Yarmo Be't here?

Without knowing all the details it would be unfair to 'jump on' Andriy Yarmolenko's case until all the facts are known, but what is clear is that the FA rarely bring charges unless they have substantiated evidence. Yarmolenko has been charged with alleged misconduct in relation to a betting commercial. The charge concerns a 'potential' breach of FA Rule E8.5, which says that players are 'not permitted to advertise or promote any betting activity that they are prohibited from engaging in'.

It is alleged Yarmolenko's appearance in an advert for a Ukrainian betting company constitutes the misconduct charge, he as until Friday the 18th of February to respond. Now this is a curious 'case', unless you have been living on a different planet you will have seen a constant stream of players and fans involved in Betting sponsored activities, the media exposure through advertising in the UK is even more invasive than the 'cleaning product' monopoly in the Spanish media. (you have to have lived there!)
We understand that in Yarmo's case the 'devil is in the detail', we even ran it past a media lawyer friend of the site who has a decent knowledge of advertising laws and protocols, the issue is did the player's actions constitute a 'direct advertising endorsement' as opposed to a 'direct advertisement'. The former is above sanction, the latter is and it seems as if the Hammers player falls into that category, IF proven.

The minutiae of the details are irrespective, because basically, why on earth would an incredibly wealthy 32 year old professional footballer, be doing ANY form of betting advertising, isn't £5.98 MILLION a year enough? JESUS, words are almost impossible to find to describe such greed, IF proven.

Was he deliberately ill advised by someone, JUST so the club can tear up his ridiculous contract? Stranger things have happened? - Ed