note the comparison with Bendy's predicament
Can Manchester United sack Mason Greenwood?
Matt Slater Feb 6, 2022
When the news about Mason Greenwood emerged last Sunday, the early reaction on social media was that the 20-year-old Manchester United forward’s career was ruined.
As we will explain below, this may be true — but it is not the most important aspect of the story. It is not even close. If what it’s claimed happened did happen, none of us should worry too much about Greenwood’s football career: our most profound sympathies should lie with the young woman involved.
For as long as that last sentence starts with an “if”, though, we should all tread carefully — Greenwood is innocent of the potential charges he may face until proven otherwise.
But is he innocent of embarrassing his employer? How should Manchester United react to the damage already done to their reputation? Is his career with them over?
To answer those questions, we canvassed the views of several leading sports lawyers, asking them to explain the contractual situation and how that may change as this story develops.
First, let us recap: what is Greenwood alleged to have done?
The England international was arrested on Sunday on suspicion of rape and causing grievous bodily harm. He was then further arrested on Tuesday on suspicion of sexual assault and making threats to kill.
In a statement, Greater Manchester Police said the arrest came after the force “became aware of online social media images and videos posted by a woman reporting incidents of physical violence”.
Police can detain suspects for up to 24 hours before they must charge or release them, but this can be extended to 96 hours if the allegations involve violence. Magistrates granted the extension in Greenwood’s case but he was released on bail, pending further inquiries, on Wednesday morning.
Greenwood, Manchester United
Mason Greenwood will not play for Manchester United ‘until further notice’ (Photo: Matthew Ashton – AMA/Getty Images)
Greenwood has made no public comment about the matter but Manchester United issued a statement on Sunday to say he would not return to training or matches until further notice, a position they restated on Thursday.
Not playing or training but not sacked, then?
Correct, and his name was missing from the back of the match-day programme for Friday’s FA Cup defeat by Middlesbrough at Old Trafford. United have not formally used the word “suspended” yet, though, and are understood to be mindful of letting the legal process take its course, so that might not just be a question of semantics.
Under the terms of the standard Premier League contract, which has been in place since a collective bargaining agreement was reached with the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) in 2003, clubs can only suspend players for a maximum of 14 days.
“It is a two-week suspension with full pay while a disciplinary process is undertaken,” says David Seligman, an associate with the boutique law firm Brandsmiths.
“Once that is completed, he could come back in. Given the severity of (the allegations), he probably would agree not to but, technically, he would be allowed.”
However, John Mehrzad QC, a barrister with Littleton Chambers and a frequent member of sports arbitration panels, believes United may be able to renew the standard 14-day suspension on a rolling basis.
“Given the seriousness (of the matter), a suspension until any trial is entirely permissible in my view,” says Mehrzad, adding that this suspension would be on full pay.
“I don’t think they have enough to sack him unless he makes an admission. If he denies the allegations, it all turns on a trial.
“United can plainly reach a settlement agreement with him to terminate pre-trial but I cannot see that happening. It would be terrible PR for United to pay off a player facing such allegations, and why would he agree to it when he continues to be paid and no other club will touch him unless the allegations are dropped or he is acquitted?”
Mason Greenwood
Greenwood signs a new contract with Manchester United last February (Photo: Matthew Peters/Manchester United via Getty Images)
Dan Chapman is the head of the sports and employment teams at Leathes Prior Solicitors. He agrees with Mehrzad on United’s options regarding suspension but disagrees on the possibility of a deal between club and player.
“Manchester United’s position may be simple if they choose to await the outcome of the criminal process and Greenwood is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, and is sentenced to three months in prison or more,” says Chapman. “The standard contract of employment allows a club to terminate by giving 14 days’ notice in the event of a prison sentence of three months or more.
“The position is less simple if Greenwood is either not prosecuted or prosecuted but found not guilty, or convicted but not imprisoned for three months or more. In either of those scenarios, Manchester United would have to conclude that the player’s conduct, in his personal life, has amounted to gross misconduct in the course of his employment.
“That is a far easier argument to make in the event of a conviction but would be a contentious argument in the event of no prosecution or a not-guilty outcome. Football clubs have tended to take a more cautious route in circumstances such as this, often preferring to negotiate a mutual release of the player or a transfer.”
So, United could sack Greenwood before a trial for bringing them into disrepute?
Yes, but it is not easy if the player denies the allegations.
“If they decide to sack him, because, from a PR perspective, it’s what they should do, the player has seven days to appeal,” explains Seligman.
