Blog #4

Employment Law In Football: The Antonio Conte Saga

Introduction

On the back of a win in the FA Cup Final against Manchester United, Italian coach Antonio Conte was relieved of his duties at Chelsea Football Club. The manager felt this was an unfair dismissal and brought legal proceedings against the club.

So, what was the outcome?

Why Was He Sacked?

From an outside perspective, most assume his sacking was due to a toxic relationship between himself and the Chelsea hierarchy. In a 2020 interview, he stated that the club had ‘lost the momentum’ after failing to sign transfer targets Romelu Lukaku and Virgil van Dijk [1]. Those familiar with Conte know that when he feels he has not got the backing of his club, he will make himself heard and make those above know about it.         

Conte seemingly also lost the dressing room after he texted Diego Costa, ‘you are not in my plan(s) [2]’ after the striker had scored 20 league goals. Costa, being one of the best strikers in the Premier League at the time and a popular member amongst fellow players and fans, meant that the decision was baffling.  

A bad relationship with the board and a disgruntled dressing room during the Abramovich era forms an atmosphere no manager would survive.  

Unfair Dismissal Explained

An employer may not unfairly dismiss an employee. The employer must as a result show that they had a good reason to dismiss an employee and acted fairly in the way they handed the dismissal. 

You first have to ask whether the claimant is eligible to bring an unfair dismissal claim, this is a three-stage test:

  1. The claim has to be brought within 3 months minus one day from the employee's effective date of termination [3]

  2. The claimant must be an employee, this is an individual who works under a contract of employment [4]

  3. The claimant must have a sufficient period of continuous employment, in this case, two years of continuous employment is required [5]

Secondly, you have to ask whether the employee has to have been dismissed. There are three types of dismissals [6]:   

  1. Actual dismissal 

    Where the contract is terminated by the employer

  2. Constructive dismissal 

    Where the employee is entitled to terminate without notice, because of the employer's conduct

  3. Expiry and non-renewal of a fixed-term

    contract

The next step is to ask whether there was a fair reason for the dismissal, there are five potential reasons [7]: 

  1. Capability or qualification

    This covers situations where the employee lacks the necessary qualifications, is incompetent or cannot meet the demands of the job due to illness or injury

  2. Conduct 

    This may be conduct within or outside of employment which would give grounds for a fair dismissal

  3. Redundancy 

    This is a type of dismissal which only occurs when an employee is dismissed for one of three reasons; Job redundancy, place of work redundancy and employee redundancy

  4. Illegality 

    This reason covers situations where it becomes illegal for the employee to work in the position held or for the employee to employ him in it

  5. Some other substantial reason 

    This is designed to catch potentially fair dismissals that do not fall into any of the other categories 

The final step is for the Employment Tribunal to decide whether the employee acted reasonably in dismissing the employee. There are five factors when determining reasonableness: 

  1. The size and administrative resources of the employer 

    The tribunal is more likely to be sympathetic to a smaller employer

  2. Equity

    The tribunal asks whether others in a similar situation were treated in the same way

  3. Substantial Merits

    The ET is more likely to be sympathetic to long-serving employees (5+ years) with previous good work record 

  4. Fair Procedure

    The ET asks whether the dismissal was procedurally fair

  5. Was there sufficiency of reason 

    The ET has to ask whether an alternative punishment would have been appropriate 

There are two potential remedies for a dismissed employee. They may be reinstated or awarded compensation.

Compensation for unfair dismissal is made up of:

  1. A basic award [8]

    This is calculated by multiplying the years served by the employee, the last week of the employee’s gross pay and the age factor

    The age factor is 1.5 for employees aged 41+, 1 for employees aged between 22-40 and 0.5 for employees aged below 22

  2. A compensatory award [9]

    The employment tribunal can make an award of such amount they consider to be equitable subject to a maximum statutory of the lower of 52 weeks’ gross pay or £83,682 (2018 maximum) [10]

Outcome Of Legal Dispute With Chelsea

As a result of the proceedings, a tribunal ordered in January 2020 that Conte was owed an extra £85,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal after already being awarded £9m in compensation after Chelsea and Conte couldn’t come to a settlement for his sacking in July 2018 [11].

Judge Andrew Glennie said: 'The complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded. The respondent (Chelsea) shall pay to the claimant (Conte) a basic award of £1,524 and a compensatory award of £83,682, being a total of £85,206’ [12].  This figure was the maximum compensation award at the time.

Judge Glennie added: "Written reasons will not be provided unless a request is presented by either party within 14 days [13].

Chelsea did not contest the decision and paid the award to their former manager.

Conclusion

When it comes to sackings, clubs should be careful when deciding when to make the decision. Had Conte not won the FA Cup, his sacking would arguably have been fair. Chelsea finished fifth after finishing Champions the season before. But after winning trophies in back-to-back years, the sacking was unfair.        

Some speculate Tottenham sacked José Mourinho right before the League Cup Final due to the Antonio Conte precedent. It’s no secret that Tottenham wanted to part ways with the Portuguese manager at the time. Had he won that final, it is likely Mourinho would have brought proceedings against the club akin to Conte had he been subsequently sacked. 

References

[1] Matt Law, ‘Antonio Conte exclusive interview: 'I wanted to sign Lukaku and Van Dijk at Chelsea - we lost momentum after that', Telegraph, published on 17 November 2020, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/11/17/antonio-conte-exclusive-interview-wanted-sign-lukaku-van-dijk/ (last accessed 6 May 2023)

[2] BBC Sport, ‘Antonio Conte: Chelsea manager texts Diego Costa to say ‘you are not in my plan’, published on 9 June 2017, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40229168 (last accessed on 6 May 2023)

[3] Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996

[4] Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996

[5] Section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996

[6] Section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996

[7] Section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996

[8] Section 229 Employment Rights Act 1996

[9] Section 123 Employment Rights Act 1996

[10] Caroline Noblet, Charles Frost, Matthew Lewis, David Whincup & Alison E. Treliving, ‘Increase in UK Compensation Limits From 6 April 2019’, Squire Patton Boggs, https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/en/insights/publications/2019/02/increase-in-uk-compensation-limits-from-6-april-2019 (last accessed 6 May 2023)

[11] Adrian Kajumba, ‘Antonio Conte WAS unfairly sacked by Chelsea, employment tribunal rules… as former manager takes a further £85,000 off Roman Abramovich after the most expensive dismissal in the history of English football’, Daily Mail, published on 13 January 2020, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7882337/Antonio-Conte-wins-legal-battle-against-Chelsea-employment-tribunal-rule-Italian.html (accessed on 6 May 2023)

[12] The Employment Tribunals, ‘Mr A Conte v Chelsea Football Club Limited’, published on 12 December 2019, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e1862dae5274a06bfa721bf/Mr_A_Conte_-v-_Chelsea_Football_Club_Limited_-_Case_Number_2206631_2018_-_Judgment.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2023)

[13] Note 12

Previous
Previous

Blog #5

Next
Next

Blog #3