When a football player widely considered to be among the greatest of all time effectively declared war on one of the world’s biggest clubs, the fallout was always going to be colossal.
Over the course of a lengthy interview, Cristiano Ronaldo took aim at Manchester United, the team’s manager, its owners and a succession of former players who he believes have wronged him.
Although the contents of his discussion with Piers Morgan on TalkTV has been the source of countless headlines as it aired over two parts, some of his comments will be of far greater consequence than others.
The Portuguese superstar earns a salary reported to be between £400,000 and £500,000 a week as part of a contract that runs until the end of the season.
At 37 years old, he has been repeatedly excluded from United’s first XI this season under new manager Erik ten Hag – and forced for the first time since he was a teenager to confront the fact he is not an automatic starter for his club.
And whether his second stint at United – which he left for Real Madrid in 2009 – ends as initially intended in May now appears in considerable doubt.
What did Ronaldo say that will be the biggest source of concern to Manchester United?
Probably the most significant sections of the interview centred around Ronaldo’s comments about the club itself, its owners and the manager:
• He accused the club of “betraying” him and claimed he had not been able to help them as he had hoped because it was “hard when they cut your legs”
Advertisement
• The club had made “zero progress” since the retirement of former manager Sir Alex Ferguson, he claimed, while criticising its facilities and adding “the infrastructure is not good”
• Ronaldo criticised Ten Hag, saying “I don’t have respect” for the Dutchman and claiming he had refused to come on as a substitute in a game because he felt “provoked” by the coach
• He alleged that two senior figures at the club doubted his daughter was sick, as he had told them when he missed pre-season training
•The player said the club’s owners, the Glazers, “don’t care about the club, professional sport”
What have United said so far?
Manchester United have said very little to date following the airing of the interview.
The club released a short statement on Friday, saying: “Manchester United has this morning initiated appropriate steps in response to Cristiano Ronaldo’s recent media interview.
“We will not be making further comment until this process reaches its conclusion.”
What legal options do United have – and can they terminate his contract?
There is at least one aspect of the story around which there is seemingly consensus among sports law experts, and that concerns whether Ronaldo’s actions – or words – will amount to a breach of contract.
Udo Onwere is a renowned sports lawyer – himself an ex-professional footballer – who heads the sports practice at law firm Bray & Krais – and represents clients including former United star Rio Ferdinand and current England player Reece James.
“The basic Premier League employment contract means every player is under an obligation that means they’re not allowed to say anything that brings the club into disrepute,” he told Sky News.
“Without a doubt, what he said in the Piers Morgan interview will be an immediate breach. I don’t think there’s really any debate around that, just because of the words he’s used.
“If a player is talking about being betrayed by the club and the club not honouring its commitments to him, then it’s not going to be possible to argue that’s not bringing the club into disrepute.
“The question is whether the club will regard that as being gross misconduct and seek to terminate his contract immediately, or in January when he gets back from the World Cup.
“Alternatively, they may decide to go down the route of launching disciplinary action, and maybe seeking to potentially fine him.”
Jamie Singer, a partner at sports law specialists Onside Law, told Sky News the debate within the sports law industry had largely focused on whether Ronaldo was guilty of gross misconduct.
“When you’re using language like ‘betrayal’ in respect of the club, it’s not going to be hard to demonstrate there’s been a breach of contract,” he said.
“The question is whether it’s so significant a breach that it constitutes gross misconduct.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:19
Ronaldo seems surprised by brief handshake
Has anything like this happened before?
There are only a handful of cases of relevance in English football.
One high-profile precedent involved Chelsea and former Manchester United striker Romelu Lukaku.
He gave an interview in January, in which he appeared to criticise then-manager Thomas Tuchel – saying he was “not happy” and complaining about the tactics at Chelsea.
In that case, however, Lukaku apologised to the club and was subject to disciplinary action before being loaned to Inter Milan.
“I don’t think anything like that will happen here, given the language that Cristiano used,” Mr Onwere said.
The other key contrast with that case is the fact that Lukaku had only recently been bought for £90m and remained a saleable asset to the club.
