Sports Self-Regulation and Criminal Law

Proponents of sports self-regulation argue in favour of lex sportiva – a sports law system where sport employs a private system of governance and justice. The peculiarity of sport, including the inherent technical and ethical rules, forms the core of the argument for self-regulation. Authors like Ken Foster and Stephen Houlihan distinguish between what basically are international sports (law) on one hand and global sports (law) on another hand. The former refers to the application of international law principles to sport regulation, with sport being organised along regional or national lines (e.g. national football leagues); the latter refers to sport regulation being free from international or national law, with sport being organised without recourse to regional or national lines (e.g. Formula 1 – with teams named after sponsors and not geographical regions).

In practice, sport is sometimes influenced by national laws. For instance, when the issue is one of commission of ‘crime’, it is the norm that there is a point where a line has to be drawn between what constitutes a mere sporting wrong and what constitutes a crime.  This is where the influence of the criminal justice system hovers over sport regulation. Notably, even advocates of the role of the criminal justice system in sanctioning sporting crimes agree that when a sporting wrong can be effectively dealt with within the sport, then that is the best forum for disciplinary proceeding/prosecution. However, one major issue is knowing where to draw the line – which case should be left to the sport governing body and which should be dragged to the criminal court? For instance, on the subject of racism, why would John Terry be subjected to the criminal justice system and not Luis Suarez, or the juvenile Milwall fan who admitted racially abusing a Bolton player? These may be random questions but this issue clearly presents us with what is, according to Dr. Gregory Ioannidis, the perennial battle between sports self-regulation and external regulation.

One instance is the recent John Terry racism charge, another is the conviction of Salman Butt and two other cricketers for spot-fixing in 2011. In both cases, despite the criminal justice system running its course in criminal prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed within a sporting context, the respective sport governing bodies also conducted disciplinary proceedings in respect of the same matter. It is acknowledged that both sets of proceedings differ in terms such as the standard of proof and the type of punishments the relevant tribunals can impose; therefore, it is arguable that the term ‘double jeopardy’ cannot be said to apply. Nonetheless, some of the problems that the doctrine of double jeopardy seeks to safeguard against present themselves within this scenario of dual regulation. They include:

(i)                The need to protect individuals from the financial and social consequences of successive prosecutions: these burdens are heavy to bear in one trial alone, not to mention when an individual has to undergo the process a second time. Nowadays even putting up a defence in sports disciplinary proceedings comes at considerable expense as can be observed when Maltese footballer, Kevin Sammut was banned for 10 years by the UEFA Control and Disciplinary body - in addition to citing irregularities in the hearing procedure he cited financial difficulty in putting up his defence due to reasons such as travel expenses for himself, his legal team and his witnesses. It must always be borne in mind that not every person accused of an offence necessarily committed or will be convicted of that offence.

(ii)             The need to prevent the governing body from employing its superior resources to wear down and erroneously convict innocent persons: one would recall that Lance Armstrong recently cited the toll the legal battles was taking on his personal and family life as well as his charity organisation.

(iii)           The need to preserve the finality and integrity of proceedings, which would be compromised if the justice system was allowed to ignore unsatisfactory outcomes. It may not be implausible to argue that John Terry’s acquittal on criminal charges and the proceedings that preceded it (including the Judge’s finding that he actually uttered the words alleged) could have prejudiced him ahead of the disciplinary proceedings before the sport tribunal.

Whereas the doctrine of double jeopardy may not apply to this system of dual-regulation, as stated earlier, the policy considerations leading to the upholding of the doctrine are indeed relevant. More so, as far back as 355 B.C. it was acceptable as postulated by the Athenian statesman, Demosthenes that the law forbids the same man to be tried twice on the same issue.  Even though it is tenable that a sportsperson be held accountable to society as well as to the sport governing body he/she is in contract with, the fact that justice is not a one-way street implies that consideration must be given to factors such as the procedural rights available to a person accused of wrongdoing, as well as the doctrine of proportionality.

