Case Studies: Who’s Subbing Who?

VIEW FROM THE BENCH:

HOW THE IBAS PANEL TACKLED A SERIES OF HIGHER PROFILE FOOTBALL BETTING DISPUTES

By Kevin Pullein

It is the sort of thing that happens in many games. The ball goes out of play. Three substitutes wait on the touchline. Three players come off and the three substitutes go on. How could that provoke a betting dispute?

It did in the 67th minute of the Club World Cup quarter-final between Real Madrid and Dortmund. The numbers illuminated on the fourth official’s board said Mbappe was replacing Bellingham, Modric replacing Vinicius Junior and Ceballos replacing Alexander-Arnold. But the order in which the team-mates swapped places was different. Mbappe came on as Alexander-Arnold went off, Modric came on as Bellingham went off, and Ceballos came on as Vinicius Junior went off. So who had replaced whom?

Opta listed the substitutions in the order in which the team-mates swapped places. It is what they had always done. It has never mattered for any purpose other than betting. And it did not matter for betting until bookmakers started to extend bets by transferring them from the player coming off to the substitute going on. Now it does matter.

Many people had backed Bellingham to score or get a card. He did not do either. Nor did Modric, who had come on as Bellingham came off. But Mbappe, the official replacement for Bellingham, did both. In added time he scored and was then shown a card. People who had backed Bellingham thought they had won. One bookmaker said they had lost.

The bookmaker’s rules said that who replaced whom would be determined by Opta, and Opta declared that Bellingham had been replaced by Modric, not Mbappe.

Assessment of Fairness

Our stance has always been that bets should be settled according to a bookmaker’s rules provided they are fair. Were these?

The law requires businesses to highlight terms consumers might find surprising. The IBAS panel is a body of men and women with knowledge and experience of betting. We are not judges sitting in a court. To the best of our ability, though, we take account of the law.

We were surprised by how Opta recorded substitutions, and we felt most football bettors would be surprised too. It seemed to us that Opta were disregarding verifiable facts.

Nowadays a large number of markets are settled with data from Opta. Most of them concern matters of opinion, and opinions can differ. Should this kick be called a shot? Should that attempt to get the ball be called a tackle? If bookmakers offer and customers accept bets on matters of opinion, somebody else’s opinion has to be used to settle those bets. We see no reason why it should not come from a well-known company such as Opta.

We make a distinction, though, between matters of opinion and matters of fact.

Matter of Opinion vs Matter of Fact

Who replaced whom is a matter of fact. It is communicated to watchers at the time by the numbers on the fourth official’s display. The International Football Association Board, who make the laws of the game, confirmed that this is so. We think most football fans already knew. What would be the point of the fourth official holding aloft an electronic screen if it was not to communicate who was replacing whom?

The numbers on the fourth official’s display come from a slip written by a member of the team’s staff. Afterwards they are entered into the competition records.

We do not think a bet-settlement source should ignore confirmable facts. And in some other situations of which we are aware, Opta do not. If a referee appears to show a card to one player but competition records say it was shown to another, Opta amend their records to conform with the competition records. We receive complaints on those occasions and we say that we agree with Opta.

When Opta realised that their recording of substitutions could provoke betting disputes, they changed. Now they list substitutions according to the numbers on the fourth official’s board, not the sequence in which team-mates exchange places.

IBAS Decision

Our verdict on bets affected by the substitutions during Real Madrid v Dortmund was that settling them according to the bookmaker’s rules was unfair. We said Mbappe should have been accepted as the replacement for Bellingham, Modric as the replacement for Vinicius Junior and Ceballos as the replacement for Alexander-Arnold.

We felt that how Opta recorded substitutions at the time probably would have been inappropriate for bet settlement in any circumstances but certainly if it was not highlighted prominently in the bookmaker’s terms. It was not. The bookmaker’s terms on substitutions started with a list called significant terms. Opta settlement was not among them. It did appear elsewhere, but nowhere was there any indication that Opta could contradict the numbers shown on the fourth official’s board or the names entered in the competition records. We said that bets requiring Bellingham or his substitute to score or get a card should be paid.