This article was published in Law in Sport and has been reproduced with kind permission.
Thomas Partey, formerly of Arsenal and now at Villarreal, is the latest high-profile footballer facing criminal allegations, drawing his club into questions about its values and reputation. This article explores how football clubs manage criminal allegations against players, balancing:
-
- The presumption of innocence;
- Employment obligations;
- Reputational risk; and
- Privacy and media pressure
It reviews differing club responses, the legal issues around suspension, dismissal, and wage obligations, and the reputational consequences. The piece notes the absence of a consistent approach and ends with practical guidance for clubs on handling such cases more effectively.
The presumption of innocence
In July 2021, an unnamed Everton player was arrested on suspicion of child sex offences. He was suspended, initially by the club and then by the FA, before being dismissed by the club in August 2021 (albeit it is not clear what the reason for that dismissal was). After a two-year investigation, no charges were brought – yet his identity, though never officially disclosed, became widely known online.
Benjamin Mendy was charged with rape and sexual assault in 2021. Initially, he was suspended by the club, and then by the FA and released by Manchester City when his contract expired. After being found not guilty of all charges after two trials, he won an Employment Tribunal claim against the club for unpaid wages and was awarded a significant portion of his £11million claim.
Mason Greenwood was arrested in 2022 on suspicion of rape and other offences after his girlfriend uploaded a series of social media posts showing apparent injuries she had suffered. He was suspended by Manchester United, and police charges were later dropped. Following an internal investigation, the club announced a mutual decision for him to leave the club.
Thomas Partey was charged with rape and sexual assault in July 2025. Arsenal had decided against suspending him after he was first arrested three years earlier. Partey has since joined Villarreal and has been playing for the club while his criminal proceedings continue in England. In September 2025, he entered a not guilty plea at Southwark Crown Court.
In the cases of Everton, Manchester City and Manchester United, the clubs decided they were entitled to suspend the player before either charges or convictions occurred. For Everton and Manchester City, the FA then suspended the players from all football activity, most likely on safeguarding grounds (if the alleged victim or complainant was under 18), meaning the clubs avoided having to decide whether their own suspensions should continue while proceedings remained ongoing. None of the players featured for their club again despite them never being convicted of, and in the Everton player’s case not even being charged with, an offence.
In contrast, Arsenal – and indeed Villarreal – allowed the player to continue playing. Partey’s contract with Arsenal expired a few days before criminal charges were brought so the club did not have to decide whether its threshold for suspension was triggered at that point. For Villarreal, the club said that it “respects the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence” in a statement defending the decision to sign the player, which could be interpreted that only a guilty conviction at trial will stop Partey from representing the club.
That an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty is foundational to the criminal justice system and the approaches taken by Arsenal and Villarreal, as controversial as they have been, arguably align most closely with it on a strict legal analysis. Had Arsenal taken a different approach, they would have potentially missed out on three seasons of a key player’s career, in part because of the considerable time it took for the police’s investigation to conclude and charges to be brought.
But the law does not operate in a vacuum and football clubs are not courts. Anchoring any decision to prevent a player from representing the club purely by reference to stages of the criminal justice process – arrest, charge, trial, or conviction – may be too simplistic and rigid.
Employment obligations
The fact of a criminal investigation may not automatically justify dismissal or suspension, but internal disciplinary thresholds often drive action and are still grounded in law.
In general terms, suspension should not be a knee-jerk reaction and must be carefully considered to avoid breaching the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in the employment relationship and, potentially, the implied right to work. Suspension may nevertheless be necessary and appropriate if there is a potential threat to the employer’s business or its other employees, or where the investigation cannot be properly conducted if the employee were to remain at work (for example if there is a risk that evidence might be destroyed or relevant witnesses influenced). With these factors in mind, it is difficult to identify a scenario where a criminal investigation, relating to matters which are entirely unconnected to work, could justify automatic suspension.
