Premier League teams are playing footballers facing abuse claims

[SilentWitness]

Premier League clubs have continued to play two footballers, and kept a boss in post, while knowing they are under police investigation for sexual or domestic violence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67508310

Some disturbing allegations. I do wonder how the PL/FA ruling works currently. I always thought it was us that suspended player X but then the 10 points deduction report said that the FA suspended him so I wonder why they suspend some people but not others.

Do not name anyone please. Keep the discussion as civil as possible!

Also I wasn't sure whether to post this here or the FF so another mod feel free to move if it's better placed there.

 

[Adisa]

I don’t think it should be black and white. Typically, the line should be at the point where charges are brought. But some cases are very awkward, like a compromising video or audio has been released.

 

[Drainy]

Think it's a tough subject, because it's a privilege to play professional football and noone should be entitled to do so while being abusive. Of course, it's not acceptable and we want to ensure that the message is clear that it's not tolerated.

a relatively modest burden of proof is required beyond words. I would also say, if you are a professional male athlete having 'rough sex' don't blame others if they don't believe you if there is an allegation. You may not get convicted, you might not even be charged, but the marks and the allegation should be enough for a club to suspend and dismiss in due course for the reasons stated above.

 

[Beachryan]

For me it's reasonably simple: the FA, the Premier League and the clubs should be in no position to judge these allegations. That has to happen through proper channels - ie - the police and justice system. If players are found guilty of any such accusations, their contracts should be immediately terminated as they also face the proper justice system punishments.

But, these things can't happen at the moment of accusation, that's simply not how our society works. Even if it means players are playing while the accusations are ongoing, you cannot have bodies like the FA determine validity of such claims - they are simply not equipped nor should they be.

I also believe strongly in proper gag orders and media blackouts with regards to the accusations, for obvious reasons.

 

[Big Andy]

Guaranteed if the Greenwood videos and audio hadn't been released, he'd still be playing for us right now. Clubs don't care as long as they can get away with it.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I guess for most clubs is a risk/reward decision. Only one percent of SA cases go to court, and the players can add millions to a club's value

 

[moses]

Guaranteed if the Greenwood videos and audio hadn't been released, he'd still be playing for us right now. Clubs don't care as long as they can get away with it.

Almost certainly.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

Guaranteed if the Greenwood videos and audio hadn't been released, he'd still be playing for us right now. Clubs don't care as long as they can get away with it.

But that also gave more substance to the allegations.

edit: you said released, then you are right most likely.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Guaranteed if the Greenwood videos and audio hadn't been released, he'd still be playing for us right now. Clubs don't care as long as they can get away with it.

100%. Even then, it was close.

Though, the big difference was that it must have been done enough times for someone to make the decision to record it

 

[Big Andy]

100%. Even then, it was close.

Though, the big difference was that it must have been done enough times for someone to make the decision to record it

Was certainly almost a career ender that decision. All the more weird that she's still with him and has a kid with him.

 

[horsechoker]

No surprise, millions are invested into these players and if clubs can cover up wrong doing in order to avoid heavy losses they'll do so.

I imagine United would've done the same with Greenwood if it were possible. I suppose the interest and the publicised evidence in the case meant it was impossible

 

[RedBanker]

Yeah. Because "facing claims" means they are all guilty without trial.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Was certainly almost a career ender that decision. All the more weird that she's still with him and has a kid with him.

Nah. It usually takes about 7 attempts before a DV victim actually gets away.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Yeah. Because "facing claims" means they are all guilty without trial.

Facing claims is enough for suspension with pay for a lot of public facing roles.

 

[Skills]

Think it's a tough subject, because it's a privilege to play professional football and noone should be entitled to do so while being abusive. Of course, it's not acceptable and we want to ensure that the message is clear that it's not tolerated.

a relatively modest burden of proof is required beyond words. I would also say, if you are a professional male athlete having 'rough sex' don't blame others if they don't believe you if there is an allegation. You may not get convicted, you might not even be charged, but the marks and the allegation should be enough for a club to suspend and dismiss in due course for the reasons stated above.

