Zak Butters verbal abuse verdict raises questions about AFL's 'conflict of interest' with gambling

The reporting of Port Adelaide player Zak Butters for umpire abuse has raised questions about how the AFL has handled the umpire involved working for a gambling company.

The AFL Tribunal found Butters guilty of verbally abusing umpire Nick Foot yesterday over an incident during Port's loss against St Kilda at Adelaide Oval on Sunday.

The verdict hung on whether Butters asked Foot "how much are they paying you?", which the umpire inferred to mean St Kilda was paying him to give easy free kicks, or "why are you paying that?", which is what Butters says he asked Foot.

Foot also works for Sportsbet as a horse racing analyst, but Butters told the tribunal he was unaware of the association.

The AFL has previously approved Foot to work at Sportsbet as well as being a field umpire for the league.

Alliance For Gambling Reform chief advocate Tim Costello said it was "real hypocrisy on the part of the AFL" to allow the umpire to also work for Sportsbet while players were strictly not allowed to be involved in gambling on their sport.

Dr Costello said he was not questioning Foot's integrity — "he is the meat in the sandwich" — but the AFL should not be taking money from Sportsbet as a sponsor and through fees on each bet laid while also having an umpire work for the company.

He said it was at least a "perceived" conflict of interest, if not an actual one.

"We know that footballers like Zak Butters would not be allowed to be working for Sportsbet in racing there like Nick Foot, the field umpire," he said.

"Secondly, the perception with the AFL is extraordinary — it's a not-for-profit charity, the AFL really … that conflict of interest is real."

The AFL and the AFL Umpires Association have been contacted for comment.

Issues with on-field audio

Unusually, no audio was heard on the broadcast of the interaction, nor was it available to the tribunal.

Former umpire "Razor" Ray Chamberlain told 774 ABC Melbourne this morning that the AFL should put more effort into having more sound available from the game.

"For me it's like, 'Come on, let's lean in there' and create a better situation there where we don't have this situation again," he said.

"And then the second part is how do they want their officials and players — but their officials [in particular] — to handle these situations moving forward, because I don't think anyone won thus far out of this week."

AFL Players' Association chief executive James Gallagher said it was "deeply concerning" the tribunal did not accept all the evidence of what was said from Butters or his teammate Ollie Wines and that there was "sufficient doubt" about what happened to not uphold the charge.

Port waiting on reasons

Port Adelaide Football Club chair David Koch told FiveAA it was "pretty certain" the decision would be appealed but the club would wait for the tribunal to release its reasons for its finding this morning.

He said the AFL Integrity Unit had 40–60 people working for it and Foot's association with Sportsbet was approved.

He said it was fair that umpires took another job beyond their part-time role on the field.

"But [they] probably need to choose carefully where that job is and who it is with, I would think," Koch said.

Click here to read article