So, the Manchester United footballer Mason Greenwood has not been found guilty of the offences of attempted rape and coercive behaviour that he was accused of, but he’s still very sorry for unspecified behaviour that he did engage in.
Have you ever read anything more confusing than the following?
‘In a statement, Greenwood accepted he had “made mistakes” and took his “share of responsibility”, but added: “I did not do the things I was accused of”.’
‘Today’s decision has been part of a collaborative process between Manchester United, my family and me. The best decision for us all is for me to continue my football career away from Old Trafford, where my presence will not be a distraction for the club. I thank the club for their support since I joined aged seven. There will always be a part of me which is United.
I am enormously grateful to my family and all my loved ones for their support, and it is now for me to repay the trust those around me have shown. I intend to be a better footballer, but most importantly a good father, a better person, and to use my talents in a positive way on and off the pitch.’
Sorry, but I don’t get it. He made mistakes. What mistakes? Trying to coerce a woman into sexual relations that she didn’t want? What might he have in mind that he takes his share of responsibility for but doesn’t admit to?
Is it too much to expect that Manchester United should take responsibility for the way they brought up – formed – Mason Greenwood?
While the club is emphatic that their investigation into his alleged misconduct does not bear out the claims that he attempted rape, they nonetheless feel that he would be better off outside Old Trafford. And no doubt sponsors, who have been sucking their teeth at sponsoring this highly lucrative player ever since the allegations were raised, will be rather relieved that he’s being shipped off elsewhere. Is there any possibility, you know, that the alleged victim received compensation for the offence that never happened?
The whole thing is weird and disreputable. But one thing is quite clear. Manchester United made Mason Greenwood. He joined when he was seven; he’s now 21. The club has given him his ethos, his conception of manhood, his principles for sport and life. And now he’s being cast adrift. Is this what happens to a young man who is physically superb but morally and spiritually under-developed, when he is loaded with money (he’s a valuable player) and surrounded by adulatory fans?
I like to think that in other days, perhaps under Alex Ferguson, the club would have made an effort to instil into this boy some ethics of manhood and a sense of responsibility for becoming a role model for other impressionable boys. Instead, at 21, his reputation is dark and he faces the challenge of penitence while forever denying whatever offence he is meant to be penitent about. And somewhere there may be a young woman who has been hurt by her encounter with him.
The solution and the statement have patently been formulated by managers and lawyers. Is it too much to expect that Manchester United should take responsibility for the way they brought up – formed – Mason Greenwood? Did they see anything in him other than a lucrative player, a financial asset… perhaps a young man, surrounded by every temptation, who patently needed moral direction? No? I don’t think so either.
