Mason Greenwood’s ugly misogyny has no place at Manchester United – whatever his fanclub say

In old Fleet Street terms a U-turn of this scale used to be called a Reverse Ferret. And Manchester United’s Reverse Ferret over the Mason Greenwood affair was so rapid the skid marks will be visible on the forecourt at Old Trafford for months.

Last week, Adam Crafton of the Athletic website reported that Richard Arnold, United’s chief executive and the man who had been charged with an investigation into the player’s conduct, was briefing staff that Greenwood would be brought back into the first team fold.

He had been suspended last January when a video and voice recording was published on social media apparently showing him brutally bullying a woman for sexual gratification. An investigation was conducted by Greater Manchester Police. But earlier this year, all charges were dropped.

United continued their own internal inquiry for another six months. And last week, Arnold let it be known a decision had been reached. The club had a duty of care to a young player who had been in their ranks since he was seven, he told senior staff. So the lad would be back. Oddly, no mention was made of any responsibility for the welfare of the woman involved.

When the decision was leaked (presumably by a member of staff uncomfortable with its implications) the reaction was immediate. And not quite what Arnold had hoped. Cue meltdown. Everyone from women’s groups through supporter organisations to the Countdown numbers whizz and United fan Rachel Riley were outraged.

Indeed, Riley announced that if he was ever to play for her favourites again, she would not renew her season ticket. She could not countenance association with an unrepentant sexual bully.

When it became clear and obvious that he may not be occupying the moral high ground (misogynistic brutality is after all not the easiest territory to defend) and more to the point that there may be commercial repercussions to this (Greenwood’s boot sponsor dropped him the moment the video was published) Arnold applied reverse gear.

A statement was issued in which, even though United accepted that there was no evidence Greenwood had committed the offences for which he was originally charged, it was announced the club and player had agreed to part ways. The pressure and scrutiny that would invariably come his way the moment he stepped out on the pitch in a red shirt would be unsustainable for both parties, it suggested. Better all round if he tried his luck elsewhere.

And thus, eventually and via the most roundabout of routes, was the correct decision arrived at. Because Riley was by no means alone. For many a United fan the very idea that he might once again represent their club had sickened to the stomach. The thought of a man like him wearing the badge was horrific.

Not every United supporter shares that view for sure. This, after all, is a fanbase that can barely agree on anything. You might have thought there was unanimity that the Glazer family are the most despicable owners the club has ever had. But even on that issue, there are plenty of self-identifying United followers who see no issue with rapacious venture capitalists squeezing the club finances dry.

So it was that on social media the Greenwood fanboys moved immediately into action, blaming the women’s team for affecting the decision, shouting that charges were dropped against him and he is an innocent man, above all fulminating that the team needs his goals and that should be all that matters. And it is true, I was at Tottenham to witness United’s defeat on Saturday, I saw that this is a side crying out for his cold-eyed certainty in front of the net.

Thankfully, Arnold has finally recognised that a football club has responsibilities that extend beyond the mere scoring of goals. It may sound ridiculous in an era when money appears to run everything, but it is my belief that these are institutions that have indelible cultural meaning. They should be places with a moral compass. They ought to have reputations that soar in the imagination.

Take the Manchester United Foundation, the operation’s charitable arm. When they engage in their extensive social work, they use the power of the club’s name to open doors to invaluable health and welfare programmes. And that name should not be associated with someone whose principal interest seems to be ugly self-gratification.

United’s great social heroes like Bobby Charlton, Lou Macari and Marcus Rashford understood the power and responsibility of their position and applied it for the good. Not to intimidate and harangue. Not to pursue their own perverted instincts.

The club’s great knighted leaders Sir Matt Busby and Sir Alex Ferguson understood they had a duty to uphold the fabric of the community from which they sprung. They knew the brand should be associated with charisma and morality. Ugly misogyny should have no place in its legend.

For sure there have been bad lads who have played at United in the past. Drunks, bullies, assorted ne’er do wells: whole libraries of books have been written about their shenanigans. Greenwood fan boys will doubtless insist he was different only in as much as he was exposed on social media.

But still that tape exists. We have all seen it. And still it chills to the bone. United were right to reverse ferret. The very idea of making any other decision is indefensible.