Beyond the sphere of sports, the interplay between self-regulation and external regulation has been analysed in the public health industry in the United States of America. Michelle Mello et al concluded that external regulation is justified by a failure of the industry to produce, by itself, socially desired outcomes. Relating this to the sports industry, one could argue that the imposition of a reform programme in addition to a stadium ban on a 13-year old fan who admitted to racially abusing a football player amounts to a socially desired outcome of self-regulatory proceedings. This could then do away with the need to invoke any further criminal proceedings. There is nothing to preclude instances where some would feel that sport governing bodies lack the power to impose adequate punishment. In 2011, three cricketers – Salman Butt (former Pakistan captain), Mohammed Asif and Mohammad Amir were convicted and sentenced to jail by a criminal court on corruption charges hinged on match-fixing. They had each previously been banned for a minimum period of five years by the International Cricket Council but in handing down the criminal sentences, the judge said: "These offences, regardless of pleas, are so serious that only a sentence of imprisonment will suffice to mark the nature of the crimes and to deter any other cricketer, agent or anyone else who considers corrupt activity of this kind, with its hugely detrimental impact on the lives of many who look to find good honest entertainment and good-hearted enjoyment from following an honest, albeit professional sport." Certainly, sport governing bodies lack the power to impose prison terms and it could thus be argued in respect of the case above that the self-regulatory system lacks the capacity to deal effectively with extreme or severe cases. How then can all manner of sporting wrong be effectively dealt with without the procedural issues highlighted earlier? Could it be to determine how and when the line should be drawn so that when a sporting wrong crosses the line into crime, then the sport governing body would hands off entirely and let the criminal justice system run its course? Could criminal courts possibly be empowered to impose sporting sanctions (such as bans) in addition to criminal sanctions in a one-stop hearing?

In a bid to circumvent the problems associated with double jeopardy in the U.S., the courts attempted (not without difficulty) a system of ‘co-ordinated prosecution’ where criminal and civil actions were prosecuted simultaneously. Perhaps a feasible model could be fashioned with respect to sport in order to lay to rest the procedural issues inherent in the current system of dual regulation. It will not be ideal if, like Kevin Sammut and Lance Armstrong, sports men abandon their defence on the ground that they cannot afford it. A popular maxim says that justice should not only be done, but must be seen to have been done. It goes without saying that justice is owed even to persons accused of wrongdoing.

References:

1. Luis Garcia-Rivera, Dodging Double Jeopardy: Combined Civil and Criminal Trials, (1996) Vol.XXVI, Stetson Law Review.
2. Encyclopedia of Everyday Law, Double Jeopardy, www.enotes.com/criminal-law-reference/double-jeopardy (last viewed on 27 August 2012).
3. Crossing the Line – When Sport Becomes a Crime, Speech by Nick Hawkins, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Wessex, to the University of Portsmouth on 28 March 2012.
4. Dr. Gregory Ioannidis, John Terry Case: Questions Remain, Sports Law Blog – www.lawtop20.blogspot.com 28 July, 2012.
5. Richard Parrish, Sports Law and Policy in the EU, (Manchester University Press, 2003).
6. Ken Foster, Is there a Global Sports Law, (Spring 2003) Entertainment Law Vol.2, No.1, Frank Cass, London.
7. Michelle et al, The Interplay of Public Health Law and Industry Self-Regulation: The Case of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Sales in Schools, (April 2008) Vol.98 No.4, American Journal of Public Health.
8. In Re: Officer J.L. Mitchell, 88 N.C.App. 602.
9. Branza v. Martin, 570 N.E.2d 411 (I11.App. 1991 [1992 FP 37-8].
10. CAS 2011/0/2422: USOC v. IOC.

