By Davidde Corran
September 2nd 2009 @ 5:18am
Related coverage
Mutu’s punishment does not fit the crime
Fiorentina's Adrian Mutu, of Romania, celebrates after scoring during the Italian Serie A soccer match between Bologna and Fiorentina, in Bologna, Italy, Saturday, Aug. 22, 2009. AP Photo/Gianfilippo Oggioni
Since Eduardo lost his sense of balance seven days ago, football’s need for a moral cleansing has been making headlines across the world. Amongst the indignation and posturing (on both sides of the debate), an irrevocable change to one football player’s life went unnoticed.
29 million Australian dollars.
That’s how much Romania and Fiorentina striker Adrian Mutu has been ordered to pay Chelsea FC by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
It’s a whopping amount of money and the deadline for Mutu to pay up was on Monday.
August 31st came and went and, unsurprisingly, Mutu didn’t handover the money.
Chelsea can now report Mutu to FIFA with the governing body able to suspend the Romanian’s playing licence and effectively forcing Mutu into early retirement. Thankfully that hasn’t happened so far.
So how did it come to this?
Well it began in September 2004. Chelsea had long suspected Mutu was behaving badly but when approached about taking drugs the Romanian denied everything.
Chelsea then drug tested Mutu who was found to have been taking Cocaine and by the end of October he’d been sacked.
Following this, FIFA awarded Mutu’s former employers nearly AUD 16 million in compensation based on the amount of time left in the Romanian’s contract. Subsequent appeals saw that figure rise twice until it was almost doubled to its current figure.
This whole situation strikes me as being a case of overkill. There is no way the punishment fits the crime.
Yes Mutu was found to have taken cocaine and yes it was clearly a stupid thing to do but Mutu not earn enough from the remainder of his football career to pay off the debt.
Even if the Romanian is allowed to continue until the end of his current contract, he still would be well into his thirties and have only made enough money to pay less then half of what he owes.
Chelsea’s role in this loss of income should also be noted.
Instead of continuing to assist in Mutu’s rehabilitation, Chelsea fired the Romanian saying he should pay back the money they would have otherwise made if they had of sold him.
Soon after Mutu signed for Juventus and has gone on to have quite a respectable career. So if Chelsea had of rehabilitated Mutu they could still have made this money back (In fact in 2007 Roma tabled a bid of €20 million for the Romanian).
Lets not forget the fact that the influx of money from Roman Abramovich inflated the price Chelsea payed for Mutu. He was never likely to fetch a similar amount again.
Stepping back and looking at the bigger picture there are two real issues here.
Chelsea’s silence has been deafening. The club refused to comment about the Mutu case on the weekend and didn’t respond to contact from this writer today either. Chelsea are critically wounding Adrian Mutu’s future and should explain their reasons for continuing.
Most concerning, however, is the precedent this case sets.
If a footballer is injured in a freak accident around the house and ends his career, will he then be responsible to pay back his prior worth to his employer due to negligence?
Does this leave a precedent that allows football clubs to chase up players who have done similar things in the past? It’s a possibility and Mark Bosnich better hope Chelsea don’t come calling for him as well.
Adrian Mutu made a mistake, he was strongly dealt with and is now being unfairly punished.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(19)
Ken said | September 2nd 2009 @ 5:52am | Report comment
You can’t compare someone deliberately taking drugs which will affect his performance with someone injuring themselves in a freak accident at home. You are way off base with that, not to mention the fact that Mutu repeatedly denied using cocaine until it was proved otherwise. Then he kept fighting the decision that said he had to pay Chelsea, rather than prepare himself for losing a substantial amount of money he spent more money on legal fees fighting a losing battle. He was living a privileged life and took everything for granted, here’s hoping I see him working a food cart in Florence soon enough.
Freud of Football said | September 2nd 2009 @ 6:16am | Report comment
He’s not comparing the two. It’s the basic principle which will be used as a precedent. If for whatever reason a player cannot/does not fulfil their contract that the club somehow has a right to recoup the transfer fee.
Of course he fought the decision, what would you have him do? Be the first man in history to pay back his transfer fee? A ridiculously over inflated fee at that? Sure he is rich but this isn’t pocket change. He would have thought his chances were pretty good going to court so of course that’s the path he took.
If anyone is working a food cart in Florence I hope it’s someone as ignorant as yourself.
