Why did Sunderland put survival ahead of doing the right thing?
THE official line from Sunderland Football Club remains :‘ We thought Adam Johnson was going to plead not guilty.’ Ask yourself this, however. Armed with the information that your employee HAD committed child sex offences, would you then support them in their bid to cheat justice?
This, in essence, is what Sunderland are admitting to. For chief executive Margaret Byrne, as was said in court and later confirmed in a club statement, did have possession of key evidence in May of last year.
Contained in those documents were police interviews with Johnson, his 15-yearold victim and her schoolfriends, as well as a transcript of the 834 WhatsApp messages the player and the girl exchanged.
Johnson insisted during his trial that he hid nothing from the club and, from early on, they were aware of his admissions to kissing and grooming the girl.
The evidence contained in t hose documents was then crucial in convicting Johnson of a more serious charge of sexual activity with a child, for which he now faces up to 10 years in prison.
Sunderland say it was not their position to pass judgment on the case. This, of course, is true.
But no- one was asking them to determine the outcome of matters in court. Rather, they had to make a judgment on the admissions from Johnson of which they were aware.
They argue that sacking him — as they did once he finally admitted his guilt to the courts — would have prejudiced his trial.
OK, the legality of that can be argued. But what they were not duty bound to do was to play Johnson.
They were not duty bound to let him represent their once proud red-and-white stripes at the Stadium of Light in front of the child and loyal supporter they knew he had abused.
They were not duty bound to put him ‘on a pedestal’ — as Johnson himself described life as a footballer in court — and allow him to take a penalty to open the scoring against Newcastle in a crucial Wear-Tyne derby.
During this entire time — he was arrested on March 2 of last year and sacked on February 10 of this — they allowed him to act like any other football er. He signed autographs, supporters sang his name, believing that he was the innocent party.
The girl stopped going to matches when, as was said in court, other fans began to recognise her as ‘the liar, the slag and the slut’ she said she was made to feel because of Johnson’s refusal to accept his guilt.
Where was Sunderland’s duty of care to their young fan? They knew she had a seat in the stadium yet sent out Johnson to be adored by those around her. Those same supporters, who unknowingly supported a child- sex offender, must also feel betrayed.
Sunderland’s answer, of course, is that Johnson intended to protest his innocence. Johnson’s barrister, however, accused them in court of sticking by the England international t o ensure Barclays Premier League survival.
They could, however, have sus- pended Johnson indefinitely until the outcome of the case, as the BBC did when they took Stuart Hall off air after he was questioned by police over allegations of rape and indecent exposure in December, 2012.
He was suspended after being charged and was finally sacked when he admitted a string of historic sex offences against girls in May 2013.
Teachers, for example, are also suspended — on full pay — if an allegation of misconduct is made. Why not treat Johnson the same?
And where were the Professional Footballers’ Association in all of this? It was the PFA, say the club, who helped advise t hem to reinstate Johnson after an initial two-week suspension following his arrest.
A PFA statement following his conviction on Wednesday was vague in the extreme and selfpromoting to the point of irrelevance, failing to address just how they and Sunderland arrived at the decision to allow Johnson to earn a further £3million in wages.
What did they know? Did they see the WhatsApp messages in which Johnson cold-heartedly groomed the girl, admitting in court he never i ntended to be friends with a teenager, that he wanted her for sexual activity.
The PFA also failed to mention Johnson’s victim, the girl who was put through the ordeal of a trial and, her father told the court, wanted to kill herself following the abuse caused by Johnson’s denial.
But for now, this all comes back to Margaret Byrne — a member of the Premier League’s Legal Advisory Panel, do not forget — and it will do until she stops hiding behind an unsatisfactory club statement.
One of the occasions in which she has surfaced in the past was to support Premier League chief Richard Scudamore over his sexist emails.
‘I am delighted that common sense has prevailed,’ she said in May 2014 after Scudamore kept his job.
However, i f Byrne knew that Johnson was guilty of child- sex offences in May of last year, it would now appear that ‘common sense’ has failed her, and in turn she has failed supporters of the football club and Johnson’s victim.
Byrne needs to front up in public. Until then, the jury remains out on her, the PFA and Sunderland Football Club.