John Higgins: A fitting punishment?

As snooker chalks its cue for the new-look World Open running from September 18 to 26 in Glasgow, we know that one man will not be taking part – three-time world champion John Higgins. The Scot – still officially ranked world number one at the time of writing – has been suspended and fined following an enquiry into match-fixing allegations and News of the World revelations about a meeting in Kiev at which an approach was made to discuss throwing frames for money (see BBC report here). The Higgins verdict makes for an interesting (if intricate) case study and may be of interest to other sports that are trying to stamp out the threat of links to illegal betting activities. The question, in particular, is whether the punishment handed down to Higgins fits the crime.

A statement from the WPBSA (World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association) said that there had been “no dishonesty on the part of John Higgins” and accordingly the match-fixing allegations had been withdrawn. Higgins was however disciplined for “intentionally giving the impression to others that he was agreeing to act in breach of the betting rules” and for “failing to disclose promptly to the Association full details of an approach or invitation to act in breach of the betting rules”. Higgins was banned for six months (starting from the initial suspension on May 2, 2010) and was fined £75,000 plus costs of £10,000. He also agreed to play a leading role in a new educational programme for snooker players, which will form part of a planned Integrity Unit.

The fine may not sound very big for a man at the top of his trade. Yet when you think about it there is not all that much money sloshing around in snooker compared to other sports. The World Snooker website shows that Higgins won a little over £150,000 in Tour prize money for the 2009/10 season. He may, I speculate, have earned more than that taking into account other appearance/sponsorship money. But from that one must deduct taxes and costs – a bill of £85,000 probably represents a significant proportion of his net income. The suspension may have an even greater overall impact career-wise, in terms of loss of prize money and ranking points, and potential longer-term consequences for match form and reputation. It may be noted – albeit in different circumstances (as recounted here) – that a season-long ban ultimately put paid to the career of the late snooker legend Alex Higgins (no relation of John). A downward trajectory can be difficult to reverse.

I do not take it upon myself to pronounce on the appropriateness of Higgins’ punishment. Some will be critical of tabloid meddling; on the other hand some may feel that absolute zero-tolerance is required for a sport to be seen to be beyond reproach, to retain its credibility. I merely observe that, had the punishment been any more severe (if, in particular, a longer ban had been imposed), it would not be implausible to argue that Higgins’ career had been dealt a serious, possibly even fatal blow. As it is, he has suffered a blow, but it looks like the way is clear for the Wizard of Wishaw to be back on the baize sometime soon.

Comments

[Charles le Roi]

sounds like Higgins acted to defend his mate Mooney, when he probably should have fired him immediately?