Mutu Should Seek Damages From Chelsea, Not The Other Way
-
Adrian Mutu Should Seek Damages From Chelsea, Not The Other Way Around – Luciano Moggi
‘Lucky Luciano’ has slammed the €17 million fine imposed on the Romanian…
Former Juventus transfer chief Luciano Moggi has blasted the decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) demanding Adrian Mutu pay former club Chelsea €17 million compensation, and says the 30-year-old is the one who should be seeking damages.
The ruling on Friday related to Mutu’s dispute with Chelsea after the club sacked him when he tested positive for cocaine in 2004.
After years of legal wrangling, CAS eventually ruled that Mutu had committed a breach of contract by taking cocaine, and that under FIFA’s laws for compensation he was responsible for the transfer fee Chelsea wrote off their accounts when they sacked him. The final damages, following an unsuccessful appeal, were set at €17m (£14.6m).
There has been uproar in some circles over the severity of this punishment, with Goal.com’s world editors declaring it as indefensible.
The outspoken Moggi, who signed Mutu on a free transfer for Juventus in January 2005, has now had his say on the matter.
“The ruling on Mutu? Now there will be appeals, but what counts is that Mutu was sacked,” the 72-year-old told Radio Blu.
“He did not voluntarily go. He was booted out of the door, and as I see it, it should be him who is seeking damages from Chelsea, not the other way around.”
Mutu could now take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, while Fiorentina team-mates have stood by and even offered to conduct a whip-round to help him pay off the fine. -
Goal.com Worldview: Adrian Mutu’s €17m Chelsea Fine Is Indefensible
The Fiorentina forward is set to be bankrupted following Friday’s decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Carlo Garganese expresses his shock and anger, along with other Goal.com editors...
History has taught us that just because a person is found guilty by a court of law, this does not necessarily mean that he or she is actually guilty. Indeed, often it is politics and economics that decide the outcome of a legal case. There have been numerous examples over the years – the latest last Friday when Fiorentina forward Adrian Mutu was ordered to pay compensation of £14.6 million (€17m) to former club Chelsea.
For those of you unfamiliar with this case, here is a brief recap. In August 2003, Roman Abramovich’s nouveau-riche Chelsea signed Mutu from Parma for £15.8m (€18.6m by today’s conversion). After an explosive start the Romanian lost his way in the second half of the season, and by the onset of the 2004-05 campaign began to encounter a few problems with new Blues manager Jose Mourinho. In September 2004, Mutu failed a drugs test for cocaine for which he would receive a £20,000 fine from the Football Association (FA) together with a seven-month ban. Chelsea also took the additional step of sacking Mutu, leaving him as a free agent.
Despite still having a further five months of his suspension to run, Mutu then joined Juventus on a free transfer in January 2005 (he would then move on again to Fiorentina in the summer of 2006), with the Bianconeri fighting off all attempts by Chelsea to gain compensation.
What would follow is years of legal wrangling between Chelsea and Mutu, culminating with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruling that the striker had committed a breach of contract by taking cocaine, and that under FIFA’s laws for compensation he was liable for the transfer fee Chelsea wrote off their accounts when they sacked him. The final damages, following an unsuccessful appeal, were set at £14.6m (€17m).
Is this justice? It was Chelsea who took the decision to sack Mutu, and it was their idiocy to release him on a free transfer rather than sell him on and limit their damages. Had they done the latter, it could theoretically be argued that Mutu should morally have paid the difference. So if Mutu then signed for Manchester United for £12.8m, the player would need to pay Chelsea £3m.
Yet even this would have been highly contentious and ground-breaking, for when the Romanian joined Chelsea, he had no say in fixing the transfer fee. Indeed many would argue that The Blues paid over the odds for him, just as they did with a whole host of players who arrived during Roman Abramovich’s first summer in English football. (Compare the situation then to Manchester City now) How can Mutu be responsible for a transfer fee that was agreed between Parma and Chelsea? If Abramovich had been feeling extra generous the day he sent over a cheque to Emilia-Romagna, and decided to splash out a Cristiano Ronaldo type fee of £80m, would Mutu now be expected to pay all that back? The premise is so ridiculous that the late great advocate George Carman must be considering a comeback - but the CAS regards it as valid!
