This content has been translated from the original text.
The Turkish Football Federation (TFF) has referred 1,024 footballers found to have placed bets to the Professional Football Disciplinary Board on a precautionary basis. Under the Football Disciplinary Instruction, footballers are prohibited from betting, directly or indirectly, on any football-related match or activity. In the article on our website, we examine in detail the sanctions that may be imposed on footballers who place bets.
An official announcement by the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”) has established that 1,024 footballers playing in the professional leagues have placed bets. Following this finding, the TFF announced that, pursuant to Article 57 of the Football Disciplinary Instruction, it had referred the footballers concerned to the Professional Football Disciplinary Board (“PFDK”) on a precautionary basis with effect from 10 November 2025. The precautionary referral decision prevents the footballers concerned from taking part in matches until their disciplinary process is concluded. This development has set in motion a disciplinary process of a scale never before seen in the history of Turkish football.
Article 57 of the Football Disciplinary Instruction expressly reads as follows:
“(1) Persons falling within the scope of this Instruction: a) are prohibited from placing bets or playing similar games of chance, directly or indirectly, on football matches and/or on any football-related activity. b) may not hold, directly or indirectly, any position or interest in businesses, organisations and institutions (excluding public bodies and institutions) that promote, act as intermediaries for, organise or carry out betting or similar games of chance or similar activities or transactions relating to football matches.(2) Persons who act contrary to this shall be punished with a ban from matches or a penalty of deprivation of rights for a period of three months to one year.”
Under this provision, the act of placing bets, or of acting as an intermediary for such an act directly or indirectly, constitutes a clear disciplinary violation for footballers. The PFDK is expected to assess the conduct of each footballer individually and to impose a proportionate sanction according to the gravity and duration of the conduct and the degree of intent.
Following the allegations that surfaced in the public domain, some footballers have made statements regarding the betting accusations and have indicated that the acts in question relate to past periods. At this point, the concept of the limitation period for investigations under Article 14 of the Football Disciplinary Instruction becomes important. Article 14 of the Football Disciplinary Instruction, titled “Limitation Period for Investigations”, reads as follows:
“(1) The limitation period for investigations runs, for completed violations, from the day on which the violation was committed; for violations that remain at the stage of attempt, from the day on which the last act was carried out; and for successive violations, from the day on which the last violation was committed. (2) A disciplinary investigation is subject to a limitation period of 1 year for violations committed before, during or after a match on the pitch or in the area surrounding the pitch, and of 5 years for other violations. In the case of doping violations, the limitation period for investigations is governed by the provisions of the Anti-Doping Instruction. (3) The investigation of disciplinary violations in the form of influencing the result of a match is not subject to a limitation period.”
Under this article, if a disciplinary investigation is conducted after a period of 1 or 5 years has elapsed, depending on the nature of the violation, the limitation periods will come into play. However, no limitation period is provided for acts committed with the intent of influencing the result of a match. Therefore, if the betting conduct is aimed, directly or indirectly, at influencing the outcome of a match, a limitation defence cannot be raised.
At the international level too, footballers’ betting activities have been met with serious disciplinary sanctions. One of the best-known examples is the case of the English Premier League player Ivan Toney. The English Football Association (FA) found that the player had breached betting rules 232 times and imposed on Toney an 8-month ban from football. Similarly, Sandro Tonali, who plays in Italy’s Serie A, received a 10-month ban on the ground that he had engaged in illegal betting. The process being conducted by the TFF is therefore in line with international practice.
The TFF Board of Directors has announced that, because of the precautionary referral of 1,024 footballers to the PFDK, talks have been started with FIFA so that clubs can fill the gaps that will arise in their squads. The aim is to obtain an additional 15-day transfer and registration window on top of the 2025–2026 season winter transfer window. Under Article 6, paragraph 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the dates of registration periods that federations have not notified, or that arise under extraordinary circumstances, may be determined by FIFA. In practice, this authority has been interpreted as allowing an “additional registration/transfer window” to be granted, and FIFA has been seen, in its past practice (for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine/Russia conflict), to have granted member federations additional registration windows in a similar manner. In this respect, the TFF’s request is well founded and constitutes an application that finds its basis in international regulations.
On the other hand, betting does not remain merely a disciplinary violation: where it is carried out with the aim of influencing the result of a match, criminal liability will also arise. Article 11 of Law No. 6222 on the Prevention of Violence and Disorder in Sports expressly defines this conduct as a criminal offence. Article 11 of Law No. 6222, titled “Influencing the Result of a Match”, reads as follows:
“A person who provides another with a gain or other benefit in order to influence the result of a particular sports match shall be punished by imprisonment from one to three years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days. The person to whom the benefit is provided shall also be punished as a joint perpetrator of this offence. Even where an agreement has merely been reached on the provision of a gain or other benefit, the penalty shall be imposed as if the offence had been completed.”
Accordingly, in addition to the disciplinary investigation conducted by the TFF, these acts may also be investigated ex officio by the Public Prosecutor’s Offices. While the act of betting on its own constitutes a disciplinary violation, if the act involves the intent to influence the result of the match, it will give rise to criminal liability as a “match-fixing offence” under Law No. 6222.
For Turkish football, this process is more than merely a disciplinary investigation; it also constitutes an important turning point in terms of the integrity of sport, the principle of fair competition and the rule of law. The precautionary referral decision taken by the TFF, the talks with FIFA on an additional transfer window and the international precedents reveal both the disciplinary and the criminal liability dimensions of betting and match-fixing. In the final assessment, the scope of the betting and the degree to which the result of the match was influenced will be decisive from the standpoint of disciplinary law and criminal law. The proceedings to be conducted in this context constitute a critical example that will guide the practice of sports law in Türkiye.
Gizem ADIGÜZEL ÖZMEN, Attorney at Law, Mediator