“Once you put the appeal in, the sacking is put on hold. Then it goes to an arbitration tribunal, which decides whether the sacking is justified. If the sacking is justified, the player is sacked. If not, the player is reinstated.
“Before that appeal is heard, you can suspend the player on full pay. Or the club can put the money into the PFA escrow account (a third-party account where the funds can be held) and it is returned if the sacking is justified.
“These panels are meant to be heard within six weeks, but that’s not always the case. I had one a few years ago, the player was sacked, we appealed it, went to a hearing, it was dragging on and his six-week suspension was up. The player hadn’t done anything sinister so I said, ‘Your suspension is finished, go to the club on Monday for training’. The manager lost it and the club made an offer for settlement. The manager didn’t want the player around but, by contract, he had to let him.”
And this is where Seligman slightly disagrees with Mehrzad, which is what happens when you consult so many lawyers.
“The same thing could happen with Greenwood,” says Seligman. “I don’t think they can really suspend him for longer than two weeks. You can’t continually discipline someone for the same offence, it would have to be a new offence.
“If he’s not charged, I’d advise him to appeal a sacking. It would go to a third-party tribunal and those are all private, not like a normal court. He could get a big pay-off and nobody would know.”
But if it did get out, Seligman and Mehrzad are back on the same page.
Seligman continues: “United might just do a deal with him, but if that ever got out it would look terrible. You have the court of public opinion and what came out looked terrible.”
He adds an important caveat:
“Not being charged with a criminal offence isn’t necessarily a free pass for Greenwood. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will only charge you if they think they can convict you to the criminal standard of proof — beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas you can terminate a contract on the balance of probabilities. A club could form an argument for termination.”
Greenwood is not the first footballer to face allegations of a similar nature, what can we learn from those cases?
Sadly, Greenwood is not just not the first — he is not even the only high-profile Manchester-based footballer to be facing them right now.
On the same day Greenwood was released on bail, Manchester City defender Benjamin Mendy appeared at Chester Crown Court to hear he now faces seven charges of rape relating to four women, one of sexual assault relating to a fifth woman and a new charge, attempted rape, involving a sixth woman. These offences are alleged to have taken place between October 2020 and August 2021. He also heard that his trial, which could last up to six weeks, is scheduled to start on July 25.
Benjamin mendy, manchester city
Benjamin Mendy playing for Manchester City last August (Photo: James Gill – Danehouse/Getty Images)
Mendy was initially arrested last November but was not charged until August. Between those dates, he played 18 times for his club and earned Carabao Cup and Premier League winner’s medals. But once charged, he was kept in custody until last month, when the 27-year-old’s application for bail was finally granted at the fourth time of asking. He is next due in court for a pre-trial hearing on March 11.
The 10-cap France international, signed from French top-flight side Monaco for £52 million in the summer of 2017, has not spoken publicly about the allegations or indicated how he intends to plead. He last played for City on August 15, when they lost their Premier League season-opener away to Tottenham. City have not said if they have continued to pay Mendy but it is entirely possible they have done, as he has not yet been convicted of anything that would trigger the gross-misconduct clause in the standard Premier League contract.
Of course, every case is different and Mendy may well fight these charges and be found not guilty. But when former Middlesbrough, Manchester City and Sunderland winger Adam Johnson was charged with three counts of sexual activity with a minor and one count of grooming in April 2015, he chose to wait until the first date of his trial in February 2016 to plead guilty to two of those four charges. That earned him almost another year’s salary from Sunderland.
It has been a bad week for football and sexual violence, as the biggest story in Scotland has been the case involving David Goodwillie.
Again, the circumstances are different to Greenwood’s and Mendy’s, but the Scotland international and his Dundee United team-mate David Robertson were charged with raping a woman in 2011. The authorities, however, decided not to proceed with the case because they felt there was insufficient evidence to gain prosecutions. But, in 2016, the woman took civil action against the players and won a landmark victory.
Robertson promptly retired from football at age 30, while Goodwillie left the English club he was with at the time, Plymouth Argyle, and returned to Scotland to lodge an appeal. His appeal was unsuccessful but he resumed his career with League Two side Clyde, scoring 109 goals across six seasons, becoming their captain and helping them earn promotion to the third tier in May 2019.
That form tempted second-division Raith Rovers to sign the 32-year-old from Clyde on Monday, the last day of the January transfer window, but it was a decision that provoked fury. Club sponsors, including celebrated crime novelist Val McDermid, pulled their funding, staff resigned, the captain of the women’s team quit and politicians weighed in, most notably former UK prime minister Gordon Brown, a Raith fan, and current Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon.
