History has taught us that just because a person is
found guilty by a court of law, this does not necessarily mean that
he or she is actually guilty. Indeed, often it is politics and
economics that decide the outcome of a legal case. There have been
numerous examples over the years – the latest last Friday when
Fiorentina forward Adrian Mutu was ordered to pay compensation of
£14.6 million (€17m) to former club Chelsea.
For those of you unfamiliar with this case, here is a brief recap.
In August 2003, Roman Abramovich’s nouveau-riche Chelsea signed
Mutu from Parma for £15.8m (€18.6m by today’s conversion). After an
explosive start the Romanian lost his way in the second half of the
season, and by the onset of the 2004-05 campaign began to encounter
a few problems with new Blues manager Jose Mourinho. In September
2004, Mutu failed a drugs test for cocaine for which he would
receive a £20,000 fine from the Football Association (FA) together
with a seven-month ban. Chelsea also took the additional step of
sacking Mutu, leaving him as a free agent.
Despite still having a further five months of his suspension to
run, Mutu then joined Juventus on a free transfer in January 2005
(he would then move on again to Fiorentina in the summer of 2006),
with the Bianconeri fighting off all attempts by Chelsea to gain
compensation.
What would follow is years of legal wrangling between Chelsea and
Mutu, culminating with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
ruling that the striker had committed a breach of contract by
taking cocaine, and that under FIFA’s laws for compensation he was
liable for the transfer fee Chelsea wrote off their accounts when
they sacked him. The final damages, following an unsuccessful
appeal, were set at £14.6m (€17m).
Is this justice? It was Chelsea who took the decision to sack Mutu,
and it was their idiocy to release him on a free transfer rather
than sell him on and limit their damages. Had they done the latter,
it could theoretically be argued that Mutu should morally have paid
the difference. So if Mutu then signed for Manchester United for
£12.8m, the player would need to pay Chelsea £3m.
Yet even this would have been highly contentious and
ground-breaking, for when the Romanian joined Chelsea, he had no
say in fixing the transfer fee. Indeed many would argue that The
Blues paid over the odds for him, just as they did with a whole
host of players who arrived during Roman Abramovich’s first summer
in English football. (Compare the situation then to Manchester City
now) How can Mutu be responsible for a transfer fee that was agreed
between Parma and Chelsea? If Abramovich had been feeling extra
generous the day he sent over a cheque to Emilia-Romagna, and
decided to splash out a Cristiano Ronaldo type fee of £80m, would
Mutu now be expected to pay all that back? The premise is so
ridiculous that the late great advocate George Carman must be
considering a comeback - but the CAS regards it as valid!
The local media in Britain has been largely acquiescent over the
incident, with anti-drug piety colouring the coverage. As for
Chelsea, they have yet to comment. Why would they? Even though they
may have to wait some time before receiving some or all of the Mutu
cash, they can rest assured that their interests
are consonant with those of the other big clubs that are favoured
by judgements like these. The governing bodies in football -
including the CAS, which is now largely football focused - are
desperate to protect these superpowers because without them they
cannot exist. Thus, they have little choice but to team with the
likes of Chelsea during these disputes. And for some in the media,
dissenting from the large clubs can mean losing vital coverage
opportunities - not to mention the gasps that are elicited by any
mention of a drug-related offence, no matter how underwhelming or
how much the player has righted wrongs since then.
No doubt FIFA and CAS, having seen clubs lose a vast amount of
control since the Bosman Ruling, have not squandered an opportunity
to claw back some ‘player power’. Mutu has been made an example of
in the battle against drugs in football, only that in this case it
is an example of how there is no point reforming yourself because
you will still be persecuted afterwards.
Following his well-documented personal problems circa 2004, Mutu
has completely turned around his life. As recently as 2007, the
Guardian newspaper praised Mutu fulsomely for his newfound
maturity. Indeed, it is no exaggeration whatsoever to call the
Romanian a completely changed man. Perhaps, then, the sacking from
Chelsea was a wake-up call that he needed. But it did not stop
there, and the millstone around his neck won't go away. The message
this sends out to all those who are struggling with drink, drugs,
gambling and other difficulties is to continue drinking, continue
taking drugs and continue gambling because the 'football community'
will never forgive and certainly never forget.
Or perhaps help and acceptance is only offered when there are
special interests to consider. If a player more friendly with
Mourinho had tested positive for the devil’s dandruff, would
Chelsea have taken the same decision in sacking them? What about
Rio Ferdinand in 2003 when he failed/refused to take a drugs test,
and was subsequently banned for eight months and fined £50,000?
Ferdinand had signed for The Red Devils from Leeds only a year
earlier for £29.1m, but did Man Utd ditch him before then
attempting to sue him? Certainly not - they stood by their man, and
both the club and Rio have reaped the rewards.
This has all been a PR disaster for Chelsea and FIFA, while the
authority and status of CAS could be almost irreversibly broken if,
as expected, Mutu takes the next legal step and drags his
ex-employers into the European Court of Human Rights - a body that,
despite its clear flaws, is not in thrall to the mega-clubs and has
in the past showed willingness to consider the rights of players as
workers, rather than rows on a balance sheet.
As it stands, Mutu is a broken man. At the age of nearly 31 he has
very little earning potential left, meaning that he will retire
with nothing to show financially for his efforts.
Assuming this verdict is actually enforced, of course. In a
bittersweet coda, it's thought deeply unlikely that Chelsea will
get the money anytime soon. Just as over Gibraltar's membership of
UEFA, the CAS is a paper tiger - and one that would perhaps be best
placed in the wastebasket.
<!--h3>Carlo Garganese</h3-->