Mutu has changed his life. It’s 5 years since he got done, I’m sure he wants to move on and he has obviously learned his lesson as he hasn’t returned another positive result. He made a mistake, everyone does, he was punished enough by being fired, Chelsea are just being ridiculous.
Ken said | September 2nd 2009 @ 7:20am | Report comment
Yes he is making a comparison by saying the precedent in this case would apply to anyone that doesn’t live up to their obligations. The basic principle from this case will not be applied to a case involving someone hurting themselves at home due to absent mindedness or negligence. We’re talking about someone that was abusing drugs while being given the chance to kick a ball for a living, not someone that slipped down the stairs and tore ligaments while going to eat breakfast, or even moving furniture. It won’t be attributed to whatever reason as you state nor has it been implied by Chelsea, FIFA, UEFA, or the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
You’re right that he had the choice to fight the original ruling, at the risk of having to pay more. His legal team either gave him bad advice or was severely misguided. Regardless he fought even after the second ruling raised the fee he had to pay and obviously hasn’t been preparing for tough times nor the eventual loss of this case. My main issue was that he lied to Chelsea about the issue repeatedly until they drug tested him, then he wants forgiveness for his problem.
I’m glad Mutu has been able to turn his life around, however he obviously hasn’t learned that he conned a team into taking a chance on him and paid a ridiculous sum for him (yes inflated) and slapped them in the face (figuratively). It’s been 5 years with not even an attempt to pay anything back, that act alone would be a wonderful gesture. He is also lucky enough not to be in prison for his drug use like many of us would be if in a similar situation with authorities (we certainly wouldn’t be asked to work in another country with drug convictions on our records would we?). Saying he was punished enough is a joke, he’s had a slap on the wrist and now that they want to actually teach him a lesson he’s running to the Fiorentina board members for help. Buying, consuming, transporting, or selling cocaine are all illegal no matter who does it. Accountability would be a wonderful thing for all to embrace.
Thanks for taking my opinion on Mutu’s case personally, so much so that you need to attack my difference of opinion and label it as ignorance. I make an obvious joke and you get hurt by it, glad to know that people care more about the ego of a football player than someone they can actually communicate with.
Freud of Football said | September 2nd 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
So teaching him a lesson 5 years down the track is the way to go is it? I guess you’ll argue Chelsea were being sensitive and they thought they’d wait for the dust to settle before pursuing the matter? There is no two ways about it, Chelsea ONLY care about getting the money back for the transfer fee.
I have already written a piece on this issue, perhaps that’s why I took it a little more seriously than your average Joe: http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/08/31/mutus-money-woes/
I will state it again here, yes Mutu did the wrong thing and I won’t condone his taking of drugs and of course he knew it was wrong, but Chelsea didn’t do enough homework before buying him. Man Utd rarely have problems with players they buy because Sir Alex doesn’t just buy football-ability. He had the chance to buy Paul Gascoigne but he never as while he might have been the most talented England player of his generation, off the field he was a complete basket case.
Mutu is not responsible for Chelsea’s transfer policies. Again, they rushed into buying him (as evidenced by the spree that summer) and paid over way too much. To say after the fact that they gave him a chance to admit to it before a drugs test is a moot point, if they had of done their homework in the first place he would never have gotten a contract at the club and you and I wouldn’t have anything to write about.
Further, this fine is comparative to this fee. Mutu had no say in the fee and is literally being more severely for Chelsea’s actions than his own. If he was signed for £5 Million (a realistic fee if all was well and good in the transfer market), there would be no €17.17 Million fine. A portion of a smaller fee he may have paid back (although I’ll say he shouldn’t do it) but how can he even begin to start on such a massive cash mountain?
Further, I don’t think his legal team misguided him. As we don’t have the contract to scrutinise one can only make assumptions but I’d say on the whole that he had quite a good case, he wasn’t suing for loss of income or anything like that, he accepted their ban and moved on but Chelsea couldn’t do that.
“He is also lucky enough not to be in prison for his drug use” – again, moot point, just because he tested positive for cocaine doesn’t mean a prison sentence, that’s not how it works.
People need to stand up and see that Chelsea aren’t angels, they are involved in more shonky dealings than any other EPL club (with perhaps the exception of West Ham)and this has coincided with Abramovich’s takeover. You do the math.