“If this was a young Cristiano Ronaldo, and he was worth say £100m or more, they’d probably take a different course of action,” Mr Onwere said.
“But because he is at an age where they couldn’t expect a big transfer fee, and he’s earning £400,000 or £500,000 a week, then they’re more likely to take the view that this has become too much of an expensive headache, and they just need to get rid.”
Mr Singer said the particulars of the case made it a highly unusual one, which would likely have a crucial bearing on the outcome.
“It’s a really intriguing one, because normally clubs steer clear of aiming for termination [of contract] because the value of the player’s registration is so important,” he said.
“But here you could have a situation where both parties would not be unhappy about a termination, and it appears that perhaps Ronaldo may be engineering that.
“From Ten Hag’s perspective, it’s clearly been a thorn in his side… so here we have a 37-year-old who we’re not going to get a big transfer fee for, but who we’re spending an absolute fortune on each week.
“If you compare it to the Lukaku situation, his registration was certainly seen as an asset which you did not want to jeopardise by terminating.
“Ronaldo, however, may actually be seen as a liability rather than an asset.”
Mr Onwere said he had represented one of the few prominent professional footballers to have previously had his contract terminated.
In that instance, the Hull City gave notice they would be terminating Jimmy Bullard’s contract in 2011 following an incident on a pre-season trip to Slovenia – but Mr Onwere said a settlement was eventually agreed after the player appealed.
“This is obviously a very different situation, because here you’re talking about one of the greatest players of all time, someone earning a huge amount of money, but who is 37 years old.”
What course of action are United most likely to take with Ronaldo?
Mr Onwere: “The disciplinary process option might be preferred as they could then manage it within the club, in private, and it would mean they don’t have to air their dirty laundry in public.
“But my gut instinct is that United will want to be seen to deal with this swiftly and very decisively, and I suspect they will seek to terminate [Ronaldo’s contract], just because it has become so public, and they will feel they have strong grounds for doing that.
“They will want to show that they cannot be dominated, even by someone on the level of Cristiano Ronaldo.
“It could be difficult, though, because Ronaldo is a wealthy guy and depending on which course of action they take, there could be pushback, and it could become even messier.”
Mr Singer said Ronaldo could decide to challenge whichever course of action United opted for.
“If he does object, he may choose to defend his position in any internal hearing if the club decide to initiate a disciplinary process,” he said.
“But if the club terminates his contract, he could appeal that to the Premier League and say the club were not entitled to do so and have done so.
“That very rarely happens, because it very rarely gets to the situation where clubs terminate a contract in contested fashion. However, here we are talking about a highly unusual set of circumstances.”
Mr Onwere agreed that the situation was an extraordinary one.
“He’s taken a nuclear option, knowing that it’s going to cause a big hoo-ha, and you’ve got to assume that’s what he wanted,” he said.
“The man that he is, the footballer that he is, has to be respected, and when you’re at that level I can see how he might feel completely disrespected by the club.
“Whether he’s gone about it the right way is a different discussion.
“So I think the most likely situation is that they terminate the contract but agree a settlement of some kind.
“One other option is that they could terminate the contract but hold on to his registration, although that could lead to all kinds of other problems – with him likely arguing that this is a restraint of trade – and they will want to make this as clean as they can.
“The club will be pleased that the World Cup is coming up now, as that will be a welcome distraction that will allow them to get on with things in the background.”
A murder investigation has been launched after a woman’s body was found in the boot of a car in east London.
Detectives said a murder inquiry has been launched into the “suspicious” discovery in Ilford.
The woman, who has not been named but is from Corby in Northamptonshire, may have been the victim of a “targeted incident”, police say.
“Fast track” enquiries were made after the force was contacted by a member of the public with concerns about the welfare of the woman.
This led to the discovery of a body inside a car boot.
Northamptonshire Police said: “The investigation is ongoing and there will be continued police activity over the weekend in various locations, including Corby and Ilford.
“Although we believe that this was a targeted incident and there is no wider risk to members of the public, extra patrols will be taking place in Corby in the coming days for reassurance purposes.”
Detectives from the East Midlands Special Operations Unit major crime team and the Metropolitan Police are working on the case, to try and establish the circumstances that led to the woman’s death.
