Banned for 18 months for gambling offences, the career of Joey Barton, one of football's most polarising characters, is effectively over.
In a lengthy statement on his own website, he sought to defend himself, suggesting in part that his controversial profile had been the reason for the severity of the ban. But Barton can have no complaints because he hasn't just broken the rules; he's repeatedly smashed them with a hammer for years, betting on over 1,000 games, including some involving his own team.
By doing that and, in some cases, wagering against his own team, he has not only breached gambling regulations, but put himself in a position where others have reason to doubt his integrity. Indeed, when ESPN FC spoke to Ross Brown of London-based sports law practice Onside Law, he pinpointed the bets against his own team as one of the key factors for the severity of the ban.
Barton can say that he has "given everything" whenever he has played and few who have watched him would disagree. But even he would have to accept that this is an entirely subjective point and constitutes no real defence whatsoever.
Barton also argues that he was not involved in the match day squad for any of the highlighted games, but the truth is that it doesn't matter whether he was on the pitch or not. What if, hypothetically speaking, an out-of-favour player bets against his own team because he knows that a particular teammate was carrying an injury and would be vulnerable to pace?
What if our hypothetical player gave the opposing manager a call and shared this crucial bit of team news? Or any team news, for that matter. If you are privy to confidential information, you don't have to be in the starting line-up to be able to exert influence on a result.
There's also the moral issue of betting against your own team. Supporters pay large sums to watch their club, whether in the stadium or on subscription broadcasts. It's not unreasonable for them to be upset if players are financially benefiting from failure and no player should really need to be told not to do such a thing.
Barton says that he presented the FA with a medical report on his addiction to gambling and that this should have been taken into consideration. But given there are 1,260 bets across a time period of 10 years, how much consideration can be taken when the wrongdoing is so sustained?
Where Barton's argument is strongest, though, is concerning the paradox he highlights between football's crackdown on gambling in his case, and its embrace of revenues from betting-related companies.
In the UK, advertising around televised games is dominated by gambling. One radio station, meanwhile, works the changing match odds of a corporate partner into its commentary. Moreover, many teams wear the names of bookmakers on their shirts.
The question of football's relationship with the gaming industry is certainly something that should be monitored, but it is a separate discussion and does not provide a defence for what Barton did. The game also has a relationship with the brewing industry, but that would be no mitigation for players guilty of alcohol-related offences.
You can understand why some are concerned about the severity of Barton's punishment, given that something as dreadful as the racial abuse of a fellow professional incurs a minimum ban of just five games. But while football could certainly do more to battle racism and other problem areas, to invoke its spectre in this debate does not lessen Barton's offence. "Whatabouttery" helps no-one.
Barton's divisive reputation has been quite the double-edged sword in his career, guaranteeing him abuse in every stadium he enters, but also providing more of a media platform than a player with his CV might ordinarily expect. But the severity of his sanctioning has little to do with his celebrity. He isn't being punished for being famous or because people dislike him.
Footballers betting on football is dangerous and disgraceful and the rules are in place for good reason. Barton is a fascinating character and likely still has a future in the game in some capacity. However, while it is to be hoped he overcomes his gambling problems, he still deserves to be banned.
Editor's note: Iain Macintosh has written for and been part of projects sponsored by betting companies.