Ken said | September 2nd 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Chelsea didn’t just start this yesterday so to argue that it’s so far down the road isn’t relevant, unfortunately FIFA and the courts don’t expedite things for the sake of the public’s short attention span. To argue that you take this more seriously as a way of proving your point is just like previously stating that I’m ignorant for disagreeing with you it doesn’t prove anything besides the fact that you refuse to see things from any other angle. Possibly due to you being a Manchester United fan and not liking Chelsea ever since Abramovich took over the club. I too am a United fan yet I can see that the club is not perfect and don’t try to hold opposing clubs to an impossible standard just as a way to criticize.
United have had numerous players that have been problems on and off the field so don’t say that they rarely have problems, and to single out this issue as an example of Chelsea not doing their homework and thus putting the blame for Mutu’s transgression on the club and their desire to spend money quickly to continue their ascent to the top of the league. They did pay over the odds for him, yet so many players have had that happen as ways for their previous clubs to make a little more on a player they don’t want to leave (See Berbatov last summer). He could have turned down the opportunity but he believed his own hype, and then proceeded not just to do the drug during his off time but was suspected of using it during training as well. The statement I made about going to prison was due to his being in the country to work and was found by his employers to be abusing the right to work in a foreign country by abusing a serious drug. Many countries frown upon foreign citizens involved in drug use while on a work visa/permit and most would have serious legal problems not felt by Mutu.
I agree that his fine should have been lower but FIFA has seen the contract (unlike either of us) and felt that the original 9.6million pounds was sufficient. He chose to fight knowing that the world governing body over his sport ruled against him, that alone should signal that the odds are against him.
Your assumption that people view Chelsea positively makes me question your ideas, most people outside of Chelsea fans appear to be on the side of Mutu simply because they don’t like “Chel$ki” or Abramovich. I don’t view Chelsea in that way, yet I don’t view any club in that way as they are all businesses that are intended to gain profit through winning. You should look at United and the transfer dealings they have not to mention their wonderful ownership group putting themselves into power the way they did, Berbatov and Hargreaves transfers weren’t exactly classy nor was dealing with Carlos Tevez’s agency (MSI?). Chelsea aren’t the pinnacle of professionalism yet due to their unpopularity at having a billionaire owner they are vilified for seeking money from someone that screwed them over, all because they shouldn’t have bought him or because they already have enough money.
I accept that you disagree but try not to be so condescending about your stance on the issue simply because you wrote a little post about it. It was a horrible opinion piece that lumped Shevchenko and his underperforming self with Mutu’s drug problem. You also put in that despicable section with Ronaldo- “What if Cristiano Ronaldo has had one too many and he crashes in a tunnel (again, although last time he was sober). If he is injured and can never play again, does Real Madrid have the right to reclaim the €93 million transfer fee from him?” Ronaldo has never been linked with a drinking problem so to even use that as an example is in bad taste. Sorry but I’d prefer to have read something that doesn’t have an immediate bias.
Freud of Football said | September 2nd 2009 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
The Ronaldo example was merely hypothetical and one doesn’t have to have be an alcoholic to have a crash while under the influence.
Man Utd aren’t perfect and I do not claim that they are. I too was unhappy at the way Hargreaves was pursued, living in Germany at the time I heard a lot from Bayern’s side and they weren’t happy at all.
The Tevez affair was hardly United’s doing, that was about him holding out for more money, he even turned down Liverpool with some crap excuse to go to City because they doubled his wages.
However that doesn’t change the fact that Man Utd do their homework more than Chelsea. You stated that Man Utd has had numerous off field problems with their players only you didn’t justify this with examples.
I know of the Johnny Evans rape claim and the alleged orgies involving C Ronaldo and Anderson but these were never proven (quite possibly due to United hushing it up) and I cannot recall any drugs issues with the United players, nor any pub brawls or nightclub incidents. The key part of it is that United don’t just the football ability.
Drogba is extremely talented but he is so unstable, unless he has it all his way it seems he is uselss. Then there is Mutu who consumed cocaine for just two examples, I’m sure with research more could be found.
You have totally dismissed Abramovich’s involvement in this as well as Chelsea’s. Just because Abramovich is rich doesn’t mean “they have enough money”, he is trying to make them self sufficient.
What it does mean is they have one of the world’s wealthiest men in charge, a man from a corrupt country who by many accounts bought his way in to power and has used bribery and corruption to stay there.