Essex Police say they are investigating an alleged criminal offence of inciting racial hatred, after Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson said she was “dumbfounded and upset” when officers knocked on her door last Sunday.
Ms Pearson revealed she was told she was being investigated over a year-old deleted post online.
She said she wasn’t informed which post had been reported, but suggested it could have been related to the 7 October attacks in Israel or pro-Palestine marches.
She claimed the officers told her she was being investigated for a NCHI (a none crime hate incident) an incident involving an act which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic, but is not illegal.
NCHI reports have long been controversial, with many citing free speech concerns, and Ms Pearson’s account of the police visit has led to widespread support from Conservatives and online commentators, including Tory leader Kemi Badenoch.
But an Essex Police spokesperson has told Sky News its investigation was never for an NCHI, and that the matter was always being treated as an investigation into an alleged criminal offence of inciting racial hatred.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Speaking on her Planet Normal podcast on Wednesday, Ms Pearson said she found the visit “chilling”.
More from Politics
“I was dumbfounded, upset, it’s not very nice,” she said. “I was in my dressing gown on the step of the house, these two coppers were there just outside the door.
“There were people gathering for the Remembrance Day parade so there were people watching from the other side of the road.
Advertisement
“Whatever I did or didn’t tweet, if somebody found it offensive, that to me is still not a reason for two policemen to come to my house on a Sunday morning.
“You know, they don’t do that for burglars, do they? We know policing is under-resourced and they are unable to attend often quite serious crimes.
“This was the most extraordinary overreach and state intrusion into my private life and I don’t think I did anything wrong and I think their response was outrageous.”
In a statement, Essex Police said: “Officers attended an address in Essex and invited a woman to come to a voluntary interview.
“They said it related to an investigation into an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media.
“For clarity: a complaint of a possible criminal offence was made to the police and this is why we called; to arrange an interview.
“Everyone was polite and professional throughout the brief conversation.”
They said an officer told Ms Pearson: “It’s gone down as an incident or offence of potentially inciting racial hatred online. That would be the offence.”
Essex Police say they have complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) over what they call “false reporting” regarding the ongoing investigation.
What is a non-crime hate incident?
Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) are defined by the government as an incident involving an act which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic.
Those characteristics can include race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.
These incidents do not amount to a criminal offence, but they are reported to police and recorded in case they escalate into more serious harm or indicate heightened community tensions.
It can be reported to police by anyone, whether they are directly affected by the alleged NCHI or not.
Not all incidents reported to police are recorded as NCHIs.
They need to meet this threshold, according to the government: “A single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual’s, group’s or community’s quality of life or causes them concern.”
Furthermore, the personal data of the person reported should only be included in the reports if the incident in question presents a “real risk of significant harm” to individuals or groups with a particular characteristic and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may take place against them.
The origins of NCHI recordings stem from the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, who was murdered by a gang of racist attackers in southeast London as he ran to catch a bus.
An inquiry into his death in 1999 called for the creation of “a comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes”.
The first guidance on NCHI was published in 2005, but there have been updates over the years in response to scrutiny over protecting free speech.
The latest guidance was published in June 2023, when an updated code of practice set out a “common sense and proportionate approach that should be adopted by the police”.
The guidance, introduced under the Conservative government, clarified “that debate, humour, satire and personally-held views which are lawfully expressed are not, by themselves, grounds for the recording of an NCHI” and that an NCHI should not be recorded if police deem a report to be “trivial” or “irrational”.
In an interview with The Telegraph published yesterday, Kemi Badenoch said police visiting a journalist over a social media post was “absolutely wrong” and that “we need to look at the laws around non-crime hate incidents”.
“There has been a long-running problem with people not taking free speech seriously,” she said.
She challenged the prime minister to review the laws, saying: “Keir Starmer says he is someone who believes in these things. Now he needs to actually show that he does believe it. All we’ve seen from him is the opposite.”
Ms Badenoch added: “We need to stop this behaviour of people wasting police time on trivial incidents because they don’t like something, as if they’re in a nursery.