On Thursday, after three days of mounting pressure, Raith scrapped the Goodwillie deal.
Dev Kumar Parmar is a former criminal lawyer who is now the principal director of sports law firm Parmar Sports.
“It is very important to ensure that we don’t conduct trials by media,” says Parmar. “We must let the legal process unfold.”
Parmar points to the case of Beryly Lubala, a Congolese footballer who has just joined League Two’s Northampton Town on loan from Blackpool of League One. His move came less than a week after he was found not guilty of rape at a trial in Brighton.
The charge related to an allegation from 2019, when Lubala was with Crawley Town, but he was not charged until early last year. Blackpool, for whom he signed in September 2020, initially suspended him but were forced to let him train once it became clear he intended to contest the charge. Life was not easy for him, though, as he was not picked and had to accept several conditions at the club, such as being chaperoned at the training ground and being kept away from minors, female staff and all community projects.
The not guilty verdict means the 24-year-old midfielder now has a chance to resume his career with a new club who seem happy to gain his services.
Dr Gregory Ioannidis, a highly experienced sports lawyer and leader of Sheffield Hallam University’s international sports law course, agrees, stressing the importance of deciding each case “according to its individual background and facts”.
In regards to Greenwood, who was valued at almost £120 million by the Swiss-based CIES Football Observatory in December, Dr Ioannidis says it is hard to see how Manchester United could sack the player right now without there being specific provisions in his contract about bringing the club into disrepute. Like every other lawyer we have consulted, Dr Ioannidis thinks United can only do that if there is a conviction.
“If Greenwood is acquitted, I would consider a gross-dismissal argument a step too far,” he explains. “More likely, there would be a fine and/or additional disciplinary action, tied with the argument that the whole saga brought United, and the game, into disrepute.
“On the other hand, if Greenwood is convicted, the club can dismiss him for gross misconduct with immediate effect and then perhaps seek to sue him for damages.”
So, United could theoretically sack Greenwood and sue him?
Yes, and there is a precedent, although, in his very next breath, Dr Ioannidis added he thought it was very unlikely that United would pursue Greenwood for damages.
The potential precedent is what happened to Adrian Mutu after he was sacked by Chelsea in October 2004 for testing positive for cocaine. The Romania striker received a seven-month anti-doping ban, which gave Chelsea grounds to rip up his contract. Mutu served his ban, returned to Italian football, where he had made his reputation before joining Chelsea, and enjoyed a renaissance with Florence club Fiorentina.
But, in the meantime, Chelsea sued him for the £22.6 million they spent on Shaun Wright-Phillips, his replacement, in July 2005. FIFA’s dispute resolution chamber disagreed with Chelsea’s argument on the replacement cost but agreed that Mutu owed the club about £15 million, the value left on his contract with them before he was sacked.
Mutu Chelsea
Mutu with Chelsea boss Claudio Ranieri when he signed for them in August 2003 (Photo: Alessandro Abbonizio/AFP via Getty Images)
Mutu disagreed, and the case went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2015 and then the European Court of Human Rights three years later. The player lost on every occasion, but there is no indication he has paid Chelsea a penny of those damages.
Greenwood signed a new four-year contract with United last February. It was reported to be worth in the region of £5 million a year, which means there is about £15 million left on it.
However, none of the lawyers consulted can see United following Chelsea’s example in the Mutu case.
“I would distinguish between the two cases, as Mutu was convicted of an anti-doping offence,” says Dr Ioannidis. “And suing a player for his ‘resale’ value would be a long and hard process, and these could be monetary remedies that United may never be able to recover.”
Parmar concurs, saying the resulting legal fight could just drag out the whole process — and therefore the reputational damage — even longer.
So, what can we say for sure about Greenwood’s future as a footballer?
Well, this is where sensible folk like lawyers move off the record.
The consensus is he is finished at United unless a credible explanation can be offered that puts what we have all seen and heard in a very different light.
That may happen but nobody we consulted for this piece thinks it would be enough to guarantee a resumption of his career at Old Trafford. Not in the short to medium term, anyway, which suggests a loan or even a sale, probably abroad, could be a solution.
But if Greenwood cannot provide a credible explanation, the pendulum swings back towards a termination of his contract, and then we return to the various scenarios listed above, which hinge on the outcome of a trial.
We did not only speak to lawyers for this piece and one former player, who still works in a senior role in the game, put it like this: “It’s going to be a lawyer-fest and could get very, very messy.”
Additional contributor: Laurie Whitwell