Justification for dismissal
As a matter of statute, the only five potentially fair reasons for dismissal are conduct, capability, redundancy, illegality, or the potentially catch-all, “some other substantial reason” of a kind to justify dismissal. It can be difficult for clubs to justify any dismissal in circumstances where no criminal conviction has occurred, particularly where the criminal allegation is unrelated to work. In such situations, clubs will have to consider whether the fact of the criminal investigation and the reasons for it, is enough to carry a reputational risk which would nevertheless amount to “some other substantial reason” of a kind to justify dismissal. Negative publicity surrounding a criminal case, even if it is not of the employees own making and even if there is ultimately no conviction (or even charge), could still result in a fair dismissal if there are reasonable grounds for the belief that it would still pose an unacceptable reputational risk (and provided a fair and thorough process has been undertaken before reaching such a decision).
Demonstrating the reasonableness
Naturally, it will prove easier to demonstrate the reasonableness of any such decision if a criminal conviction is secured. In such circumstances, the dismissal may be fair for some other substantial reason due to the reputational impact it may have and/or if it could destroy the implied term of trust and confidence in the employment relationship. It may also be possible to justify the employee’s dismissal for conduct reasons (assuming in all cases a fair and thorough process has been undertaken before reaching such decision).
Paid vs unpaid suspension from work
As noted above, suspending players, either pending internal investigations or the outcome of any criminal investigation, also carries risks and careful consideration needs to be given as to whether suspension is required. If it is, the next consideration should be whether that suspension is paid or unpaid.
For example, Benjamin Mendy successfully brought an employment tribunal claim against Manchester City for unpaid wages following his unpaid suspension. In that case, it was held that Mendy was “ready and willing” to work during periods when he was not remanded in custody and there was no contractual basis for Manchester City to withhold pay while he had been suspended by the FA.
Arsenal’s decision to continue playing Partey during the police’s investigation reflected a different interpretation of due process and risk management, with the club perhaps deciding that there were insufficient grounds to suspend the player without formal charges being brought against him.
In addition, those who are able to play (but for the suspension) could argue (amongst other matters) that they are being unnecessarily deskilled as a consequence of the suspension, which could potentially result in their resignation and a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
Whilst commercially the risk of any potential claim for actual or constructive unfair dismissal in such circumstances could be considered low, the contractual position with the player could be very different. For example, they may be able to claim damages for salary they would have received during their notice period or the unexpired term of a fixed-term contract along with the value of any benefits, bonuses, commission payments, royalty or licensing fees and/or any other payments they may have otherwise received but for the breach of contract (if proven). The club must also consider how any termination might impact financial arrangements with other clubs and any regulatory rules which may apply to it.
In summary, any suspension or disciplinary action must be rooted in a clear and transparent process with employers acting proportionately and fairly on a case-by-case basis, typically in accordance with internal policies and procedures or any contractual obligations which may fall on the employer, even in the context of serious allegations and significant reputational risk.
Reputational risk
Sponsorship, fan engagement, employee and community trust and broader public image will all be at risk for the club when a player faces serious allegations.
Partey made over 100 appearances for Arsenal after he was first arrested in July 2022, helping the team to three second-place finishes. The club has defended its handling of the matter, but critics argue that his continued selection damaged its reputation.
Hollie Varney, Kick it Out’s COO, has said that clubs often prioritise PR and performance over accountability or any duty of care.
According to the club’s statement at the time, Manchester United’s internal investigation of the Greenwood matter took into account “the wishes, rights and perspective of the alleged victim along with the club’s standards and values” in deciding he should leave the club. The fact that details of the allegations were initially made public via social media before any criminal investigation began significantly increased the pressure on the club for decisive action, and there was still backlash after reports that they initially planned to reintegrate the player.
For Everton, there were broader ramifications for the approach taken with its player when it was deducted points for a breach of Profit and Sustainability Rules, with the club unsuccessfully arguing that it should be a mitigating factor that it had decided not to pursue a £10million breach of contract claim against the player. The Premier League Commission said that any loss was a consequence of a business decision the club had made and losing a player’s services or value for a variety of reasons is the sort of event that occurs in the management of a football club.
