Not To Be Sniffed At: Lessons From The Mutu Affair

Regarded as the "next Gianfranco Zola" and nicknamed "Brilliant", Adrian Mutu's arrival at Stamford Bridge in 2003 formed part of the revolution that was designed to transform Chelsea into a club capable of challenging the world football's elite. Six years on, and Chelsea only just look to be concluding what became a hellish relationship with Mutu.

Mutu was a £15m purchase from Parma in August 2003. After a promising start to his Chelsea career, Mutu's form and relationship with his new club plummeted when he tested positive for cocaine during a drugs test in September 2004.

Within weeks, Chelsea had terminated Mutu's employment contract for gross misconduct, a decision that came under much scrutiny. Mutu was underperforming on the pitch, and Chelsea may have considered that they had more to gain financially by pursuing a claim for compensation through the courts than on the transfer market. An alternative, more positive, view is that Chelsea were taking a stand against drug users, adverse behaviour affecting the reputation of football and the fact that their employee wilfully disrupted their plans for footballing dominance. A well-drafted athlete's contract will contain clauses that deal with bringing their sport or club into disrepute, or specific drug-related obligations, and provisions allowing the club to terminate in such circumstances. General legal principles and governing bodies' rules may be invoked where necessary, but a clearly drafted contract is always preferable for legal certainty.

It should be remembered that Chelsea were under no obligation to terminate Mutu's contract; indeed, there were those, including the PFA who were disappointed with Chelsea's stance and felt that the club had failed in its duty of care towards its employee. Chelsea could have reversed the damage done to the club's reputation by recognising that Mutu had a problem, and by providing the support and assistance that the player needed. Chelsea also assumed the 'risk' of Mutu when they signed him, and it could be argued that they ought to have been more careful when undertaking their due diligence on the man behind the player. Finally, of course, they could have sold Mutu (inevitably at a sum less than the £15m paid for him).

In any event, and for whatever reason, Chelsea terminated Mutu's employment contract, and the legal debate commenced. In the meantime, Mutu received a seven month ban from The Football Association. Having served his ban, he was...