It’s hard not to be shocked by the distressing clip shared online, allegedly featuring the Manchester United footballer Mason Greenwood. In the clip a woman can be heard trying to stop a man forcing her into having sex. The audio was uploaded in January last year alongside images of the alleged victim looking bruised and battered, with blood running down from her mouth.
When the clip was released, Manchester United responded by suspending the now 21-year-old Greenwood. But they stopped short of tearing up his contract. This was the first big mistake the club made. They could have saved themselves a huge amount of hassle (and appalling publicity) had they, at the time, accused him of bringing the club into disrepute and parted ways. Yes, they might have had to pay for breaking his contract, but that was the only sensible option.
What is staggering is just how catastrophically United failed at basic crisis communications
The CPS, who initially charged him with attempted rape, assault and controlling and coercive behaviour, worked on the case for a year before dropping it after witnesses wouldn’t comply and new evidence came to light. This led to Manchester United’s second big mistake: the club launched its own investigation in February after the CPS’s decision. This five-month probe – which reportedly did not involve the alleged victim, but involved speaking with her mother – concluded yesterday, and led to Greenwood being binned by United as a result. This was a huge U-turn after the reports last week that the club was planning to bring him back into the fold. ‘Based on the evidence, we have concluded material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences of which he was originally charged,’ read the official statement from the club.
It isn’t exactly clear what United uncovered during those five months. It has been suggested that the audio may have been edited, according to a deep dive by Mike Keegan in the Daily Mail. Greenwood was unrepentant in his statement yesterday. ‘I did not do the things I was accused of,’ the striker wrote.
In choosing to play judge and jury, Manchester United created a vacuum which would, inevitably, turn into a scandal. A probe like this would always be limited in what it could reveal about a sensitive topic like sexual assault. United, in other words, left themselves wide open to criticism.
The club’s third big mistake was, once they decided to bring him back, not just tearing the plaster off and getting on with it (regardless of the ethics of that decision). Some reports suggest they made the decision in June that Greenwood would return, but I’ve been told it may have been decided much sooner than that. ‘The decision was made in March and they just kept delaying and kept delaying,’ a source with intimate knowledge of the situation tells me. ‘A month or so after the investigation began, they were trying to start planning his return.’
So why was there such a long delay if bringing him back was always the objective? Presumably there were concerns about disrupting the season last year. Then, in the summer, once the season was over, there were likely commercial concerns about sponsorship, particularly with the club on a tour of the States in July and August. United then scheduled the announcement for 4 August, which had to be delayed because club execs worried about announcing it during the women’s World Cup, with several female Manchester United players starring for the Lionesses.
What is staggering is just how catastrophically United failed at basic crisis communications. What on earth were they doing for five months during their investigation? Did they consider the influence of famous fans, such as Countdown’s Rachel Riley, who said she would stop supporting the club if Greenwood returned? Did they remember the Women’s World Cup was taking place this summer? The club – a business worth the best part of $5 billion – lost control of the narrative once the Athletic broke the story of Greenwood’s planned return last Wednesday. After that, they never clawed it back. What the club and its chief executive Richard Arnold – who has been managing the process – failed to realise is that there would never be a good time for Greenwood’s return. The optics would never be favourable. If they wanted him back, they should have just pulled the trigger earlier this year. Instead, through their utter incompetence, they created a huge backlash which increasingly gathered momentum, reaching its peak over the last week before any announcement was made.
And now what happens to Greenwood? This is, after all, on paper, a man who has not been found guilty of anything in a court of law and who has his entire career in front of him. Reportedly, within hours of the announcement yesterday, clubs in Europe, Turkey and Saudi Arabia registered their interest in taking him. But why should he be another team’s problem? Why should another club’s values be any different to Manchester United’s?
Away from the club’s abysmal handling of the story, there has been something slightly unedifying about the general campaign against Greenwood’s return to football. What exactly do campaigners, including MPs from all parties and various domestic abuse charities, want? If they don’t want to see him kick a ball again, then what should he be allowed to do? Stack shelves at Morrisons? Become a binman? Or a gardener? Why are those professions acceptable but football isn’t?
No one really has the answer to what an appropriate form of punishment is in this case. Like everything in life, it isn’t black and white. Greenwood has not been found guilty of anything in a court of law. He, technically, has nothing to answer for. But the public have a deep distrust of the police, the CPS and of due process in this country, particularly when it comes to the conviction rate for rape and domestic abuse (almost 70 per cent of rape victims drop out of their cases before trial). So, perhaps it is understandable that people are campaigning on social media for their own form of punishment. But is society any more civilised for it?
As for United, it’s worth remembering that Greenwood joined the club aged seven. Just as it basks in the glory of Marcus Rashford and his hugely successful social activism, it should also be ashamed about what has gone on here. In the way United handled this sorry episode, they failed Greenwood and they failed their fans.
If anyone was going to take responsibility for rehabilitating Greenwood, it was Manchester United. This whole spectacle, in which the world’s biggest club made one gargantuan error after another, is as shameful as it is embarrassing.
