The FA v Chris Maguire: What are the Odds?
The FA Rules, rule E8.1 provides that Participants at Step 4 of the National League System and above (see pg. 437 of The FA Handbook 2022/23), and Steps 1 and 2 of the Women’s Football Pyramid (see pg. 462 of The FA Handbook 2022/23) are prohibited from betting on football anywhere in the world. However, breaches of Rule E8 are relatively common, with The FA prosecuting around 30-40 cases in the past three seasons.
Ordinarily, The FA is able to gather strong evidence on any bets placed in breach of Rule E8.1, and the overwhelming majority of charges are admitted. Regulatory Commissions will then turn to The FA’s non-binding sanctions guidance (“the Guidance”), which gives a recommended range of consequences, depending on the seriousness of the offence, as the starting point on the question of sanction. Given the limited scope of the enquiry and the existence of the Guidance, it is rare to see an appeal by either the Participant or The FA.[1]
The case of The FA v Chris Maguire is therefore interesting in two respects:
First, Mr Maguire disputed a number of the charges and was successful in having them dropped by The FA.
Secondly, whilst Mr Maguire was fined £750, the Regulatory Commission did not issue a sporting sanction. This was appealed by The FA on the basis that it was unreasonable and unduly lenient.[2]
This article first reviews the facts of the Maguire case and considers how, unlike many others, Mr Maguire was able successfully to dispute a number of the charges against him. It then goes on to consider The FA’s appeal and why the appeal was ultimately successful.
The Regulatory Commission’s decision
Somewhat unusually, Mr Maguire did not come to The FA’s attention through a tip-off regarding his online betting activity, but because he had been identified at an in-person visit to a betting shop in Lincoln.[3] The FA then sought information from all UK-based or registered betting companies, and ultimately charged Mr Maguire in relation to a number of online bets (from multiple accounts) and in-person bets.
In his FA interview, Mr Maguire admitted having one online betting account, but strenuously denied having accounts with other providers.[4] This is not an uncommon approach where Participants seek to deny a breach of Rule E8.1 – it is often claimed that the relevant accounts did not belong to them or that they were not responsible for placing the bets in question. These attempted defences are usually met with short shrift.
However, Mr Maguire also made a number of enquiries with the relevant online betting companies and with a banking provider in relation to a disputed bank account which had been used to place online bets in his name. Mr Maguire produced convincing evidence that he had been a victim of fraud, and The FA subsequently withdrew a number of the charges.[5]
Mr Maguire then partially admitted the remaining charges. Specifically, he admitted:
Placing three bets in season 2016/17 which included games in competitions in which his club had participated during that season. For the purposes of the Guidance, these are known as Category 2 bets, a reference to the second column for that part of the Guidance addressing offences under Rule E8.1 (but still referred to as Rule E8(b) in the Guidance);
Placing one bet in season 2020/21 on clubs unconnected to him; a Category 1 bet and carrying the lowest sanction under the Guidance; and
Placing one bet in season 2021/22.
Mr Maguire denied five other bets during season 2021/22, including a bet, as part of an accumulator, on his own club to win in a game in which he then played (a Category 3 bet).[6] Confusingly, the Regulatory Commission referred to Mr Maguire’s bet on his own club as ‘against his own club’.[7] It should be noted that the bets denied by Mr Maguire had all allegedly been placed in-person by Mr Maguire at the betting shop in Lincoln.
The Regulatory Commission was satisfied that Mr Maguire had placed all the bets in question, placing weight on the statements of the staff from the betting shop Mr Maguire visited on the dates in question.[8]
The Regulatory Commission then went on to consider sanction. It made a brief reference to the Guidance, stating that ‘[p]lacing a bet against one’s own club is considered more serious and provides for a potential sporting sanction of a ban ranging from 6 months to life’ before setting out the relevant factors to be taken into account.[9] (Importantly, this sanction under the Guidance is only applicable to a Category 4 bet (i.e., a bet against one’s own club), which was not something Mr Maguire was charged with.)
The Regulatory Commission noted that Mr Maguire’s (partial) admission of the charges, his efforts to investigate the fraud that had been perpetrated against him, the small number of bets and the small amount staked (the amounts staked totalled £100) were mitigating factors. It also referred to Mr Maguire’s denial of the remaining bets as being ‘implausible’ and ‘leading to an extended hearing which could have been avoided’.[10]
Ultimately, the Regulatory Commission ‘did not consider there to be any aggravating factors in [Mr Maguire’s] conduct more generally’ and issued Mr Maguire with a fine of £750 and a warning as to his future conduct.[11]The Regulatory Commission did not impose any sporting sanction.[12]
The FA’s Appeal
The FA appealed the Regulatory Commission’s decision on the basis that (a) it was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense (i.e., a decision which no reasonable body could have reached), and (b) the penalty imposed was so unduly lenient as to be unreasonable.[13]
The Appeal Board set out the following process that Regulatory Commissions should follow when reaching a decision on sanction in betting cases [14]:
First, the Regulatory Commission should decide what “Category” the betting falls into under the Guidance and therefore the appropriate guideline for that kind of offence. Although not expressly stated by the Appeal Board, the usual practice is to use the “high point”, or most serious offence, in the identification of the appropriate Category.[15]
Secondly, the Regulatory Commission should then identify whether there are aggravating or mitigating factors at play which may merit an increase to or reduction from the range identified in the Guidance.
