Daniel Sturridge banned: FA to appeal against two-week ban as betting punishment deemed too lenient
The former Liverpool striker has been banned by the Football Association
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Daniel Sturridge has been banned from football for two weeks and fined £75,000 for breaching the Football Association’s regulations on gambling.
The former Liverpool striker, who left Anfield this summer and is currently looking for a new club, had four weeks of a six-week ban suspended, meaning he is free to play again from 31 July.
Eleven charges were brought against Sturridge to an independent commission, nine of which were dismissed.
However, Sturridge was found to have breached FA rules in two charges which alleged that during the January 2018 transfer window the striker instructed his brother, Leon, to bet on his possible transfer to Sevilla, providing him with inside information – although he never moved to the La Liga club.
In a statement, the FA said it would appeal against the commission’s findings and the sanction imposed.
The FA said: “The FA submitted that a sporting sanction is the only realistic outcome in the case and a sanction of any shorter duration than six months would wholly fail to reflect the gravity of the case.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments