John Terry, Chelsea and Sunderland avoid FA punishment for the player's planned substitution
The Football Association’s integrity unit found no evidence of spot-fixing
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.John Terry, Chelsea and Sunderland have avoided any punishment for the 36-year-old’s planned substitution in the final game of last season, with the case now closed with no action taken after the Football Association’s integrity unit found no evidence of spot-fixing.
In what was his final game for Chelsea, Terry had organised to come off after 26 minutes to represent his shirt number, with former Sunderland manager David Moyes also revealing after his side's 5-1 defeat that he had been informed of the idea.
The former club captain had similarly told the editor of Chelsea fanzine ‘CFC UK’ of the plan, with the publication’s twitter account @onlyapound then releasing the information 36 minutes before kick-off, and many bookmakers later revealing that they had paid out on bets on when Terry would come off.
The FA subsequently opened an investigation into the incident, but found no evidence that it was a deliberate case of spot-fixing or that anyone at either club had links to the bets made.
It was also concluded that Terry getting substituted at a certain minute of that match was a “predictable” circumstance.
For action to be taken in such cases, it would have to be proved that any conversations about such plans are for the deliberate purpose of gambling, and that was not the case here.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments