Debate: Would you be happy if your club decided to sign Marlon King on his release?

Patrick Barclay, Chief Football Commentator

Click here to read the column in its entirety

Do not underestimate Tony Finnegan, who said last week that he would find a new club for Marlon King, the striker sacked by Wigan Athletic after being sentenced to 18 months in prison for hitting a young woman so hard that she suffered a broken nose and split lip.

Finnegan, remember, is the agent who, in January last year, persuaded Wigan to hand a contract worth a reported £2 million a year to a footballer who barely impinged on our consciousness — didn’t he have a promising Coca-Cola Championship season with Watford once? — and who, in his 15 Barclays Premier League appearances for the club, seven as substitute, was to score one goal, a penalty, before being loaned to Hull City and then Middlesbrough, at neither place being frequently mistaken for Didier Drogba.

So credit Finnegan for a proven grasp of the mixture of stupidity and cynicism with which football is often run. But please, on this occasion, let the game disappoint him. Let it reject the simplistic argument advanced on Friday by Arsène Wenger when the Arsenal manager spoke of forgiveness and said of King: “When he has paid his sentence, some clubs, if they want, they will take him. He is an individual and, if you do what he has done, the fact that he has played football has nothing to do with it.”

Wenger may have been thinking of Tony Adams, whom alcoholism obliged to spend two months in prison after a horrifying driving offence; as Wenger arrived at Arsenal in 1996, Adams confronted his disorder and went on to become a more than respectable member of the profession, captaining Wenger’s sides to two Doubles. Or of Eric Cantona, who, having kicked a spectator in 1995, paid the price through a long ban and community service and went on to further honours with Manchester United.

But these were people worth rehabilitating; people who seemed to have absorbed their lesson. Eminent people, too, though I do not subscribe to the view that King should be discounted because he is an unmemorable player. Even if he were as good as, say, Drogba, he should be a footballing pariah now we know the full range and persistence of his offending, which includes theft, criminal damage, drink-driving, uninsured driving and, most damningly, a previous assault on a woman who had rebuffed his advances.

If he — or, for that matter, Wenger — deems this harsh, let us swiftly dismiss this argument that the serving of a sentence wipes the slate clean. It would not be so for a drunkenly flashing newsreader, let alone a groping priest or a lewd anaesthetist. They would expect to have to rebuild their lives and so should King. If he had wanted the Wenger concept of justice, he should have chosen a job out of the public eye, even if it paid less. Even Finnegan would struggle to convince us that football has no responsibility to the young and impressionable.

The likes of King and Joey Barton, whose recent interview with Matt Dickinson in these pages offered a depressing insight into why violence dogs him, have no place in it. The FA should be a powerful governing body. If there were a “fit and proper person” test for players — why should directors be singled out? — King and Barton would fail, clearing space for aspirant role models.

Much has been made of the decisiveness with which Dave Whelan, the Wigan chairman, dismissed King. It might equally be asked why he was not as astute as Mohamed Al Fayed, the Fulham chairman, who, upon hearing of King’s history of imprisonment, gave him a wide berth.

How far, then, should social responsibility go? Were Chelsea right to sack Adrian Mutu for a cocaine habit that hurt only his nose, rather than an unfortunate woman’s, and then to pursue him with a £15 million bill for breach of contract? That remains an instance of very rough justice indeed, a perturbingly hard case in a game more often accused of being soft.

Not so long ago, admiring eyes were cast across the Atlantic to the NFL. It has a commissioner, Roger Goodell, who is supposed to provide the smack of firm government and certainly appeared to do so when Michael Vick, acclaimed quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, admitted involvement in a widespread dog-fighting ring. Vick was immediately and indefinitely suspended.

He lost his salary and product endorsements and was sued by the Falcons for more than half of a £22 million signing bonus (it had been used to finance the ring’s betting operation) and, after spending seven months in prison, filed for bankruptcy. No other club approached the Falcons, so they released him.

Within weeks he had signed a one-year deal with the Philadelphia Eagles. It was for a mere £1 million for the 2009 season. Maybe he should change his agent: there is a temporary vacancy in the Tony Finnegan stable.

Debate: Would you be happy if your club decided to sign Marlon King on his release?

Comments

[Ben Larder]

Speaking as a human being I believe that no matter how aborhant you may find his offence; once he has served the time handed out for his offence then he should be allowed to resume his life and move on without discrimination. Speaking as a Middlesbrough fan though, I can safely say he is one of the worst centre forwards I've ever seen in action and that any team above Sunday League would be foolish to sign him for ability reasons alone.

[Brian]

I think the very fact he was a footballer contributed to his actions given were told that his comments were "Don't you know who I am...." A look at King's extensive list of past crimes surely tells you what type of person he is. Does he deserve another club, well it's the moral centre of the club that employs him that says just as much about them as it does the player.

[mark]

speaking as a newcastle fan......these people (barton...King) never change, however many chances are given to them!
They do not relate to normal people, they believe they are owed their luxury lifestyle. To take it away is the only way.

[Daniel Edwards]

The alternative to not allowing him to earn his living is for the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Which would people prefer?

[Neil]

I am surprised at the reported stance taken by the PFA. Effectively they are saying that as a professional footballer - a profession to which thousands of youngsters aspire - it is apparently fine to behave in the manner that King has done.

[BobTheBlogger]

I am a Forest fan and we had King proposed to us as a direct replacement for the other Marlon - Harewood, who had just been sold for a pitiful fee. List Harewood's many strengths (and I believe he should have been in the squad that went to the 2006 World Cup) and then look at King: he's rubbish, that's the first reason why he shouldn't play again, but he will, because - like with Lee Hughes - there's always some sucker with more money than sense, and an agent who can persuade them to take leave of both.

[Chris Kent]

Since when has cocaine been a drug that only hurts the person doing it? That's certainly not true.

There is no way I would pay to watch my team if the likes of king or barton were employed by them, and I know that players have been moved on from my supported club for a lot less. King.....leave football alone and go live off your millions.....we don't want you and certainly don't need you.

[Lubo]

I agree that people like King & Barton have no place in the game but would also question why clubs appear to have stopped checking on the character of players they're thinking of signing.
Some still do, Fulham as mentioned in the article & ManU certainly do but obviously others just think of filling a gap.
There is a need to set & maintain higher moral standards in football as the fans who provide the "riches" enjoyed by players do not enjoy such luxuries.

[CousteauDives]

A couple of points. First, the 'market' that Marlon King sells his services in will place a lower value on a player with a very poor image than one with a positive image. Note the value of David Beckham's 'image rights'. So Marlon King's future earning power wil be severely depleted by his actions. Second, I think many football fans would support a 'fit and proper person' test applied to footballers. Other professions which rely on perceptions of integrity of individual members to maintain the value of the profession overall - such as doctors and lawyers - have no problem at all in 'striking off' people who do not behave appropriately. I don't think any football fan would lose any sleep if Joey Barton and Marlon King, for example, lost their 'licence' to register with a professional club. And the argument about such a step being an unlawful restraint on trade must be wrong, if lawyers and doctors can do it. However, this would require the football authorities to show a degree of social responsibility and leadership that appears beyond them.

[t]

well ofc he will play again. It is England after all. And the english attitude is, aslong as you can play on the field and is reasonabley good, its ok to be an idiot off the field. Aferall he is a footballer and they are fantastic humans. Besides hes a man and its a godgiven right for brithsih men to be a bit tughish. Its just how they are. They cannot help it. Also your culture favours people like marlo. Even the comments here are more about "oh hes not such a good footballer so we wont sing him anyway". If he was like wayne rooney he would be allowed to do whatever he wanted in England. Thats just how England is. Violence is ok aslong as you are a footballer.

[SVEN]

Marlon will be very welcome at Notts County, as far as I am concerned

[Nick]

Its all well and good saying that once hes served his sentence he is somehow "redeemed" but this guy is a proven repeat offender.
In any other career he would struggle to make a comeback. Applying for any job that required a CRB check would result in him missing out at the papersift stage.
I cant think of any employer who would take somebody who repeatedly assaults women and then serves time.

So why on earth should football welcome him back? I for one hope football takes a stand and says come back in 5 years when your conviction is "spent" and we will reconsider.

This is an example of where money has harmed football. I dont have a problem with "box office" players earning big bucks the problem is this filters down so that the likes of King who is distinctly average at best can pocket in the region of 35K A WEEK! So much so he even makes reference to his wealth before breaking a females nose.
Can you imagine say Torres or Fabregas spouting such egotistical rubbish before assualting a girl? Of course not