Shameless angst of papers who promote gambling

I'm writing this from experience. My name's Simon Jordan, I'm a millionaire, and I use casinos

It's a lesson in spin. In the five months before January, Wayne Rooney lost £700,000. In the same five months he earned £1.5million after tax and hasn't gambled since. How to splash that on a tabloid? 'Roo's £700,000 bets debt - England camp's turmoil...' There are some big emotional problems here, but they're not Wayne's. Two months before the World Cup, another excruciatingly lame, limp-wristed slap at England by a British paper, revealing nothing, motivated by circulation and defended as 'public interest'. There's a 'secret dressing-room gambling ring' panted the Sunday Mirror, then billed it 'world exclusive'.

It's a seedy, nerdy sort of self-abuse. Alex Ferguson's reaction was totally right, calling Rooney 'manna from heaven' for the tabloids, another Best or Beckham to build up, then pick at. It's a familiar pattern: a story based on nothing, three months late and spiced up by tacking on a 'bust-up' - this one a spurious 'rift' with Michael Owen. And even if there was a rift over their shared bookie, Teddy Sheringham and Andy Cole proved well enough you can hate your team-mate and still win the Treble. It comes down to fitting a weak story to a saleable headline, and it happens again and again and again. The rest of Europe must lap it up.

What's even harder to take about this example is the pseudo moral angst. The press, following up the story last week, alluded constantly to 'football's gambling culture' as you might to priests' 'altar-boy culture': something to be ashamed of, something sick. You just have to look at where this moral line is coming from to test its value: British journalists - gambling, smoking, drinking, drug-taking, Auld Slapper-shagging (for all I know) hacks, whose papers promote gambling to their readers every day of the week. Those readers can afford it a lot less than millionaire footballers.

What it comes down to is a fundamental, wilful misunderstanding of gambling as a diversion as opposed to an addiction. A spokesman for Tony Adams' clinic joined the coverage last week, doing no harm for his organisation, saying: 'Gambling is the largest addiction within football... It's accepted, tolerated, condoned and supported by clubs and managers.' A stunning skew on the reality. Gambling is only a problem for people with a predisposition to addiction. Linking Rooney to 'problem gambling' over a five-month phase is no cleverer than saying Coleen's dangerously addicted to handbags or Burberry. If you stay within your means (which Rooney undeniably did) and know when to get out (which he also did), you have no problem. Chelsea's squad lost £500,000 at Cheltenham; Jonathan Woodgate spent £1.8m in two years - and won £1.65m back; Michael Owen turned over £2.2m before he was 23. None of these guys is in the gutter, and none of them needs to sit on Tony Adams' knee.

I'm writing this from experience. My name's Simon Jordan, I'm a millionaire, and I use casinos. They're a diversion, not an addiction. It's not about money, it's about winning, beating the house. If the stakes are within your means and you don't chase losses you're OK. The casinos I've used are full of footballers, and most know what they're about. Eidur Gudjohnsen lost £400,000 in one three years ago, admitted he'd been an idiot and stopped. That's how the process works. You're either born with moderation or you learn it. Wayne learnt it. End of story.

But as bad as the substance of the original article was the insinuation in the follow-ups that Rooney was let down by everyone around him. People have cried about how 'the boy' (aged 20) wasn't given the right advice. An 'insider' told one of the papers: 'Nobody discouraged him from chasing his losses.' OK, with his front-line adviser being Paul Stretford I wouldn't expect much - but what control can an employer, any adviser, have over how a young adult spends his spare cash?

Yes, parental, peer and professional guidance is all important, but it's about long-term advice, not hand-holding. The majority of Rooney's wealth will be in long-term investments and property. Robbie Fowler, another casual gambler and horse owner, has an 83-property portfolio, making him a good financial role model. At Palace, we're working on introducing advice on every aspect of finance, and doing it at the earliest stage, with lifestyle management for graduating youth-team players, advice on how to manage money, their first mortgage, investments, pension plans and life insurance.

