receiving money from the industry while also enforcing football’s betting rules. The FA continued to cooperate with operators, including Ladbrokes, to exchange information about suspicious betting patterns. The decision distinguished sponsorship revenue from cooperation to detect potential breaches.
The safeguards accompanying sponsorship
In 2024, English football’s main governing bodies adopted a voluntary code for gambling-related agreements. Its provisions include education programmes on betting and inside information for players and staff, with age-appropriate content for academy players. It also provides for contractual clauses requiring operators subject to British regulation to meet their obligations to report suspected offences and betting integrity concerns, and to prevent promotions from specifically targeting football participants. The document therefore places some responsibility for prevention on clubs, competitions and commercial agreements, alongside the individual obligations that can lead to disciplinary proceedings.
The same code includes transparency commitments: publishing a register of active agreements at the start of each season and producing an annual report on its implementation. Competitions must identify current sponsorships, provide concrete examples of the measures taken and detail any instances in which a club or competition has been found not to comply with the code. It also establishes a complaints process that begins with the organisation concerned and can be escalated to the Independent Football Ombudsman. The required disclosures cover both commercial agreements and failures to comply identified during the season.
Last related articles
