A Football Transfer Dispute Ignited On Social Media
- That Could Have Been Avoided With Mediation
18th February 2025
Football transfer windows rarely fail to deliver when it comes to stories and rumours of dissatisfaction – whether or not a transfer or contract signing fails to materialise, OR is completed only to be later accompanied by tales of acrimony.
And whilst many of these stories of varying degrees of disputes and dissatisfaction largely remain ‘behind closed doors’, shrouded in mystery or are subject to various myths and rumour if only to protect the profile and image of those involved, once in a while they do receive public attention or notoriety. As such the most recent January 2025 transfer window in England didn’t fail to disappoint in this respect, not only in one case being played out very publicly in the traditional media, but also exacerbated with the help of social media.
A Disgruntled Player
Most footballers are understandably unhappy if they are not playing, whether it be ‘kicking their heels’ on the bench or not making the squad at all. This is true whether they are with clubs competing in the Champions League, a lower-level national league, an amateur Sunday League, or even an under-12’s competition. Likewise, very few managers or coaches would be impressed by a player who is ‘happy’ with being a sub or just making up the numbers.
As such, a player who is not being selected for whatever reason, or not getting the playing time they deserve, will understandably demonstrate that dissatisfaction, either directly or indirectly, in an extensive and growing number of ways within modern professional football, depending on their personality and the specific circumstances.
Background to this Dispute
So, with the recent transfer window drawing to a close in England, a story emerged from the ever-burgeoning WSL (Women’s Super League) which was played out in a very public way – featuring a player who was dissatisfied with not only their role at the club but also how her situation had been handled.
Like most people, I can only really base my understanding of the dispute in question on the various media reports relating to this story. Thus, I focus my attention more on the comments attributed to the player, the club, her agent, and others involved (whilst trying to also ignore the various rumours circulating in the football ‘industry’).
In summary, the player in question (Chloe Kelly; a recognised England International who is arguably at the peak of her career age-wise), was unhappy at the lack of playing time she was getting at her club – Manchester City. She was understandably concerned that she would lose her place with the England team if she wasn’t playing regularly at club level, thus jeopardising her chance of playing at the Euros (European Championship) this summer.
Hence, whilst as I explained earlier; a player not playing is usually an unhappy one, the specific circumstances in how this matter was being handled seemed to be understandably exacerbating the player’s frustration and thus fuelling an underlying dispute.
Yet what has probably made this dispute stand out (not only with the media coverage) is the speed at which it escalated, and the means by which it escalated. Not least, the reported use of social media by the player to express their discontent in a very public and impactful way.
The 'Final Straw'?
As with many disputes, there is quite often a trigger (or triggers) that prompts a response, almost in a ‘fight or flight’ manner. And that is even in cases whereby a dispute has rumbled on for quite some time …… not least as one party or another may not even realise that a dispute exists, let alone the level of any grievance another party may have.
And as such this seems to have been the case in this instance, whereby a report of ‘someone briefing the media against the player’ prompted the player to take to social media, and quite publicly bring the underlying dispute to the fore. Now whilst some may think the response of the player, or the way they reacted was justified, others may not – no one knows how they would react in such a situation, or how the parties feel, until they are in that situation themselves.
View as a Mediator – not as an Agent or Agency Consultant
Anyone who knows my professional history or has read my previous articles will know that I would often approach these sorts of topics as an agent (or consultant on sports agent-related matters). However, in this instance, my primary professional role is as a sports mediator specialising in sports disputes. I think it more appropriate that I look at and consider this dispute as a mediator ……… not least as this dispute is one where I can clearly identify the benefits of mediation and where mediation should have at least been considered (if not applied).
Whilst it is easy to view this situation (from the media reports) with disappointment, sadness, and frustration from a ‘football-industry’ viewpoint (a feeling that, I think many would share); that view pales into somewhat insignificance to that of a mediator when looking at this dispute.
I believe this whole dispute could have been resolved, largely avoided, and negated so much unnecessary media commentary and public scrutiny had proper mediation been employed by the player and club (as the disputants).
Claims of Attempts to Mediate …….. By Conflicted Person
As is so often the case in sport (not least football) the understanding of what mediation truly is, is quite skewed, misinterpreted, and/or misguided, hence when I see comments in this case such as:
‘people (at the club) I will not mention were very helpful in trying to help mediate the process’
……….. I am confident that in this context, it is highly unlikely such ‘people’ were trained mediators, knew how to apply mediation effectively or even knew what ‘true’ mediation is.
The simple fact is that neither a party connected to the player nor the club (i.e. as parties to the dispute) could, or should be fulfilling the role of mediator in this dispute. And despite their best intentions or most conscientious efforts, they would undoubtedly have some duty to, bias or opinion that favours one or more of the disputant parties.
Whilst I have heard reports in football of officials of organisations (such as leagues or unions) claiming to be able to mediate effectively in such football disputes, it is highly unlikely they can effectively undertake the role of a mediator due to being ‘conflicted’ and not impartial; given their likely connection to the disputants (e.g. as a member).
Even for a professionally trained and qualified mediator, it is difficult to ‘park’ an opinion to one side, to maintain independence and impartiality, but it is something that we as mediators become accustomed to, however difficult it may be.