To think that just because its football and hence he must act like a perfect gentleman in that part of his life is nonsense. Chelsea were involved in the farce with John Obi Mikel and tapped up Ashley Cole, quite probably because Abramovich wanted those players and he is used to getting what he wants, rules hold little value to the man.
Also, I didn’t lump “Shevchenko and his underperforming self with Mutu’s drug problem”. I merely noted that this could serve as a precedent for clubs to recoup fees for players who do not perform.
If you don’t like the Ronaldo car crash, then let’s say Frank Lampard get’s fat, he can’t finish 45 minutes, can’t perform the way he has and Chelsea can’t sell him because he’s useless. According to the precedent set by FIFA, Chelsea can sue Lampard.
Wilba said | September 2nd 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
FIGHT! This is great guys, keep it going.
Hey Ken, Freud of Football said you’ve got nothing and wouldn’t be game to respond.
Ken said | September 2nd 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
I don’t know if I’d use the term fight, but it’s a fun little debate.
Did he really say that? Oh no the Coke Head Analyst of Football didn’t like my opinion on the Coke Head Footballer. Unfortunately I don’t see myself responding after this as I’ve got a football match to go play. Thanks for the debate Freud, and Wilba thanks for the attempt to egg me on.
DiCanio said | September 2nd 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
It’s ridiculous. Why is Mutu responsible for business dealings between Clubs. This world is full of stupid people.
Gibbo said | September 2nd 2009 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
yeah this is ridiculous. no coke is worth 29 Million dollars…
Wilba said | September 2nd 2009 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
At first I was interested in the heated debate (fight) between Ken & Freud, but now after re-reading I am a little confused.
Davidde, you stated, ‘FIFA awarded Mutu’s former employers nearly AUD 16 million in compensation based on the amount of time left in the Romanian’s contract.’ This sounds like Chelsea are suing Mutu for not fulfil his contractual obligations; a contract that they cancelled probably by executing some conduct clause. I think we might have got off track and it may be helpful if you clarify some of the issues raised.
Ken, the only role that drugs plays in this is that it was grounds for Chelsea to cancel the contract. That is why provisions to deal with his misconduct are included in contracts like this. I don’t think a moral campaign about him taking drugs is that useful; ideas of role models and the indecency of drug use are dealt with in other ways and should not be used to punish someone beyond the scope of contract law.
I am no lawyer, but I thought that contract damages are limited to out-of-pocket losses suffered by the non-breaching. I do imagine that finding another Mutu could be expensive but I am not sure why it is not balanced by Chelsea no longer needing to pay his wages, having torn up his contract. When it comes to Chelsea claiming for damages, I would have thought that the reason for the breach is immaterial it is all about out-of-pocket losses. A$16m seems high to me. If I was Mutu I would be fighting this also.
DiCanio, I would agree that any reference to club transfers should not be considered, this is a transaction between clubs and seems to even more ridiculous than the wages.
The Bishop said | September 2nd 2009 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
I think we would all agree without too much exaggeration that taking a class A illegal drug, combined with breaching your professional contract is a thousand times worse, than, say, pointing your finger at a referee and turning a bit red in the face, right? Would tend to bring a fair bit more disrepute to football, would it be fair to say? If we take that as a literal mathematical equation, and multiply, say, the £10,000 fine that Alex Ferguson was slapped with in 2008 for his rant at Mike Dean, the Mutu penalty is entirely reasonable. The economics of football and footballers is not everyday economics of the man in the street.
Any of us who say the decision is unjust are really just exposing our own ignorance of the matter. This is the third decision by the CAS on the matter, examined in detail by experts, including professors, lawyers and doctors. I have no doubt that the decisions they have made are correct. The fact the penalty was increased on appeal, not reduced speaks volumes. Essentially, the bottom line is that Mutu willfully breached his contract, and is liable under that contract, as has been upheld by the various bodies on all occasions.
Freud of Football said | September 2nd 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
Mutu is not liable for his transfer fee, this is decided solely between clubs so if you want to go into the law side of it, no court could use this as a basis for a fine.
Colin N said | September 3rd 2009 @ 12:36am | Report comment
“no court could use this as a basis for a fine.”
But he’s been fined, so Chelsea must have had some ground for getting compensation from Mutu, whether it be a breach of contract or something else.