What? It's a job like any other. What makes it a privilege?

 

[horsechoker]

What? It's a job like any other. What makes it a privilege?

feck tons of money and admiration

 

[RedBanker]

Facing claims is enough for suspension with pay for a lot of public facing roles.

They are elite athletes. They are not govt officials or elected members of the govt.

 

[IRN-BRUno]

Premier League clubs have continued to play two footballers, and kept a boss in post, while knowing they are under police investigation for sexual or domestic violence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67508310

Some disturbing allegations. I do wonder how the PL/FA ruling works currently. I always thought it was us that suspended player X but then the 10 points deduction report said that the FA suspended him so I wonder why they suspend some people but not others.

Do not name anyone please. Keep the discussion as civil as possible!

Also I wasn't sure whether to post this here or the FF so another mod feel free to move if it's better placed there.

I maybe wrong but didn't the Everton one involve someone underage? The article says;

However, the bodies only have regulations on how to respond to allegations of this nature if they occur within a football environment, or if concerns relate to children or vulnerable adults.

So maybe they were forced to step in as it involved a child.


I also don't understand why Antony can be named but others can't. I don't think he's even been arrested, just attended the police station to give a statement/answer questions?

 

[SilentWitness]

I maybe wrong but didn't the Everton one involve someone underage? The article says;

So maybe they were forced to step in as it involved a child.

I also don't understand why Antony can be named but others can't. I don't think he's even been arrested, just attended the police station to give a statement/answer questions?

Oo yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

They are elite athletes. They are not govt officials or elected members of the govt.

They are in the entertainment industry to a certain extent and the money they earn is dependent on the public. You'd get suspended in a sales job, leave alone something like professional sport

 

[The Corinthian]

They are in the entertainment industry to a certain extent and the money they earn is dependent on the public. You'd get suspended in a sales job, leave alone something like professional sport

It’s irrelevant if they’re in the entertainment industry. Their contracts are owned by private institutions, so there’s no precedent on how a private entity should behave if one of their assets is facing claims. Public people holding positions in public office is totally different.

 

[Taribo's Gap]

It all depends on the facts of the particular cases, what is in the contracts and club policies and the particular club's appetite for and strategy toward managing legal liability and brand optics.

 

[adexkola]

What? It's a job like any other. What makes it a privilege?

Nonsense about role models and bla bla, they get paid lots of money and they have adult fans.

As if they aren't highly skilled professionals sought by these clubs that pay them such amounts of money and put them on these stages to win trophies.

 

[golden_blunder]

Hopefully some will start behaving like adults now

 

[Dan_F]

Guaranteed if the Greenwood videos and audio hadn't been released, he'd still be playing for us right now. Clubs don't care as long as they can get away with it.

Absolutely, but in fairness to United they also took Antony out of the team while those allegations were happening. There is at least one club who allegedly have a player out on bail who was still playing for them the whole time, that really shouldn’t be happening.

 

[adexkola]

Absolutely, but in fairness to United they also took Antony out of the team while those allegations were happening. There is at least one club who allegedly have a player out on bail who was still playing for them the whole time, that really shouldn’t be happening.

Why? He's not a risk of flight, he's not deemed a risk to the public, and he's not even been charged with a crime. Why should he be deprived of his livelihood?

 

[RedDevil@84]

It is a very difficult topic. Especially when players are from different countries and not all cases are being fought in England. At what stage do you start punishing the player when the law takes different courses in different countries.

 

[manutddjw]

I've seen countless times in the NFL where a player was accused or arrested and the club caved to public pressure and released the player usually with salary cap implications. Most of the time that player was picked up by another team rather quickly. There's been players who've served jail time/suspensions and were activated or signed by another team as soon as they were eligible.

At the end of the day, some team will sign that player. After you take the time to develop a player, why should you be forced into letting them go and let someone else reap the rewards?

 

[adexkola]

It is a very difficult topic. Especially when players are from different countries and not all cases are being fought in England. At what stage do you start punishing the player when the law takes different courses in different countries.

