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.”
The BBC has said it regrets not pulling the live stream of Bob Vylan’s “unacceptable” Glastonbury set – as Ofcom said the broadcaster has “questions to answer”.
The corporation has faced mounting criticism over airing the performance on Glastonbury‘s West Holts Stage, during which the rap-punk duo’s frontman Bobby Vylan led chants of: “Free, free Palestine” and: “Death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)”.
Sir Keir Starmer condemned the remarks as “appalling hate speech”, while festival organiser Emily Eavis said they “crossed a line” – and media watchdog Ofcom has now also released a statement raising concerns.
This morning, a spokesperson for the prime minister did not directly answer when asked if he still had confidence in BBC director-general Tim Davie.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:32
What is the Glastonbury controversy?
Footage from Bob Vylan’s set on Saturday showed some of the crowd joining in, as the group performed in front of a screen that said Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to “genocide”.
Afterwards, the BBC said there had been a warning on screen about potential “strong and discriminatory language”, but described the comments as “deeply offensive”.
On Monday, a spokesperson released an updated statement, saying the comments were antisemitic and the performance should have been taken off air.
“The BBC respects freedom of expression but stands firmly against incitement to violence,” the statement said. “The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly unacceptable and have no place on our airwaves. We welcome Glastonbury’s condemnation of the performance.”
Image: Pic: PA
A judgement to issue a warning on screen while streaming online was in line with editorial guidelines, the spokesperson added, and the performance has not been made available to view on demand.
“The team were dealing with a live situation but with hindsight we should have pulled the stream during the performance. We regret this did not happen.
“In light of this weekend, we will look at our guidance around live events so we can be sure teams are clear on when it is acceptable to keep output on air.”
An Ofcom spokesperson said: “We are very concerned about the live stream of this performance, and the BBC clearly has questions to answer.
“We have been speaking to the BBC over the weekend and we are obtaining further information as a matter of urgency, including what procedures were in place to ensure compliance with its own editorial guidelines.”
In a statement shared on Instagram on Sunday, Bobby Vylan said: “Teaching our children to speak up for the change they want and need is the only way that we make this world a better place.
“As we grow older and our fire starts to possibly dim under the suffocation of adult life and all its responsibilities, it is incredibly important that we encourage and inspire future generations to pick up the torch that was passed to us.”
The latest developments follows severe condemnation from the prime minister, who said there was “no excuse for this kind of appalling hate speech”.
Image: Mo Chara of Kneecap at Glastonbury. Pic: Reuters
Sir Keir also referenced a previous statement that Belfast rap group Kneecap, who were on stage after Bob Vylan, should have been removed from the line-up after one member was charged with a terrorism offence.
“I said that Kneecap should not be given a platform and that goes for any other performers making threats or inciting violence,” he said.
Ms Eavis, whose father Michael co-founded the festival, said in a statement that Bob Vylan had “very much crossed a line”.
She added: “Their chants very much crossed a line and we are urgently reminding everyone involved in the production of the festival that there is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence.”
The Israeli embassy posted on X in the hours after the set, saying it was “deeply disturbed by the inflammatory and hateful rhetoric”.
It said the slogan used “advocates for the dismantling of the State of Israel”.
In a separate post on X on Sunday, Israel’s foreign ministry published graphic footage following the attack by Hamas on the Nova festival in Israel on 7 October 2023, and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) said it would be formally complaining to the BBC over its “outrageous decision” to broadcast the performance.
Speaking to Sky News’ Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillipson behalf of the government, Health Secretary Wes Streeting described the chant as “appalling”, especially at a music festival – “when there were Israelis at a similar music festival who were kidnapped, murdered, raped, and in some cases still held captive”.
He added that while “there’s no justification for inciting violence against Israelis… the way in which Israel’s conducting this war has made it extremely difficult for Israel’s allies around the world to stand by and justify”.
Lucy McMullin, who was in the crowd for Bob Vylan, told Sky News: “When there’s children and civilians being murdered and starved, then I think it’s important that people are speaking out on these issues.
“However, inciting more death and violence is not the way to do it.”
Police have said they are reviewing footage of both the Bob Vylan and Kneecap sets to assess whether any criminal offences were committed.
Speaking to Sky News earlier today, women and equalities minister Baroness Jacqui Smith said the comments “clearly” over-stepped the mark.
“I’m surprised that the BBC carried on broadcasting them live when it was obvious what was happening.”
“The loss of Christian has deeply affected his family, friends, and the wider community who knew him well,” his family said in a statement after his death.
“Christian brought energy, humour, and warmth wherever he went.
“He was a devoted father-of-three and a much-loved son, brother, partner and friend.”
His family has asked for privacy as they “come to terms with their grief”.