The standard form Premier League player contract expressly obliges a player not to do anything “which is likely to bring the Club or the game of football into disrepute”. For Benjamin Mendy, he was ultimately acquitted of the criminal charges against him and the employment tribunal was not being asked to determine whether he had committed any wrongdoing or misconduct. However, even though his alleged criminal conduct was said to have taken place in the privacy of the player’s own home, his alleged behaviour included lockdown-breaking sex parties triggering a reputational risk for a club should it allow that player to continue to represent them.
Education may also play a more proactive part in reputation management and avoiding risks of misconduct. Mendy gave evidence at trial about how fame had changed his lifestyle for the worse after joining Manchester City and that he thought his behaviour was normal at the time.
The reputational risk involved doesn’t stop at the player’s current club either. News of Partey’s signing at Villarreal was met with outcry with hundreds of fans of the Spanish club signing a petition urging the club to halt the transfer and describing the decision to sign him as the “darkest day in the club’s history”. The clubs that Benjamin Mendy and Mason Greenwood each joined after leaving England also faced protests against their transfers.
Privacy and media pressure
The media’s role, both traditional and social, adds further complexity. The UK Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy when subject to a police investigation up to the point of being charged with an offence. This is an obligation that can bind the police, the media and the club, but can still prove very difficult to enforce in high-profile cases in the social media age.
The Everton player was never charged and never publicly named, but his identity became an open secret because of his absence from matches. Similarly, in Partey’s case, partial details – such as his age and location – were widely reported, making his identity easily deductible long before he was formally charged.
While media reporting must still be managed carefully to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and grounds for privacy or defamation claims do not arise, the reality is that anonymity is increasingly difficult to maintain because social media platforms and users often disregard privacy laws creating public exposure regardless of legal protections. A foreign country’s media may also take a strong interest in the story and that country may have different laws governing what it can publish. A proportionate and targeted response to any offending material will be necessary.
Lessons and co-ordination
Calls have been made for a unified, sport-wide, safeguarding framework led by the football authorities with a ‘stand down’ policy meaning any player under investigation or charged with a serious offence is stood down from playing or public facing duties without determining guilt. The National Rugby League in Australia has a similar policy which bans players from playing when charged with offences that could carry maximum jail sentences of 11 years or more if found guilty.
Even if that policy applied in the Premier League, it would have had no effect in a case like Partey’s because of the time taken to bring charges. Extending that policy so that the threshold is only the investigation of a potential offence would also cause further issues from a privacy and presumption of innocence perspective given the fact of an investigation will still carry some stigma.
In the meantime, clubs will continue to handle serious allegations on an ad hoc basis which will inevitably mean different approaches being taken – as demonstrated by the examples above – but some broader practical steps for clubs to consider are set out below.
- Regular training for staff and players on conduct, relationships, online behaviour, and public scrutiny can help reduce the risk of incidents arising.
- There is no one size fits all approach. Each case will differ and ought to be treated on a case-by-case basis, but having clear internal policies/procedures and formal protocols for responding to serious allegations – consistent with the club’s contractual obligations and reflective of its broader responsibilities – will help avoid rushed decisions while preserving fairness. Contingency plans can also be put in place for different trigger points and associated actions to take, and to cover what ought to happen in the event of acquittal, charges being dropped or a conviction.
- Prompt independent advice. Seek early independent legal advice from criminal, employment and privacy law experts to navigate overlapping duties and mitigate reputational damage. Safeguarding advice may also be needed.
- Communications must be carefully handled. Silence can fuel speculation, but full transparency may not be possible due to legal restrictions. Explaining any gaps and close liaison between legal and communications teams will be vital.
Ultimately, clubs face a difficult and complex balancing exercise when dealing with criminal allegations. They must act with care – upholding their legal obligations, broader responsibilities, and reputational standards while ensuring decisions are fair, proportionate and lawful.
For further information, please get in touch with Domonique McRae or Jamie Hurworth by email or alternatively call on 020 7465 4300
This article featured in our Winter edition of ‘IN CASE’, our Employment newsletter for HR Directors. Click here to read more or subscribe.