You could simply let the law take it's course and suspend/terminate when one of the following situations occur:

1. Player is found guilty
2. There is clear and convincing evidence in the public domain of guilt of a crime
3. A player is charged, and bail/court conditions impose a serious restriction on the player's ability to fulfill obligations related to their contract (games, training, etc)

Short of these, a club shouldn't be forced to shoot themselves in the foot by not utilizing a financial asset, just to satisfy some members of the public, with no tangible benefit to the club and public

 

[HTG]

I've seen countless times in the NFL where a player was accused or arrested and the club caved to public pressure and released the player usually with salary cap implications. Most of the time that player was picked up by another team rather quickly. There's been players who've served jail time/suspensions and were activated or signed by another team as soon as they were eligible.

At the end of the day, some team will sign that player. After you take the time to develop a player, why should you be forced into letting them go and let someone else reap the rewards?

Decency. And others lacking decency doesn’t mean one should throw theirs out of the window.

 

[Rood]

I also don't understand why Antony can be named but others can't. I don't think he's even been arrested, just attended the police station to give a statement/answer questions?

Because she accused him in Brazil not UK, so rules about anonymity are different

 

[adexkola]

Decency. And others lacking decency doesn’t mean one should throw theirs out of the window.

People's jobs and career are on the line every day conditional upon success, and I've never heard of a GM or DoF giving a coach a pass because they made the "decent" decision which handicapped their team.

One could argue it's incompetent to hobble your team in a situation where competitors can take advantage.

 

[calodo2003]

Guaranteed if the Greenwood videos and audio hadn't been released, he'd still be playing for us right now. Clubs don't care as long as they can get away with it.

+1

 

[TheReligion]

Why? He's not a risk of flight, he's not deemed a risk to the public, and he's not even been charged with a crime. Why should he be deprived of his livelihood?

Because in most professions he’d be suspended with pay under the circumstances.

 

[Smores]

It's the same as in any other profession, if the accusations are a bigger burden than the staff is an asset they're gone. CEO, Fund Manager, Footballer all the same.

Whoever those in the article are they have the benefit that their names aren't public so they avoid being a burden (for now). It's not a matter of morals.

 

[adexkola]

Because in most professions he’d be suspended with pay under the circumstances.

We're trying to determine what is the sensible path to take. I don't think a suitable answer is, "well that happens in most professions" (a blanket statement which isn't wholly true)

Most jobs aren't scouring the news for evidence their employees broke the law.

 

[JagUTD]

It's difficult. I don't think clubs or the FA/PL should be conducting investigations of any sort when no criminal investigation has taken place. The are not equipped to carry out such delicate investigations and certainly won't have access to crucial evidence due to laws protecting both victim and accused.

Should players or staff be suspended? Many will say yes and it's arguably the easy optio , at least short term. The thing is, is it really suspension or are players effectively being sacked on the back of unproven allegations? Is there a route back? Several high profile examples recently suggest not.

That makes it a problem imo. And it's probably why you have clubs try to carry on as normal until they are forced to act.

Blaming football for something well outside of it's remit also takes attention away from the real problem. Victims don't wait 10 years to finally speak out because of football or any other industry. They do so because of the complete failure of justice when it comes to sexually motivated crimes.

 

[TheReligion]

We're trying to determine what is the sensible path to take. I don't think a suitable answer is, "well that happens in most professions" (a blanket statement which isn't wholly true)

Most jobs aren't scouring the news for evidence their employees broke the law.

The sensible path has already been stated.

You suspend them whilst the investigation tasks place. Doing what Arsenal have done isn’t the norm.

 

[wr8_utd]

The sensible path has already been stated.

You suspend them whilst the investigation tasks place. Doing what Arsenal have done isn’t the norm.

Wonder if Arsenal's choices would be different if they had Rice last year?

 

[adexkola]

The sensible path has already been stated.

You suspend them whilst the investigation tasks place. Doing what Arsenal have done isn’t the norm.

It's not sensible because you say "take my word for it"

Arsenal have clearly benefited from their decision to not suspend the said player. And no harm has come of the decision. So tell me, why is their decision not sensible?