Match-Fixing and the NPL

Match-fixing is making the news again and it is not only in Italian football where the Italian football federation recently upheld the 10-month ban imposed on the Juventus Coach, Antonio Conte. In Nigeria, the Nigeria Premier League has had more than a fair share of the brandishing of the term ‘match-fixing’ in recent years. A couple of years ago, two Port-Harcourt based clubs, Sharks and Dolphins – both owned by the Rivers State Government – were alleged to have played out a compromise league match that saw Sharks win a drab game by a goal. Only last season, Dolphins were again embroiled in a match-fixing scandal along with Sunshine Stars. The latest incident involves Sharks, with the club suspending its coaching crew and up to 17 players, as reported. The suspension is for alleged non-performance, sabotage, anti-club activities as well as suspicion of match-fixing.

The suspension of players and officials of Sharks was announced by the Permanent Secretary of Rivers State Sports Ministry, Paulinus Nwakwoala who addressed the press alongside the Acting Chairman/General Manager of the club, Okey Kpalukwu. In addition, a panel of inquiry is to be set up by the club management to investigate allegations of match-fixing in the club’s game against Wikki Tourists of Bauchi. Sharks lost 2-3 at home to a team battling to avoid relegation and according to the Permanent Secretary: “we believe they lost the match on purpose.” Wikki Tourists scored with about the last kick of the game to win 3-2 after Sharks had equalized with only seconds left to play and according to match reports, the Sharks team practically stood around as the visitors went on to score the winner right after the restart. Meanwhile, Daoboere Dokubo has been appointed interim coach for final fixtures, which will be prosecuted with the remainder of the registered players. The NPL allows up to 35 registered players, so an uninformed guess means Sharks could have up to 18 players to prosecute their remaining two games.

Match-fixing is described by Wikipedia as occurring when a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law. The phenomenon is not new to sport. Almost a century ago, in what is known as the Black Sox Scandal, eight team members of the Chicago White Sox baseball team were said to have accepted bribes to throw away the World Series in 1919. In 1978 and 1994, basketball was hit by ‘point-shaving schemes’. In 2000, a South African cricket captain was found to have accepted money to throw away matches. Football match-fixing scandals include the British football betting scandal of the 1960s and the Serie A scandal of 2006. The latter saw Juventus stripped of their two previous league titles and relegated to Serie B. One recurrent feature of match-fixing cases is the involvement of sports betting syndicates/gambling trade. It is a fact that sports betting is not a major industry in Nigeria. Whereas sites like Nairabet and Stakersden offer sports betting facilities, focus is on foreign football leagues and competitions. The fact that there have been quite a few allegations of match-fixing in the Nigerian league recently despite the absence of vibrant sports betting/gambling industry therefore shows that betting or gambling is not the sole source of match-fixing.

According to FIFA President, Sepp Blatter at a sports betting event in 2011, “the threat of match-fixing in sport is a major one….match-fixing shakes the very foundations of sport, namely fair play, respect and discipline.” That sums the need to stem the rising tide locally as well as globally. Sport globally has adopted measures to curb the growing incidents of match-fixing, which includes prohibiting sportspersons and officials from gambling, especially in matches concerning their teams. Whereas such a measure may not be of practical significance locally, analysing the NPL incidents mentioned above might shed some light on the peculiarity of the problem. The current NPL Rules and Regulations contain provisions relating to match-fixing. Article 4.5 is dedicated to the subject. The Rules envisage match-fixing as “any club/official or player or referee who by whatever arrangement with any other person(s) or organization influences or attempts to influence the result of a match” and deems such person guilty of gross misconduct. A fine of N20 million and expulsion from the league is the prescribed punishment for clubs, while individuals would attract a ban of a minimum period of five years. Within the last two football seasons, the only change in the rules in this regard is the expulsion of errant clubs rather than relegation, which used to be the prescribed punishment.