Thirdly, the Regulatory Commission should decide what impact, if any, those factors should have on the entry point.
Finally, the Regulatory Commission should consider whether there is any reason to depart from the Guidance, before determining the appropriate penalty.
The Appeal Board noted that the Regulatory Commission’s description of the “high point” of Mr Maguire’s betting – the bet on his own club – had ‘rather confusingly, if not inaccurately’ been described as being ‘against [Mr Maguire’s] own club (to win)’ (emphasis added).[16] The Appeal Board also noted that the Regulatory Commission had erroneously considered the Guidance for a Category 4 bet (a bet placed on one’s own team to lose), rather than a Category 3 bet (a bet placed on one’s own team to win).[17]
The Appeal Board criticised the Regulatory Commission for failing to consider (a) the player’s experience, (b) his efforts to evade detection by placing bets in person, and (c) most importantly, the fact that he played in a game on which he had placed a bet on his own team to win as aggravating factors.[18] Point (c) is expressly referred to in the Guidance as being a ‘serious aggravating factor’.
Whilst the Appeal Board was satisfied that that the reference to a bet ‘against’ Mr Maguire’s club was an unfortunate choice of words rather than a misunderstanding of the nature of the bet in question, the failure of the Regulatory Commission to identify the correct Category of betting for the purposes of the Guidance led to a number of issues.[19] Most importantly, the Appeal Board found that reaching a decision by reference only to mitigating factors and without specific reference to the aggravating factors at play was unreasonable.[20] The Appeal Board explained that the Regulatory Commission should have identified the entry point for a sporting sanction under the Guidance and then considered whether any departure from it was justified by reference to any mitigating and aggravating factors.
The Appeal Board was unable to conclude that if the Regulatory Commission had properly taken into account the relevant aggravating factors, it would nevertheless have refrained from imposing a sporting sanction. Accordingly, the Appeal Board imposed a ban of six weeks.
Discussion
The Appeal Board’s decision acts as a reminder that, when weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, a Regulatory Commission must spell out how those factors have affected its decision-making process. It is not enough for a Regulatory Commission simply to use “catch-all” language, such as noting that it “considered all the factors”. The reader (in this case the Appeal Board) must be able to ‘infer with clarity what was or was not intended by the Commission. If a decision has been reached without reference to such specific and important factors, it may not be possible to draw such an inference’.[21]
Importantly, this is not a point of interest only for decision-makers. Participants who feel that they have been harshly treated – whether in a Rule E8 case or otherwise – should review the relevant decision closely and consider whether sufficient reference has been made to the important mitigating factors. As the Appeal Board in Maguire has now emphasised, unless the Regulatory Commission’s intentions are clear, it will not be sufficient simply to rely on “catch-all” language: specific consideration is required. If that specific consideration is lacking, there may be a route to appeal.
Finally, the Appeal Board’s decision to impose a six-week ban on Mr Maguire is an interesting one. Plainly, although the Appeal Board did not make a finding on whether the sanction imposed by the Regulatory Commission was unduly lenient, it considered the fact that Mr Maguire played in one of the matches on which he bet to be a significant aggravating factor, elevating the offence to one which merited a sporting sanction. The ultimate sanction was, however, lighter than the average of almost 10 weeks imposed in similar cases, where a player has bet on his own team to win and then played in that match.[22] Therefore, although Mr Maguire may feel aggrieved that he was sanctioned on appeal, he may be able to take some comfort in the observation that it could have been worse.
This article was written by Alastair Campbell a partner at Level Law. Alastair recently co-authored the chapter on Corruption, Match-Fixing and Betting in the latest edition of Football and the Law by Nick De Marco KC. If you have any questions about this article or are interested in instructing Alastair, please contact him at: alastair.campbell@level.law.
Footnotes
[1] The FA v Joey Barton, FA Appeal Board (Ch. David Casement QC), 25 July 2017 is a well-known example of a Rule E8 case which was successfully appealed by a Participant.
[2] The FA Disciplinary Regulations, Part C - Appeals - Non-Fast Track, para. 1.2 and 1.3.
[3] The FA v Chris Maguire, FA Regulatory Commission (Ch. Jonathan Rennie), 24 November 2022, [6].
[4] Ibid, [8].
[5] Ibid, [15].
[6] Ibid, [16].
[7] Ibid, [16c] and [20].
[8] Ibid, [20].
[9] Ibid, [21]-[22].
[10] Ibid, [26].
[11] Ibid, [27].
[12] Ibid, [28].
[13] The FA v Chris Maguire, FA Appeal Board (Ch. HH Clement Goldstone KC), 13 January 2023, [6].
[14] Ibid, [21]-[24].
[15] Interestingly, the Regulatory Commission in The FA v Trippier, (Ch. Sir Wyn Williams), 4 January 2021 was critical of the Guidance, stating at [114] that they ‘would benefit from greater clarity’ and ‘do not provide for entry points as that phrase is normally understood in the regulatory context’.
[16] (n13), [28].
[17] Ibid, [29].
[18] Ibid, [39].
[19] Ibid, [38].
[20] Ibid, [39].
[21] Ibid, [41].
[22] See Evening the Odds by Alastair Campbell.
31 January 2023