Mason Greenwood Verdict – How Man U Got It Wrong?

A statement from Manchester United (21 August 2023) confirmed that Mason Greenwood will
attempt to recommence his career away from the club, six months after the Crown Prosecution
Service dropped the charges of attempted rape and assault. To put it plainly, the way Manchester
United have dealt with the Greenwood scandal has been abhorrent and pathetic, even if the club
has finally made the correct decision not to reintegrate Greenwood into the squad. This is not a
standalone issue but one of many off-pitch incidents, such as racism, gambling, and online abuse, in
recent years that distract from on-pitch success and risk bringing the game into disrepute.
In January 2022, Greenwood was arrested by Manchester Police, following accusations of assaults,
via social media, after which he was suspended by Manchester United. In October of the same year,
the Crown Prosecution Service announced it was charging the 21-year-old with attempted rape,
engaging in controlling and coercive behaviour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Then, in
February all charges against Greenwood were dropped after a key witness withdrew their
involvement. Following his release, United conducted their own internal review which lasted over six
months.
As the club stated it’s been a difficult process for all involved. So difficult that the videos and
photographs seen by millions across social media are not damning enough evidence to terminate
Greenwood’s contract? Let’s be clear here – United do not have the same obligations as a court of
law. A guilty verdict in court and a moral decision by a club that acts as a role model to millions of
children and adults across the world are totally different. The burden of proof in a court of law
(meaning the need for one party in a legal dispute to show they are correct) is extremely high due to
the need for fair justice, especially in cases involving rape and assault. For United, however, the
burden of proof is distinctly lower. Through their indecisiveness, the club has risked normalising the
despicable behaviour shown by Greenwood, an extremely dangerous move given its place in the
public eye.
As if the ludicrous timeframe had not tarnished the club’s image enough, the statements following
their decision have created more outrage. Both Greenwood's and Richard Arnold’s (Manchester
United’s Chief Executive Officer) statements insist that Greenwood was cleared of all charges. He
was not. The charges against him were dropped. There is a clear difference between those
outcomes, and this reads as an attempt by both the player and the club to diminish the severity of
his actions. Arnold also stated he is “satisfied that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged
with.” Even with the new evidence the club was issued with, it is problematic for Arnold to express
these views to the public, on a matter that was never resolved in a court of law and was internally
investigated by the club.
Perhaps this stance by the club should not be seen as surprising given their admission that
“reintegration was one of the outcomes we considered and planned for”. This is problematic on two
fronts. Firstly, how anyone can view the evidence and even consider that he should be allowed to
train or play for the club again is bewildering. Secondly, it suggests that Greenwood would have
played again if it wasn’t for the significant and unsurprising public backlash to rumours that his
reintegration was likely. The club also identified their duty of care towards the player throughout the
process, which is somewhat valid. Yet this is a duty of care towards a 21-year-old man who has had
multiple years earning over £50,000 a week, as well as having previous issues with the police (due to
breaking Covid regulations), on top of various reports of the youngster’s blunt attitude towards
coaches. Greenwood is not a squeaky-clean teenager anymore. He is a grown man who should now

deal with the consequences of his actions without being babied by his former employers. It seems
hypocritical that the club are so desperate to be seen as morally correct on this issue of duty of care,
especially given previous circumstances, where ex-players have complained about the absence of
support from the club.
The assessment that the case has been a “difficult one for everyone associated with Manchester
United” is correct. Yet it has been most difficult for the alleged victim and such borderline pathetic
statements merely place the club at the centre of the issue, rather than addressing the crucial
matter of violence and abuse. Through their actions and words, United have reduced the
significance of domestic violence as an issue that is prominent in today’s society. Their focus has
been on making the club look good (they failed) and attempting to allow Greenwood a path back
into football (looks set to fail). Perhaps public backlash over the length of time it has taken to make
decisions wouldn’t have been so severe, if they had consistently and respectfully addressed the key
aspect of this case –violence and assault which have no place in society at all, especially not in
football as one of the most watched and covered sports across the world.
At heart, it should have been an easy decision for Manchester United but they have dithered for far
too long over an issue that should have highlighted football’s role as a platform to stand against
certain issues. Instead, United are rightly being criticised across the media for effectively picking the
only choice left to them, rather than making the correct moral choice months ago.