This week has seen the return of Carlos Tevez from his extended period of leave in his home of Argentina.

It remains to be seen how relations are between Tevez and his club Manchester City. It looks like the only way the parties can avoid a long and protracted legal dispute is for a complete and utter reconciliation whereby both the player and the club put behind them the traumas of the last few months. This is not going to be easy for either party and will test the managerial skills of Roberto Mancini.

So what is the legal position?

Already, from a legal point of view there was a spat in the autumn of 2011 when Manchester City tried to impose a fine of £1 million-constituting almost 6 weeks wages. Tevez unsurprisingly challenged that fine and engaged the services of Gordon Taylor from the Professional Footballers Association (PFA).

That resulted in Tevez successfully challenging that initial punishment and a two-week fine (the maximum in accordance with the player’s contract) was substituted thereby saving Tevez in excess of half a £1 million.

However, with Tevez absenting himself from his duties over the last few months the club have been able to impose a fresh two-week fine and clearly this has cost Tevez an awful lot of money.
It has been well documented that Tevez sought during the January window a move from Manchester City. He was courted by AC Milan and Inter-Milan with talk of a move to Paris St Germain. Only time will reveal how close he was to successfully making a move but right now he remains a Manchester City player and under contract until June 2014.

A fit, healthy and motivated Carlos Tevez is worth £50 million and that is where Manchester City have this dilemma. If they wish to recover a successful transfer fee then clearly they’re going to have to play him and place him in the shop window. That becomes a challenge for the manager who has publicly stated that Tevez would never play for Manchester City again.

The legal implications of all of this very interesting. Both Tevez and the club will have engaged the services of lawyers and it is almost inevitable that there would have been an analysis of Article 15 of FIFA’s regulations on the status and transfer of players.

Article 15 states “an established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than 10% of the official matches in which his club has been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the grounds of sporting just cause. Due consideration shall be given to the players circumstances in the appraisal of such cases. The existence of a sporting just cause shall be established on a case-by case basis”

No doubt Tevez will argue that his manager’s comments have effectively prevented him from playing his trade and he may have a powerful argument that he should be entitled to terminate his contract.

Manchester City of course will argue that Tevez absenting himself and thereby preventing him being picked for the team is a way of circumventing and invoking Article 15.

It will be fascinating to see what develops in the next few days and weeks.

If this was a genuine commercial dispute, one would imagine a commercial judge almost ordering the parties to try and negotiate a resolution via alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
There is no doubt that Manchester City are in a difficult position. They will have to analyse and consider all of their options. Similarly, Tevez himself will need to reappraise his position. He may have to swallow his pride, apologise to his manager and keep his head down with a view to the manager regaining confidence in his playing ability. In the end, both parties may end up winners.

If Tevez can get himself fit and in the right frame of mind he may just be the ’X Factor’ which is needed to drive Manchester City towards premiership success. From Tevez’s point of view he can regain credibility as a world-class player and that in itself may encourage other top European clubs to acquire his services for next season and beyond.

This is a typical case where specialist sports lawyers are needed in order to assess the situation on a day by day basis.

Innocent banter or potential sacking offence? If nothing else, the various comments made by Andy Gray which led to his dismissal have highlighted the inherent dangers of discrimination, however discreet, within any organisation.

The BBC was recently found guilty of age discrimination against Countryfile presenter Miriam O’Reilly; at Sky Sports the roles are almost reversed as it is employees who have inadvertently, but spectacularly, demonstrated their outdated sexist views.

Nowadays, even the most innocuous of comments beside the coffee machine could reverberate among colleagues and right to the top. You don’t have to be a public figure like Gray to find yourself disciplined for a casual or unintended slur on another human being, whether on the grounds of gender, race or age – but how many organisations have in place a proper diversity and equality policy to address discrimination within their ranks? And how many actually act on its contents?

In short, the purpose of such a policy is to provide diversity and equality to all employees irrespective of gender, race, ethnic origin, disability, age, nationality, national origin, sexuality, religion or belief, marital status and social class, to prevent all forms of unlawful and unfair discrimination.

The policy should promote a working environment where all employees are treated fairly and equally; it should be enshrined in an organisation’s company handbook and/or intranet guidelines, monitored annually and implemented across the whole workforce. Any breaches of the policy should be regarded as misconduct with the potential to lead to disciplinary proceedings.

You might hope that the football industry would have learnt its lesson in 1998 when Rachel Anderson – at the time the only female football agent in England – famously won her case against the Professional Football Association: they had refused her entry to the PFA awards ceremony because she was a woman. And yet, thirteen years later, Gray and his fellow commentator Richard Keys have been branded “prehistoric” and football generally an “old boys’ club.” And now Gray has paid the ultimate price for his sexist attitude.

Although this incident has been positive in bringing the sport’s “institutionalised sexism” into the open, it has reinforced that we still have a long way to go before we will witness true equality. Sexism is still rife among pals in pubs across the country, but we can go a long way towards encouraging more enlightened attitudes by addressing the issue within places of work – both inside and outside the sports industry.