The local media in Britain has been largely acquiescent over the incident, with anti-drug piety colouring the coverage. As for Chelsea, they have yet to comment. Why would they? Even though they may have to wait some time before receiving some or all of the Mutu cash, they can rest assured that their interests are consonant with those of the other big clubs that are favoured by judgements like these. The governing bodies in football - including the CAS, which is now largely football focused - are desperate to protect these superpowers because without them they cannot exist. Thus, they have little choice but to team with the likes of Chelsea during these disputes. And for some in the media, dissenting from the large clubs can mean losing vital coverage opportunities - not to mention the gasps that are elicited by any mention of a drug-related offence, no matter how underwhelming or how much the player has righted wrongs since then.
No doubt FIFA and CAS, having seen clubs lose a vast amount of control since the Bosman Ruling, have not squandered an opportunity to claw back some ‘player power’. Mutu has been made an example of in the battle against drugs in football, only that in this case it is an example of how there is no point reforming yourself because you will still be persecuted afterwards.
Following his well-documented personal problems circa 2004, Mutu has completely turned around his life. As recently as 2007, the Guardian newspaper praised Mutu fulsomely for his newfound maturity. Indeed, it is no exaggeration whatsoever to call the Romanian a completely changed man. Perhaps, then, the sacking from Chelsea was a wake-up call that he needed. But it did not stop there, and the millstone around his neck won't go away. The message this sends out to all those who are struggling with drink, drugs, gambling and other difficulties is to continue drinking, continue taking drugs and continue gambling because the 'football community' will never forgive and certainly never forget.
Or perhaps help and acceptance is only offered when there are special interests to consider. If a player more friendly with Mourinho had tested positive for the devil’s dandruff, would Chelsea have taken the same decision in sacking them? What about Rio Ferdinand in 2003 when he failed/refused to take a drugs test, and was subsequently banned for eight months and fined £50,000? Ferdinand had signed for The Red Devils from Leeds only a year earlier for £29.1m, but did Man Utd ditch him before then attempting to sue him? Certainly not - they stood by their man, and both the club and Rio have reaped the rewards.
This has all been a PR disaster for Chelsea and FIFA, while the authority and status of CAS could be almost irreversibly broken if, as expected, Mutu takes the next legal step and drags his ex-employers into the European Court of Human Rights - a body that, despite its clear flaws, is not in thrall to the mega-clubs and has in the past showed willingness to consider the rights of players as workers, rather than rows on a balance sheet.
As it stands, Mutu is a broken man. At the age of nearly 31 he has very little earning potential left, meaning that he will retire with nothing to show financially for his efforts.
Assuming this verdict is actually enforced, of course. In a bittersweet coda, it's thought deeply unlikely that Chelsea will get the money anytime soon. Just as over Gibraltar's membership of UEFA, the CAS is a paper tiger - and one that would perhaps be best placed in the wastebasket. -
Chelsea suck man. Mutu is a great player...
-
Originally posted by ViNnO:
Chelsea suck man. Mutu is a great player...
hey. i can tell you chelsea would have kept him if he did not took drugs.
it spoil chelsea reputation, and destroy his own footballing carrer.. don't forget chelsea paid him for 1 lump of sum too.
and the fees its OKAY untill he appeal and appeal and more + more
i wonder if he will appeal again
-
Originally posted by Shao Wei:
hey. i can tell you chelsea would have kept him if he did not took drugs.
it spoil chelsea reputation, and destroy his own footballing carrer.. don't forget chelsea paid him for 1 lump of sum too.
and the fees its OKAY untill he appeal and appeal and more + more
i wonder if he will appeal again
Cmon use ur brain, look at rio tt time, he took drugs so wat? manutd kept him. Mutu take drugs nia then tio sack him, they didnt even gave him a chance. To add, fine him till he is bankrupt? Dun joke can, everyone make mistakes, why cant he.