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”
Image: Ronaldo said he did not ‘respect’ manager Erik ten Hag
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.”
Image: The Portuguese has repeatedly been a substitute this season after being passed up for selection in the starting line-up. Pic: AP
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.
Image: Romelu Lukaku during his time at Chelsea. Pic: AP
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.”
Image: Sports lawyer Udo Onwere said the World Cup, where Ronaldo will represent Portugal, will be a welcome distraction for United. Pic: AP
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 41-year-old man from Penylan has been charged with murder, preventing lawful and decent burial of a dead body and assaulting a person occasioning them actual bodily harm.
A 48-year-old woman from London has been charged with preventing a lawful and decent burial of a dead body and conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
They both appeared at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on Saturday.
“This brings our search for Paria to a sad and tragic end,” said Detective Chief Inspector Matt Powell.
“Paria’s family, all those who knew her, and those in her local community, will be deeply saddened and shocked by these latest developments.
“Family liaison officers are continuing to support Paria’s family.”
Thousands of trans rights activists have been demonstrating in central London days after the Supreme Court ruled the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
Trans rights groups, trade unions and community organisations came together for what was billed as an “emergency demonstration” in Parliament Square in Westminster.
Activists demanded “trans liberation” and “trans rights now”, with some waving flags and holding banners.
Image: Campaigners in Westminster. Pic: PA
Graffiti was seen on the statues of suffragist leader Millicent Fawcett and South African statesman Jan Christian Smuts in Parliament Square.
The Metropolitan Police said it had launched an investigation after several statues were vandalised and it was investigating the incidents as criminal damage.
Chief Superintendent Stuart Bell said it was “very disappointing to see damage to seven statues and property in the vicinity of the protest”, adding: “We support the public’s right to protest but criminality like this is completely unacceptable.
“We are now investigating this criminal damage and urge anyone with any information to come forward.”
Meanwhile, a rally and march organised by Resisting Transphobia has been taking place in Edinburgh on Saturday afternoon.
Image: Graffiti was daubed on the statue by trans activists. Pic: PA
Image: Graffiti on the statue of South African statesman Jan Christian Smuts in Parliament Square. Pic: PA
It essentially means trans women who hold gender recognition certificates are not women in the eyes of the law.
This means transgender women with one of the certificates can be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate”.
Image: Demonstrators in Westminster
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said on Thursday that the ruling means trans women can no longer take part in women’s sport, while single-sex places, such as changing rooms, “must be based on biological sex”.
The UK government said the unanimous decision by five judges brought “clarity and confidence” for women and service providers.
A Labour Party source said Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had brought the party to a “common sense position” on the subject from an “activist” stance.
Among the groups supporting the London protest were Trans Kids Deserve Better, Pride In Labour, Front For The Liberation Of Intersex Non-binary And Transgender people (Flint) and TransActual.
Image: Pic: PA
Keyne Walker, strategy director at TransActual, told Sky News the government needed to put equality laws back on a “sound footing”.
Speaking from Parliament Square, they said: “The mood is jubilant and also angry and also people are anxious… Right now trans people are coming together to demonstrate to the country, and to everybody else, that we’re not going anywhere because we don’t have anywhere to go…
“Queer people have been through worse than this before, and… we’ll suffer through whatever is to come in the next few years.”
The activist continued: “The government needs to immediately clarify how they are going to protect trans people and what this ruling actually means for spaces.
“It does not bring clarity… businesses and venues at the moment don’t know what they can and can’t do… the government needs to step in and put equalities law back on a sound footing.”
Image: Protesters in Westminster in support of the transgender community. Pic: Daniel Bregman
It comes as Bridgerton actress Nicola Coughlan announced she has helped raise more than £100,000 for a trans rights charity following the Supreme Court decision.
Following the ruling, the Irish star said she was “completely horrified” and “disgusted” by the ruling and added she would match donations up to £10,000 to transgender charity Not A Phase.
The fundraiser has since raised £103,018, with a revised target of £110,000.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:10
Gender ruling – How it happened
Why was the case heard in court?
The Supreme Court ruling followed a long-running legal challenge which centred around how sex-based rights are applied through the UK-wide Equality Act 2010.
The appeal case was brought against the Scottish government by campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) following unsuccessful challenges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
FWS called on the court to find sex an “immutable biological state”, arguing sex-based protections should only apply to people born female.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:41
Campaigners react to gender ruling
The Scottish government argued the protections should also include transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
The Supreme Court judges were asked to rule on what the Equality Act 2010 means by “sex” – whether biological sex or “certificated” sex as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Delivering the ruling at the London court on Wednesday, Lord Hodge said: “We counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.
“The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.”
A teacher who was upskirted by a pupil says women are being “specifically targeted” by misogynistic attitudes being expressed in classrooms.
Sally Rees, now the president of teachers’ union NASUWT in Northern Ireland, was visited by police officers in 2016 and told they had found a USB stick containing images filmed up her skirt by a pupil.
“As a teacher, you give so much of yourself in the classroom, you want the best for your pupils and then to know that somebody has done that to you, it just completely shatters your sense of trust.”
Ms Rees was filmed multiple times over 14 months and after a “long drawn-out legal process”, the pupil was found guilty of five counts of outraging public decency.
At the union’s annual conference this weekend, members will debate calls on the union’s executive to work with teachers “to assess the risk that far-right and populist movements pose to young people”.
“We’ve seen the impact that Andrew Tate and other figures are having on… young boys’ reactions in the classroom,” Ms Rees said.
“One of the things we have to remember is that the majority of our workforce is female and so they are being very specifically targeted by these attitudes, specifically things around; ‘You can’t tell me what to do’, that a man has a right to dominate a woman and has a right to a woman’s body.”
Image: Andrew Tate.
File pic: AP
The drama teacher said schools were now expected to deal with behaviour like this without enough support.
“We need to bring parents and carers into this because it starts in the home and then trickles into our schools,” she added.
“We end up with a blame culture that education is at fault, teachers aren’t dealing with it and yet teachers are the ones that actually end up being the victims of this type of behaviour.”
When asked about the NASWUT survey, a spokesperson for the Department for Education (DfE) said: “Education can be the antidote to hate, and the classroom should be a safe environment for sensitive topics to be discussed and where critical thinking is encouraged.
“That’s why we provide a range of resources to support teachers to navigate these challenging issues, and why our curriculum review will look at the skills children need to thrive in a fast-changing online world.”