“It’s like children reporting each other. And I think that in certain cases, the police do it because they’re afraid that if they don’t do it, they will also be accused of not taking these issues seriously.”
Essex Police said the officers went to the address to invite Ms Pearson to attend a voluntary interview as part of their investigation, which was passed to them by another force.
“The report relates to a social media post which was subsequently removed,” the statement read.
“An investigation is now being carried out under Section 17 of the Public Order Act.”
Essex Police also said they made attempts to contact Ms Pearson before the visit.
Other prominent Conservative voices such as Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Chris Philp have also leapt to Ms Pearson’s defence online, as has X owner Elon Musk, who quoted a post about the incident and said: “This needs to stop.”
Police commentator Graham Wettone told Sky News the police are “duty bound to investigate allegations of crime”.
“They’ve had an allegation of crime made there,” he said. “They will investigate it. If at the end of this they decide that no criminal offence has been committed – and we’re not at that stage yet – then it can still be recorded as a none crime hate incident.”
The police, he said, are duty bound to keep a record of none crime hate incidents.
“Parliament said they want the police to do this, to investigate and record incidents like this. So they are doing exactly what parliament and society asked them to do, and they are getting criticism for doing what people want.”
Sir Keir Starmer has said he will defend the decisions made in the budget “all day long” amid anger from farmers over inheritance tax changes.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month in her key speech that from April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.
The announcement has sparked anger among farmers who argue this will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay for the tax.
Sir Keir defended the budget as he gave his first speech as prime minister at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales, where farmers have been holding a tractor protest outside.
Sir Keir admitted: “We’ve taken some extremely tough decisions on tax.”
He said: “I will defend facing up to the harsh light of fiscal reality. I will defend the tough decisions that were necessary to stabilise our economy.
“And I will defend protecting the payslips of working people, fixing the foundations of our economy, and investing in the future of Britain and the future of Wales. Finally, turning the page on austerity once and for all.”
He also said the budget allocation for Wales was a “record figure” – some £21bn for next year – an extra £1.7bn through the Barnett Formula, as he hailed a “path of change” with Labour governments in Wales and Westminster.
And he confirmed a £160m investment zone in Wrexham and Flintshire will be going live in 2025.
Advertisement
‘PM should have addressed the protesters’
Among the hundreds of farmers demonstrating was Gareth Wyn Jones, who told Sky News it was “disrespectful” that the prime minister did not mention farmers in his speech.
He said “so many people have come here to air their frustrations. He (Starmer) had an opportunity to address the crowd. Even if he was booed he should have been man enough to come out and talk to the people”.
He said farmers planned to deliver Sir Keir a letter which begins with “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
Mr Wyn Jones told Sky News the government was “destroying” an industry that was already struggling.
“They’re destroying an industry that’s already on its knees and struggling, absolutely struggling, mentally, emotionally and physically. We need government support not more hindrance so we can produce food to feed the nation.”
He said inheritance tax changes will result in farmers increasing the price of food: “The poorer people in society aren’t going to be able to afford good, healthy, nutritious British food, so we have to push this to government for them to understand that enough is enough, the farmers can’t take any more of what they’re throwing at us.”
Mr Wyn Jones disputed the government’s estimation that only 500 farming estates in the UK will be affected by the inheritance tax changes.
“Look, a lot of farmers in this country are in their 70s and 80s, they haven’t handed their farms down because that’s the way it’s always been, they’ve always known there was never going to be inheritance tax.”
On Friday, Sir Keir addressed farmers’ concerns, saying: “I know some farmers are anxious about the inheritance tax rules that we brought in two weeks ago.
“What I would say about that is, once you add the £1m for the farmland to the £1m that is exempt for your spouse, for most couples with a farm wanting to hand on to their children, it’s £3m before anybody pays a penny in inheritance tax.”
Ministers said the move will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.
But analysis this week said a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Country and Land Business Association (CLA), which represents owners of rural land, property and businesses in England and Wales, found a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.
The plan says families can spread the inheritance tax payments over 10 years, but the CLA found this would require an average farm to allocate 159% of its profits each year for a decade.
To pay that, successors could be forced to sell 20% of their land, the analysis found.