On the 20^th of November, 2010, Sharks hosted their sister-club Dolphins and won 1-0. That Port-Harcourt derby was watched on live television and popular consensus was that Dolphins threw the match away in favour of their less illustrious neighbours, with both teams resorting to kicking the ball around in their respective halves after Sharks had scored. There had been rumours that the Rivers State Government (owner of both clubs) had impressed it upon Dolphins to concede defeat to Sharks. Substantiating those rumours is a hurdle that was never scaled. However, an examination of the scenario raises certain issues. The fact that two-clubs owned by the same body compete in the same league defies the principle of integrity of competition. It is standard practice to prevent such a possibility of conflict of interest as it is not improbable for match-fixing to occur in matches involving such teams. The NPL has had to come to terms with the fact that Nigerian clubs are basically owned by state governments. The NPL Rules however prohibit government functionaries such as Commissioners and Special Advisers from being part of the management of such clubs. The efficacy of this provision is another matter.

In February, 2012 the Organising and Disciplinary Panel of the Nigeria Football Federation imposed a fine of N20 million on Sunshine Stars and N10 million on Dolphins for match-fixing. Lobi Stars manager had raised alarm after match officials were spotted in a car belonging to a top Sunshine Stars official ahead of their league match. This is a straight-forward case where the allegation bordered on the quest for league supremacy, somewhat similar to the 2010 incident where (even though no proof existed) it was linked to a bid to enhance the chances of Sharks to do well and maintain premier league status. However, in the latest incident, a new dimension unfolds.

The suspension of Sharks’ coaching crew and some players was done by the club management itself. The suspension was expressly attributed to non-performance, sabotage and anti-club activities, with reference to the possibility of having thrown away the home game in which they lost 2-3. The undertone is reported to be the desire by the players and officials of the club to press home their welfare demands. Thus, assuming the players and officials deliberately conceded a pre-determined defeat to their opponents in order to press home these demands, how does this scenario fit into the concept of match-fixing under the NPL rules? Would this constitute a case of match-fixing? Is it proper for the club to deal with the issue in-house? As stated earlier, under the NPL Rules, match-fixing occurs when a club/official or player or referee who by whatever arrangement with any other person(s) or organization influences or attempts to influence the result of a match. A situation where Sharks players practically stand aloof for their opponents to score indeed appears to be an enactment of a pre-determined outcome or influence on the match. However, what the Rules appear to envisage is only a situation where such arrangement is made with some “other person(s) or organization”. Assuming the Sharks players did what is being alleged, the reports in the media are that it was done in protest against the treatment meted to them by their own club, an arrangement amongst or within themselves and not with ‘any other’ person or organization. While this may be open to debate, the wordings of the article, specifically the double use of the word ‘or’ implies a grouping of ‘club official or player’ distinct from a referee. In the absence of any indication of third-party involvement, it would appear to be some form of protest and unwillingness to perform and just as Manchester City dealt with the case of Tevez refusing to play, Sharks may be in their right suspending their employees, insofar as it does not prevent them from honouring their obligatory fixtures.

With the recurring theme of match-fixing in the NPL, it clearly is an area that the regulators need to look into. With the struggle to develop the brand and attract investment, the league may find itself in even steeper waters if this phenomenon is allowed to thrive.

     

Nigeria to Re-Organize Sports

The latest development in the aftermath on Team Nigeria’s unproductive outing at the London 2012 Olympics emanates from the office of Mr. President himself. President Goodluck Jonathan is reported to have ordered a “total and comprehensive re-organization of the sporting sector”. The order, made following the Federal Executive Council’s review of the performance of Team Nigeria at the Olympics, was disclosed by the Information Minister, Labaran Maku on Wednesday August 15, 2012. While the details or form of such re-organization cannot be expected instantly, the Minister’s press briefing contained certain statements, which are worth noting.