But that's as far as it should go. The media's big thinkers spent last week intimating that Rooney's case exposed a structural flaw, that players like him need even closer supervision. How do you do that without stunting emotional development? Wayne doesn't need intervention - he got through his mug-punter phase himself, and that's much more effective, much more enduring. The FA's response to the story, typically ridiculous, was to say Sven will be offering Rooney some advice. That's Sven, offering advice on morals and being frugal. Wayne doesn't need it from him, or from anyone.

As a role model, Rooney's getting there. His public mistakes in the past two years have been largely insignificant or overblown, and he's maturing. He's also one of the world's top football talents. So slag him off, or support him? With eight weeks till the World Cup, the tabloids need to fight their instincts and drop the self-serving, daft double standards. If the Queen can punt her bollocks off, as they say in the trade, why can't Wayne?

The only red top that cut Rooney some slack last week was the Sun, for their own personal reasons. They've spent the past two months going comically soft on him, trying to dissuade him from pressing ahead with a libel action brought over their false claim that he'd slapped Coleen last April. The case was due to be heard five weeks before the World Cup, raising the prospect of England's 'official paper' being sued by England's official wonderboy. The Sun's way out was to reverse their natural approach and press for an early settlement with a series of cloying, cuddly stories like this: 'While Wayne Rooney's been busy perfecting his ball skills, fiancee Coleen McLoughlin has been honing her perfect size-8 figure...' Sadly, it worked.

Their reaction to the settlement when it came last week was awesome. Relief, big love and, lacing all that together, a sense of pride that three years of chipping at, harassing and abusing Rooney had made him a better person. 'We wish Wayne and the England team every success in Germany,' said a statement, 'and look forward to welcoming them back with the World Cup trophy.'

It's simple. If it all goes well out there, it was the Sun wot won it.

Now it's personal

Big week for the FA compliance office. Last Monday my appeal against their fine for 'improper conduct' was rejected by two votes to one. On Tuesday, engorged, they sat down to assess Paul Jewell's comments about referee Phil Dowd. 'He's incompetent. Someone told me before the game he's the worst referee in this league, and they weren't wrong. It was a nonsensical performance.' Their verdict? 'Jewell will not face any formal disciplinary action.'

I'd be half-entertained if I wasn't involved: they're genuinely enforcing their censorship based on mood. There's no frame of reference, no consistency - and, yes, it's personal. It amounts to me not being able to say a referee is incompetent while others can, using the same language. Seriously, I have to have a problem with that.

I stand by what I wrote and the basis for writing it, and we're now considering taking this through the courts. Any legal action I take won't be about wasting time or resources on a petty point of principle - it'd be an attempt to see the whole thing unravel.

Serious business

Heart-warming to see my pearls of wisdom about Birmingham paid off for them. David Sullivan apologised to his squad for his comments, they beat Bolton and drew with Wigan. I was expecting a bottle of champagne, but instead I had David Gold calling me 'immature', and saying: 'In time he'll learn this is a serious business.'

Gold's hint that what happens in football should stay in football is worth answering. All the issues I've raised in these columns this season - dildo-toting owners, corruption, agents, racism, salaries - need to be open. They need debating because underneath all this 'serious business' is a sport, and people, worth protecting.

Geoff Thomas's restaged 1990 FA Cup final held at Selhurst earlier this month sums that up better than anything. The event - part of Geoff's inspirational fight against leukaemia - showed what football can be. Fifteen thousand fans paid to be part of it, United fans donated an extra £700, Lance Armstrong backed it, Alex Ferguson and Steve Coppell gave up their time, along with most of the original players. Mark Hughes, Bryan Robson, Brian McClair, John Salako, Neil Webb, Geoff and others all shone. Andy Gray showed he's still got it by hitting a free-kick through an executive box, Ian Wright scored the best goal I've seen this season, and I was a revelation. I'd sign me tomorrow. (And thanks to the crowd for the 'one Robbie Savage' chant - no, I'm not changing my haircut, it's dandy.)

What I took from the night was massive relief from the cynicism that working in this environment builds. Yes, if Gold's 'serious business' means corporate bullshit and self-serving imbeciles, then football's bloody serious, and he's the most serious man in it. But it's also a fantastic sport, based on real, decent people. Geoff raised over £170,000 for research. You can contribute at

The fee for Simon Jordan's Observer articles goes to the Christopher's Children's Hospice, Guildford, Surrey