Sandro Tonali is set to return to competitive action for Newcastle United from August 29 — although the midfielder has been handed a fresh two-month suspended ban.
The 23-year-old Italy international is already midway through a 10-month suspension, imposed on October 27, after being found guilty of breaching rules on gambling by the Italian Football Federation (FIGC).
Advertisement
Although that suspension covered bets made while under the jurisdiction of the FIGC, the latest ban — which is fully suspended for the duration of the 2024-25 season — and £20,000 fine, as well as a warning about his future conduct, have been handed down by the English FA. It relates to alleged gambling since he joined Newcastle from AC Milan in a £55million ($68.9m) transfer in July.
Eddie Howe said on Friday: “It’s the right decision. Sandro’s currently working hard behind the scenes, he’s trained very well. But as always, referring to this situation, we’re still supporting and helping him as he serves his time.”
A three-person independent regulatory commission convened via Microsoft Teams on April 25 to hear Tonali’s case. The hearing is summarised in a 26-page “Decision and Reasons” document — some sections of which have been redacted — and, here, The Athletic runs through the key takeaways from it.
Tonali bet on four Newcastle matches — although he fails to recall one of them
Tonali was charged with misconduct concerning 50 alleged counts of placing bets on football matches between August 12 and October 12, in contravention of Rule E8 of the FA regulations.
Of those 50 bets, four of them were classed as “category three” because they were placed on Newcastle matches and, in each of those cases, he backed his own team to win.
Although the commission rejected Tonali’s submission that the potential damage to the integrity of the game “is insignificant or substantially lessened” because he bet on his own team to be victorious, they did accept that the “seriousness” would have been far greater had he backed Newcastle to lose. This could have prompted a ban ranging from six months to a life suspension.
Some of those bets were part of an accumulator, in which Tonali gambled on several matches collectively. While Tonali could recount three specific Newcastle fixtures he definitely bet on, he could not recall whether the fourth match was against Brighton & Hove Albion or Burnley, but he “was certain that it was not both”.
The bets involving Newcastle games were:
- An accumulator involving either Newcastle to beat Brighton on September 2, which they lost 3-1, or Newcastle to beat Burnley on September 30, which they won 2-0 (both Premier League fixtures);
- An accumulator including Newcastle to beat Brentford in the Premier League on September 16, which they won 1-0;
- A single bet on Newcastle to beat Manchester City in the Carabao Cup third round on September 27, which they won 1-0;
- An accumulator featuring Newcastle to beat West Ham United in the Premier League on October 8, which they drew 2-2.
Tonali definitely bet on three matches he played in — he started against Brighton, Manchester City and West Ham — and, for the fourth, he was an unused substitute against Brentford, while he came on as a 68th-minute substitute against Burnley.
The FA declared that Tonali’s involvement in the three matches was a “serious aggravating factor” and they refuted the player’s assertion that “there has been no damage to (the) integrity of the match in question or the game as a whole”.
Advertisement
The other 46 bets were deemed to be “category two” — which Tonali insisted would only carry a financial penalty rather than a sporting sanction — as they were not placed on Newcastle matches. Although Tonali could not recall all the matches he bet on, he admitted he did gamble on other Premier League fixtures, but not on Champions League games or international football.
He took a “substantial” voluntary reduction in wages
Dan Ashworth, Newcastle’s outgoing sporting director, did not confirm or deny whether Tonali had taken a pay cut when questioned about it in November, but the list of FA intermediary transactions had hinted at that outcome when it stated that Tonali’s contract had been “amended” — and now there is confirmation of that salary change.
As well as reiterating how “sorry” he is for his actions, Tonali’s submission revealed that his “net weekly football income has already been voluntarily reduced very substantially” since he received his ban from the FIGC in October.
His specific initial and reduced salary levels are not disclosed. However, the FA asserted that any fine the commission imposed upon Tonali “should bear proper and appropriate correlation to his total net football income” because, at the time of his gambling, he was receiving “a significant weekly wage”.
Tonali was fined £20,000, with the panel having considered his “current net weekly football income”, while he must also pay the costs of the regulatory commission.
His cumulative bets totalled between €100,000 and €500,000
Tonali failed to recount the exact amount of each bet he placed, though he insisted they “would not be more than €10,000 (£8,550, $10,730)” each. His submission insisted that his gambling was not for financial gain and he “hasn’t been enriched” by his betting. Rather, the player’s agent, Beppe Riso, declared in October that Tonali was suffering from a “gambling illness”.
Advertisement
The FA was keen to highlight that Tonali could have bet up to €500,000 (£427,800) across the 50 matches and such a value becomes “an additional aggravating factor”, which it felt “must elevate the appropriate sanction” towards the upper limit of the proposed zero-to-six-months range for this offence.
However, Tonali’s submission disputed this. Accepting that the player “is in a very fortunate position to earn a significant amount of money”, his argument was that the amounts placed were merely a portion of his monthly pre-reduction salary, although the precise percentage is redacted.
The commission deduced that Tonali must have bet “a very significant sum, well in excess of €100,000 (£85,600) and certainly a six-figure sum,” which it concluded was a “significant aggravating factor” in determining his punishment.
Without Tonali’s testimony, the FA did not have a case
Describing the situation as “extraordinary and unprecedented in many respects”, the FA acknowledges that without Tonali’s testimony, they simply did not have a case and it is “highly unlikely” they would ever have become aware of his misconduct otherwise.