Freud of Football said | September 3rd 2009 @ 5:48am | Report comment
It’s astounding that this topic has received only 14 comments (4 of which are my own) compared to Adrian Musolino’s piece asking if the FFA should reconsider the A-League expansion which has received 138.
This issue is much bigger than many people seem to realise. Many in the press have likened it to the Bosman ruling which caused a massive power shift in football in the direction of the players, it seems this decision by FIFA and the CAS is there way of taking some power back.
Thought it interesting that more-or-less everyone over at goal.com agreed that Mutu’s situation is ridiculous:
http://www.goal.com/en/news/1717/editorial/2009/08/03/1417942/goalcom-worldview-adrian-mutus-17m-chelsea-fine-is
The Bishop said | September 3rd 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Colin N, exactly right, the “C” in CAS stands for “Court”, and they have upheld the decision to impose damages to be determined on the basis of various factors – and I am quoting from the official CAS document from July 2009 here – “including the wasted costs of acquiring the Player (£ 13,814,000), the cost of replacing the Player (£22,661,641), the unearned portion of signing bonus (£ 44,000) and other benefits received by the Player from the Club (£ 3,128,566.03) as well as from his new club, Juventus (unknown), the substantial legal costs that the Club has been forced to incur (£ 391,049.03) and the unquantifiable but undeniable cost in playing terms and in terms of the Club’s commercial brand values”, but “at least equivalent to the replacement cost of £ 22,661,641…The notion of the specificity of sport allows to assess the amount of compensation payable by a player to his former club in case of an unjustified breach of contract not only on the basis of a strict application of civil or common law, but also on the basis of considerations that players are an asset of a club in terms of their sporting value and also from an economic point of view…Another issue that should not be disregarded, it was noted, is the enormous damage suffered by Chelsea in terms of image, on account of the fact that one of its most popular players was tested positive to cocaine, with all the consequences related to social responsibility such as fans in general and grassroots in particular.”
Freud of Football said | September 3rd 2009 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
How on earth can you say that Chelsea suffered “enormous damage” to their image? If that were TRULY the case then they would have chased this up then and there, further, a certain Mark Bosnich would have copped a multi-million-pound fine.
As this will now be going before a European court who don’t have to worry about the influential clubs having their two bobs worth it is entirely likely the ruling will be overturned.
“including the wasted costs of acquiring the Player (£ 13,814,000),” – that has to be the biggest joke of the whole thing. Chelsea released him, he didn’t walk, they could have sold him on but chose not to so how can someone rule this money has been wasted. If Chelsea throw it away it’s their own fault.
The Bishop said | September 3rd 2009 @ 8:14pm | Report comment
Freud of Football, you are entitled to having your own ‘two bobs worth’, however my post above is a direct quote, verbatim, from the official court verdict.
That is their ruling, based on their combined expert opinion.
All of Mutu’s assertions were completely dismissed, the fine increased, and he will even be paying interest on it if he does not pay the damages awarded to Chelsea by the due date. It would be either breathtakingly arrogant or tragically idiotic to think that any of us punters or even journos like Daviddde know better then the team of experts who made this final decision, and all of the decisions before it against Mutu.
You keep saying that Chelsea doesn’t deserve compensation due to their terminating him, however you fail to understand that Mutu’s use of cocaine constituted “a unilateral breach without just cause” of his contract, provided by FIFA regulations, and triggered the consequences of doing so, regardless of whether they had kept him at the club despite the breach or terminated him as they did.
Once again, the above is also from a statement by the CAS.
As for the assertion in this article that “the silence has been deafening” from Chelsea, they have made several statements, one on their official website (on Monday – not sure if Daviddde carefully worded his article to refer only to the weekend deliberately or not) and to other journalists, such as this example – although there are also others:
http://www.goal.com/en/news/10/italy/2009/08/29/1468905/exclusive-adrian-mutu-drugs-sentence-is-correct-say-chelsea
Maybe they just have caller id, Daviddde…
Freud of Football said | September 3rd 2009 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
It is the verdict of a nonsense court whose rulings are self-serving to the big clubs.
This will be overturned, mark my words and when it is I’ll write all about it, until then I’ve really had enough of Chelsea fans and anti-drug advocates trying to take the moral high ground claiming this is a just and fair decision.
It isn’t and anyone can see it, anyone who looks at it sees a precedent being set which is literally impossible to uphold and in the interests of no-one other than the big clubs across Europe.