A Clear Advert for Mediation in a Football Dispute
If ever there was a clear advert for true mediation in a football dispute – this case seems to be a very strong candidate, even just from some of the comments and quotes attributed to some of the parties affected by, and involved in this dispute, whether it be the disputants themselves or other parties connected to them, as well as the various media outlets reporting on the matter.
‘(the) trauma that she's experienced in recent months and it's been ongoing for a little bit longer than that; it actually back dated last season’
Although mediation can be deployed at very short notice to help resolve a dispute, this dispute was seemingly allowed to fester and grow.
As such the emotional impact amongst other things of allowing a dispute to become drawn out rarely favours anyone, hence mediation could have been applied far earlier to bring about a resolution or even quickly to arrest the public escalation that occurred in the later stages.
‘shouldn't this have all been resolved behind closed doors a lot earlier than this’ ………………….. ‘to be honest with you there were attempts (on) both sides’
Yes, such matters should have been resolved confidentially, and that is what true mediation allows for in such disputes (unless determined otherwise by the disputants unanimously).
Whilst it is encouraging to see reports of efforts being made by others to resolve the dispute, were the right people making the right attempts using the right methods (i.e. approaching a qualified independent mediator) to find a resolution? Or was more damage being done unintentionally?
‘it's not really my duty or role to do this …………….. but from a management perspective, I had to get involved. There were people at Man City who were very helpful in trying to help mediate the process’
As already highlighted, some of those associated with the disputants (and the dispute) seemingly recognised that they were conflicted in trying to resolve the dispute, and it was not their place (i.e. beyond negotiation, rather than mediation).
Yet in my experience, this is typical of the misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what true mediation is (not just in football or sport, but in other industries), given that mediators should be independent parties to the dispute, as well as to the disputants.
In this case, neither representatives of the club nor advisers to the player are independent, despite any good intentions they may have in trying to resolve the situation.
‘and ultimately ……… we had two people (who) had seen the optics of the situation from completely different lenses’
“they've called reporters to assassinate my character and try to plant negative stories about me”
‘because it's not very often that a player will come out and explain their feelings in such stark language’
Mediation not only allows a disputant to air their grievances, but this is done in a controlled and confidential environment, rather than the very public forum facilitated by social media in this case.
This not only allows for the disputants to express themselves freely but also allows for the reframing of any evocative language in a more constructive way to help ensure a resolution.
In addition to this, the mediation process allows for the parties to evaluate what they have heard, from where, its relevance, and how others may have (mis)interpreted it.
As such in this dispute it could have been the case that third parties unrelated to the disputants may have relayed information to one of the disputants (which could have been inaccurate, misrepresented, or misinterpreted) and thus prompted a response that escalated the dispute yet further
‘this had to kind of play out the way it did, I wish it hadn't but it had to there is an element of this where you know her careers effectively on the line’
Put quite simply, NO IT DIDN’T ……… this could have been resolved privately and in a far less damaging way had ‘true’ mediation been deployed.
In fact, the short-term effect of what may be perceived by some as a ‘public spat’ could have long-term ramifications affecting such things as the livelihoods and business interests of those involved, based on reputational damage alone.
“if it's affecting you mentally then 100% you should always try and keep it behind closed doors, I don't think anything should play out to the public gallery’
I couldn’t agree more with this, as many others I am sure would probably agree. The effect that a dispute can have on such things as the mental health of those directly involved, as well as those indirectly affected (e.g. families), often stretches way beyond the matters in dispute; and is further exacerbated if the dispute ‘drags on unnecessarily’ or is played out in public forum, particularly when it is a high profile dispute.
SO AGAIN ……… WHY WAS THIS DISPUTE NOT ONLY ALLOWED TO HAPPEN BUT ALLOWED TO FESTER & ESCALATE?
Mediation could have been deployed relatively quickly to resolve this dispute if not even repair the situation to be mutually acceptable for all of those in dispute.
As such, I am confident in saying that those involved in the dispute as well as those advising were not fully aware that mediation was a viable option, mainly due to a lack of understanding about mediation.
This is an accurate representation of the knowledge and awareness of mediation in the football and wider sports community.
In Summary: ‘the fallout ….. beyond the fallout’.
Put quite simply, how this dispute has been played out so publicly does no one any favours, and as one media outlet put it :
‘she's made it public so these questions are not going to go away ……….. there’s going to be people that are going to take it out of context’
And herein is one of the most disappointing aspects of this largely unnecessary public dispute, as it will no doubt reflect badly on most (if not all) of those involved. Whether they be the main disputants, their advisors, or those connected to the disputant parties.
It is unavoidable that, given the profile of the player, the club, and football in general, a large number of people are going to form their own opinions of the dispute and the ‘alleged’ actions of those involved. And with that, many of these will be based on inaccurate reports and assumptions; as well as preconceptions about those involved and how they want to perceive the dispute based on their own subjective opinions and allegiances, all of which a professional mediator has to be mindful of and avoid at all times.
The simple fact is that no one involved in this dispute comes up ‘smelling of roses’; reputations have been damaged and relationships broken, all of which could have been avoided had an effort been made to deploy true mediation in such a dispute. Even in the rare case of a failed mediation process or even a delayed resolution, the dispute would have likely been resolved in a far less public manner, and thus less damage done in both the short term and long term for all involved.