Most betting cases prosecuted involve a betting company flagging a potential breach to the FA. Yet the player self-reported on October 20, then Newcastle sent nine supporting documents to the governing body on January 26, before Tonali was interviewed by FA investigators on March 5 and admitted the alleged misconduct in writing on April 9.
Yet, despite Tonali’s cooperation, the FA was “unable to verify any of the betting activity admitted to”, with none of the six regulated betting companies they contacted able to provide breaches, and there were no accounts identified in Tonali’s name that showed breaches at any UK-licensed gambling operator.
Instead, the FA admitted that Tonali “clearly initiated the investigation himself”, provided “proactive assistance” and “fully cooperated thereafter”, which “represents a significant mitigating factor”.
Tonali did receive FA training — and his “language barrier” defence was dismissed
A mitigating factor cited by Tonali was that, when receiving FA training on gambling on August 3, he “had not fully understood the content due to the language barrier, his English being extremely limited” given it was only a month after he had signed. Admitting he did know “he was not allowed to bet in some form or another”, he claimed he was not fully aware of the FA’s exact gambling regulations.
Advertisement
But the FA disputed this account, insisting that they had provided “guidance material (on gambling) translated into Italian” to Newcastle, meaning Tonali should have been in “full knowledge that he was not permitted” to place bets on football in England.
Despite this, Tonali placed his first bets just nine days after the FA training, on August 12, and the governing body invited the commission to recognise this as “another serious aggravating factor” for which to “attach considerable weight”.
The Italian FA’s suspension guidelines may be more punitive than the English FA’s
Interestingly, and perhaps frustratingly from a Newcastle perspective, the FA’s sanctions may actually be less punitive than the FIGC’s for the offences Tonali committed during his time in Italy.
While Tonali was banned for 18 months, eight of which were commuted, by the FIGC, mitigation on Tonali’s behalf argued that an FA ban for those offences would have carried a “zero to six-month sanction”. Although the FA declared that the commission “should not speculate” as to what sanction would have been handed down had the offences been committed in England and declared “such considerations an irrelevance”, they did not fully dispute the suggestion.
Regardless, Tonali’s assertion that a further sporting sanction would represent “double punishment”, given his FIGC suspension, was dismissed by the FA. They insisted this case was “entirely separate” from the Italian one because they were only considering his offences during his time as a “participant” in the English game, which commenced with his transfer on July 3.
The FA also disagreed with Tonali’s plea to “apply no sporting sanction” due to the “profound effect” on the player. Rather, due to the “very serious nature of the breaches”, they felt a sporting sanction was necessary, even if “mitigating factors” could reduce that to a “median point” within the zero to six-month timescale. The FA claimed that “it would be so unduly lenient as to be unreasonable” if the commission chose to “impose no sporting sanction whatsoever”.
The governing body “did not seek to resist” that there are “clear and compelling reasons” due to a “unique set of circumstances” that any sporting sanction could be suspended — as Tonali argued — but the FA did not believe that any ban, commuted or otherwise, needed to run “consecutive” to Tonali’s current suspension.
How the verdict was reached
With Tonali admitting the misconduct, the independent commission only needed to determine the sanction.
The panel was made up of Abdul Iqbal KC, a leading lawyer and part-time judge, as the chair, alongside Tony Agana, the former Sheffield United and Notts County striker, and Alan Knight, the ex-Portsmouth goalkeeper, all of whom have experience of similar independent FA commission hearings.
Advertisement
Using the FA’s sanctioning guidelines, they determined that a three-month suspension was an “appropriate and proportionate starting point”, before considering aggravating and mitigating factors. The panel dismissed Tonali’s submission that a sporting sanction was “inappropriate”.
Six “aggravating factors” were cited as relevant and increased the starting point for a sporting sanction to a four-month suspension:
- Tonali’s understanding of the rules and his understanding of the “impact of such betting on the integrity of the game”
- The FA training Tonali received, his admission that betting on football was “illegal” and the guidance material provided to Newcastle in Italian
- The player’s decision to continue such betting “with this knowledge”
- The overall impact these bets could have on the integrity of the game
- Betting on matches in which he was directly involved
- A six-figure cumulative valuation of the bets
The 50 bets placed were described as an “intermediate number, which is not a particular aggravating or indeed mitigating factor”. However, four “mitigating factors” were highlighted as “outweighing to a degree the aggravating factors” to reduce the sporting sanction to a two-month suspension, although one of those four points was entirely redacted:
- Tonali had already admitted to breaching similar Italian betting rules, but that misconduct “had not been proved at the time” of these offences
- The player was described as “still relatively young, but not very young”, so his age was “a mitigating factor to a degree”
- Tonali’s self-referral, his admission of evidence for the case and the fact he “admitted formally the misconduct as soon as reasonably possible” provided “very strong mitigation”
In addition, the panel concluded that there were two “compelling reasons” to suspend all of the two-month ban. One of those reasons was completely redacted, while the other related to Tonali’s self-referral and the FA’s reliance on the player’s own evidence to bring their case.
To have a “deterrent effect”, the suspension period of the two-month ban extends until the end of the 2024-25 Premier League season, which is deemed a “necessary, appropriate and proportionate” length.
But, if Tonali does not commit another offence, he can return to playing for Newcastle by August 29.
(Top photo: Michael Regan/Getty Images)