The President is said to have directed that a national retreat, which will involve state governments and the private sector, be held to re-order priorities in the Nigerian sporting sector. In my opinion, necessary stakeholders should include schools and local governments. While the role of the private sector cannot be over-emphasized, the fact remains that until the venture is seen as profitable, the private sector will never invest. Notably, despite their recent success and emergence as a new sporting world power, sports stakeholders in China are calling for the industry to be opened to the private sector. That simply implies that the Chinese government has been able to run a successful sports programme, which private sector investment can now take to the next-level.  Hence, government at all levels in Nigeria must fashion, adopt and implement a blue-print for a viable sporting sector.

Making a case for the inclusion of schools and local governments in the scheme of things, I would point out that the National Sports Policy of 2009 identifies the role of the local governments in sports development and it is sensible to vest some responsibility on government at the grassroots, in line with our political make-up. In addition, former Super Eagles coach, Christian Chukwu is said to have called on educational authorities to make the availability of sporting facilities a prerequisite for the granting of operational licenses to schools. I recall how my secondary school, a couple of years after I had graduated, built a new school hall on what used to be our football field. Another couple of years later, the annual inter-house sports competition was scrapped altogether. In 2006, while at the Nigerian Law School, the annual inter-campus football competition was cancelled a few days to kick-off. I recall the tears on the faces of the female football team when the news was broken to us during what became our final early morning training session. I also recall that my fondest memories of both schools were created on their football pitches.  The point really is that schools are a focal point in identifying young talents. How can talents be harnessed if they are never found? How can they be found without sports grounds? Therefore, it is difficult to disagree with Mr. Chukwu. The requirement of sporting facilities should indeed be given serious consideration. Also, further steps must be taken to ensure that schools pursue a sound sports/physical activity programme aimed and identifying and grooming talents.

According to the Information Minister, the President believes that in order to change the present scenario, the country needs to specialize and identify specific sports on which to concentrate resources and energy. He further stated that such sports would be the nation’s priority that Nigeria would be identified with in global competitions. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in this selective focus approach as particular countries are noted for prowess in certain sports at the global level. One would want to believe that the express reference to national priority at the global level for such selected sports simply means that while government at the national/federal level will give extra attention to such sports, government at the grassroots level would still encourage other forms of sport for at least recreational/amateur purposes without ruling out the possibility of exceptional talent bursting through and drawing attention. Deciding what criteria to use in determining the selected sports to give attention to is significant. Are we to rely on the historical achievements in sports such as football, athletics and boxing? Do we consider the regional or geographical potential inherent, for instance, in the natural swimming ability of the Ijaw?

Other features of the ordered re-organization are the need to re-examine the national attitude to competition and the review of sporting policy. In respect of the national attitude to competition, many have come to understand the term ‘fire-brigade approach’ in the context of Nigerian sports. Sports stakeholders have endlessly decried the attitude of eleventh-hour preparation for competitions. At the end of Beijing 2008, there were promises that preparations would commence in earnest for London 2012. There is no need for a new idiom or phrase to emphasize the need for adequate preparation. Also, regarding the expected review of sporting policy, the existence of sports policy documents in 1989 and 2009 has been highlighted in a previous piece but they were neither publicized nor implemented. With the 2009 national sports policy providing for a review after every Olympics, the President has made a perfectly-timed call. The national sports policy of 2009 particularly bears modern relevance.

Not everyone would have high hopes of change, especially when this sporting dilemma is viewed in the larger context of socio-political and economic failings in Nigeria as a whole. The Guardian Editorial of Thursday, August 16, 2012 described the dismal Olympic performance as not only a product of the usual unserious shoddy preparation for competitions but also as “yet another manifestation of the rapid degeneration of political, economic and social fabrics of the nation”. Nonetheless, the editorial appears to reckon with government by proffering “a complete break from the lackadaisical past, and a purposeful change of attitude to global competitions”. It is hard to fault this intent but it remains to be seen how government will set about this task. Setting a target of five gold medals at the Rio 2016 Olympics is certainly not the way to go about it. Starting with the proposed conference of stakeholders ranging from government at all levels to schools responsible for identifying and grooming young talents, a White Paper or some form of blue print should emerge. Minimum standards must be set and roles must be clearly delineated. With a practical sports policy programme covering sports as well as general recreation, society as a whole would be better for it.

