REVEALED: Paul Scholes bet on old team-mate Gary Neville’s Valencia to beat Barcelona, put money on United eight times and had 131 other bets while he was co-owner of Salford… but FA let him off with £8k fine!
- Paul Scholes was fined on Wednesday after breaching the FA’s betting rules
- Scholes has had to pay £8,000 after placing 140 bets over a four-year period
- In a statement, Scholes apologised and said he accepted the FA’s punishment
- Eight of the bets involved Manchester United, the midfielder’s former club
- He placed a bet on Valencia beating Barcelona when his friends were in charge
Paul Scholes has been fined £8,000 by the FA after breaching betting rules while he was a co-owner and director at Salford City.
Scholes was initially charged by the FA after placing 140 bets on football matches between August 2015 and January this year.
There is no suggestion that Scholes was betting on the outcome of Salford matches, and no bets were placed by Scholes during the short time he was manager of Oldham Athletic.
Paul Scholes has been fined £8,000 after breaching betting rules for four years
The FA tightened up its rules on gambling in 2014, effectively bringing in a blanket ban on any betting on any level of football for anyone involved in the game throughout the league pyramid.
Eight of the bets involved Manchester United, and the FA noted in its statement that Ryan Giggs and Nicky Butt, acquaintances of Scholes’s, were working for the club at the time.
One bet was on Valencia beating Barcelona. The bet was placed when Gary Neville and Phil Neville were working at Valencia.
There is no suggestion that Scholes was betting on the outcome of Salford matches
A further eight bets were placed on FA Cup matches. The FA noted, though, that they were made after Salford had been knocked out of the competition.
The former midfielder apologised on Wednesday. In a statement, he said: ‘I accept [the] ruling. I would like to apologise and I understand and fully accept the fine imposed by the FA.
‘It was a genuine mistake and was not done with any deliberate intention to flout the rules. I wrongly believed that as long as there was no personal connection between me and any of the matches that I bet upon then there would be no issue.
‘However, I understand now that this is not the case and I should have taken steps to verify this at the time.’