In January 2022, Manchester United Striker Mason Greenwood was arrested and later charged with attempted rape, assault, controlling and coercive behaviour by the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the CPS in a statement has now dropped the charges against the player stating “… the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light”. Given this development, it remains to be seen what decision Manchester Utd FC will take about the player.
It is quite a dicey situation for the club in my view because, despite the charges against him having been dropped by the CPS, the wide-spread video/audio recordings and pictures of the alleged offences do not look good for the player, in the court of public opinion.
On one hand, if the club decides to terminate his contract so as to distance itself from the potential negative effect that reinstating the player may cause, they are unlikely to have a legal just cause. If they take such an action, the player could successfully sue the club because he was not convicted of any of the alleged offences, let alone a sentencing.
Of worthy mention is Clause 10 of the Premier League Standard Contract (which is possibly incorporated in Mason’s contract). It provides that:
“The Club shall be entitled to terminate the employment of the Player … if the Player is convicted of any criminal offence where the punishment consists of a sentence of imprisonment of three months or more (which is not suspended).”
On the other hand, reinstating the player could negatively affect the brand of the club despite the charges against him having been dropped. This is due to the nature of the alleged offences and the shreds of ‘evidence’ already shared with the public. As a matter of fact, there have been posts on the internet since the news broke out that the club should terminate his contract regardless. This suggests that not everyone may be willing to give him a warm embrace.
If it gets worse and there are protests against the club by fans and/or public-interest organizations, some of the club’s sponsors could even be pressurized to cut ties, so as not to appear as endorsing the alleged offences.
Time would tell whether the club would:
1. Stick it out with the player regardless of the disapproval and possible repercussions;
2. Convince the player to agree to a mutual termination of the contract, with a compensation package paid; or
3. Unilaterally terminate the contract of the player, and be braced up to pay up the residue of the player’s salary and compensation which may be ordered in a judgment.