Only time will tell how serious government is this time.

Nigerian Sports and the Drawing Board: Implementing Sports Policy

The London 2012 Olympics have come and gone. Along with it went a nation’s hopes for at least a medal. From the sprinter to the fighter, no Nigerian was able to bask in the euphoria of a podium finish. Even the basketball team that would want to boast of being the first African team to win a basketball match at the Olympics has its argument watered down by the fact that the only team it beat was, in fact, an African team. As has mostly been the case in Nigerian sports over the past decade or so, it was another outing to forget. Many have focused on the decline in football, but it is not hard to notice that this is the first time Nigeria has failed to win a single medal at the Olympics since 1988. IOC President, Jacques Rogge stated that the London 2012 Games have refreshed the Olympic movement, but for Nigeria, the experience has only refreshed calls for a reform of our approach to sports. Perhaps, this is the cue for the cliché – back to the drawing board; but, what if there is no drawing board to go back to? What is the basis for assessing our sporting achievements vis-à-vis investment and what are the indices with which to project and plan for the future. There is need to shift from the paradigm of mere government financial handouts for which account is hardly ever given, towards actually implementing a practical sports policy.

Our national sporting dilemma is not without precedent. In the 1980s in England, they were losing the sport they invented. Football was beset by hooliganism, inadequate infrastructure and exodus of the best talents. In post-apartheid South-Africa, a National Sport and Recreation Plan had to be implemented to position the country in global sporting circles. Whatever the location, one thing is common – a sports policy emphasizing increased participation, well-spaced infrastructure, adequate funding and quality coaching. All these are necessary within a legal framework that allows for ease of regulation and non-crippling dispute resolution. Till date, all Nigerians are familiar with is a series of post-mortems, which probe failure after failure in sporting events. Several reports have advocated the implementation of a sports developmental programme but these reports like the S.O. Williams report, the Samuel Ogbemudia Report and the Emeka Omerua Report have not been given any form of life. Nigeria is undoubtedly blessed with huge sporting potential; however, as is the case with the diverse natural resources, harnessing this potential remains a problem. Nigeria’s sporting history has had some golden moments, graced by a few exceptional sporting icons. Unfortunately, the current trend is one in which any exceptional talent with Nigerian nationality is trained abroad. Of the over 150 million people resident in the country, Nigeria has to outsource its sporting talent.

Many are of the belief that Nigeria lacks a national sports policy but the problem is not the lack of policy, but the implementation of it. In 1989, a Sports Development Policy was produced and 20 years later – as recently as 2009, the National Sports Policy of Nigeria was produced. It is a wonder that the 2009 policy failed to attract attention, although the failure of implementation is unsurprising. A comparison of both policy documents has been undertaken by S.O. Aibueku of the Department of Health, Environmental Education and Human Kinetics at the University of Benin.

The 1989 sports development policy was hinged on the local perception of sport as a cultural phenomenon with the aim of relaxation and physical/mental development. According to the policy statement: “Nigerians are by nature a dynamic and very energetic peoples; such virtues find expression in the active engagement of our people in various traditional sporting events for entertainment and for the development of body, mind and spirit”. Apparently, the main objective of the policy was to arouse sports consciousness and encourage participation among the citizenry while encouraging competitive sports at national and international levels. In modern reality, the above philosophy should be divided into two parts. While sport will continue to be a tool for physical, mental, social and even political development, it is obvious that competitive/professional sport requires a more calculated approach. Phrases like “it’s just a game” and “it’s all about competing” have been shoved aside by the “in it to win it” philosophy. This explains the huge investment in sports development by countries such as USA, China, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The benefits are obvious. Putting it into perspective, Team USA, comprising 539 athletes bagged a total of 104 medals, which translates to almost a medal for every five athletes. For Team Nigeria’s 55 athletes there is no need for a pen or calculator because the answer is an easy zero!  

The 2009 sports policy aptly delineates responsibility for sports development to each of the three tiers of government and could indeed be the basis for the implementation of a practical sports development programme. Three years have gone by and nothing has been heard of this policy. Fortunately however, such policies provide for periodic review and the 2009 National Sports Policy of Nigeria provides for its review after every Olympics. Perfect timing! The burden and pressure should now shift from the shoulders of our conquered athletes and on to those of the National Sports Commission (NSC) to commence an all-inclusive process of the much needed review. The review process must involve a strategy for implementing the National Sports Policy and task each tier of government to be alive to their stipulated responsibilities. With a well-structured framework, private sector funding would become available to ease the burden on government. For instance, while the government of Nigeria spent billions of Naira funding the 55 athletes of Team Nigeria, the USA Olympic Committee catered for its 539 athletes by generating its own revenue. According to recent media reports, officials of the NSC are clamouring for the Commission to be listed as a beneficiary of the National Sports Lottery. This is aimed at copying the UK model where the lottery scheme accounted for as much as 60% of funding.  

Finally, for things to change, the approach must be different as was aptly stated by Aibueku, thus: a critique of both policy documents will highlight the fact that both the 1989 and 2009 sport policies represent the thinking of just a handful of highly placed sports theorists as both policies have not had the luxury of being inaugurated. There is no evidence that efforts have been made in bringing stakeholders in the field together with a view to brainstorming on producing a synthesis of all the ideas generated and using same as the core basis for the formulation of a sports policy. There was virtually no publicity at all at the publication of both documents coupled with the fact there were no conferences, seminars, workshops put together to critically examine issues connected thereto.

Manchester City Can't Touch Tevez

Picture courtesy guardian.co.uk

With Carlos Tevez currently serving a two-week suspension pending investigation into his conduct at Bayern Munich, there has been speculation as to the decision the club will take. The manager already has his mind made up, having stated categorically that Tevez will not play for him anymore. Whether his decision taken in the heat of the moment will stand remains to be seen and despite the severity of reactions that Tevez’s reported refusal to play has attracted, I am convinced the saga will end rather insignificantly. I agree with Simon Pentol that Manchester City will reach a compromise with the player in order to avoid litigation.

Refusing to warm up or play as instructed by the manager of the team is condemnable should not be tolerated regardless of the worth of the player. I do not think it is in doubt that Tevez failed to completely comply with the instructions of the manager – whether to warm up or to play – as although he made a public statement to the effect that he was ready to play that evening and attributed the incident to confusion on the bench, he had earlier stated that he did not feel right to play, hence he did not. Nonetheless, whereas fans can crucify the player and call for termination of his contract, the management of the club must know that they have to thread with caution.

I am of the view that there is hardly a tenable case against the player. I recall Roberto Mancini admitting during the post-match interview that Tevez “has not been 100%”, hence his bit-part role in the early part of the season. Whether the lack of full fitness is physical or psychological, it has kept Tevez from playing a more significant role this season, going by the manager’s words. Many pundits have stressed the point that a player is contractually bound to give his best to the club. So, what if a player states that he is not in a position to give his best to the club at a particular point in a match? It is one thing to step out on to the pitch and it is another thing to step onto the pitch physically and/or psychologically fit, in a condition to give his best. Assuming Tevez actually refused to come on as a substitute it would be a complex issue to resolve his physical and mental state at the time, owing to the manager’s admission that he had not been 100%.

However, looking beyond the technicalities, the fact remains that the real problem at Manchester City is caging the egos that are steadily growing. Dzeko’s displeasure at being substituted was overshadowed by the Tevez incident and when one considers that Balotelli is another striker on that team, you cannot help but wonder how many players Mancini can kick out of the club before the board kicks him out.