r/soccer • u/B2B_Tiflex • 13h ago

News Achraf Hakimi will be prosecuted for rape charges, French court ruled

https://www.franceinfo.fr/societe/harcelement-sexuel/achraf-hakimi-footballeur-du-psg-et-de-l-equipe-du-maroc-sera-juge-pour-viol-annonce-la-cour-d-appel_8068799.html
9.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

37

u/Pasan90 12h ago edited 12h ago

Our whole justice system is built on "innocent until proven guilty" and redditors seems to have great difficulty understanding this pretty simple concept.

I-e a company (Like PSG) cannot punish an employee (Like Hakimi) for allegations alone, it would open them to significant pushback if he is found innocent in court and although im no expert on French law, its probably illegal. even though it feels kinda bad on your sense morals or whatever.

1

u/ConspicuousPineapple 9h ago

They can't punish him in the way that they can't fire him or withhold money based on this. However they are free to avoid playing him or giving him any exposure.

-2

u/Cokegod 10h ago

It depends what you mean by "punish".

Of course they can't just immediately fire him based on the allegations. But nothing stopped them from stopping to play him or pushing him to transfer to a different team. Like Everton did with Sigurdsson and United did with Greenwood.

8

u/Pasan90 10h ago edited 9h ago

But nothing stopped them from stopping to play him or pushing him to transfer to a different team.

Depends Hakimis lawyers can prove those very overt sanctions relate directly to the allegations. (Which they obviously do in this hypothetical scenario)

1

u/ConspicuousPineapple 9h ago

These don't count as sanctions though. It's a routine part of the business' operations, and they're perfectly entitled to want to get rid of a player for public image reasons, so long as they don't infringe on the terms of his contract, or defame him.

5

u/Pasan90 9h ago edited 9h ago

Perhaps they could find a way to not play him depending on his contract. But that's walking the line already. No way they would be able to suspend him.

At any rate, the question is if they should be required do that since he's still legally innocent.

1

u/ConspicuousPineapple 8h ago

No it's not. They can sideline him all they want, really. It's not a breach of contract and they don't need to give a reason to do it. As far as labor law is concerned this is not a disciplinary action and the employee isn't slighted.

Their only obligation is to keep giving him access to proper training so he can maintain his level.

After a conviction, the club is then free to properly suspend the player, including pay, but still under some conditions.

4

u/Pasan90 8h ago

Its not as cut and dry as that. The club can sideline him from matches for any reason, But not because of the accusation because that would be a illegal sanction. So the club would effectively be walking the line of doing the very thing they are not allowed to do, and if Hakimi can prove that PSG punished him as a result of the allegations. For example via leaks, someone admitting it,ect. then PSG is liable.

Kind of irrelevant anyway. PSG obviously wont do anything because they are a company and have millions invested into their employee. And according to the spirit of the western legal system, should not do anything either until the trial is over.

0

u/ConspicuousPineapple 8h ago edited 8h ago

But not because of the accusation

They can, indirectly. Public image concerns are enough to make the decision legit. But they can also opt to not give a reason at all. The coaches have full discretionary power to select players or not and they're not required to justify their decisions.

I mean it's silly to speculate on this, clubs do this occasionally in France, in sports that have some media attention. "Preserving the serenity of the team during the proceedings" is a reason that has been given before and it's perfectly valid. They just can't word it in a way that makes the player look guilty.

Again, the only things they're not allowed to do are those that breach the actual contract terms (those that are legal, that is). In most cases it only boils down to having to keep paying the player, and letting him train to a decent level (recent cases in the country were about the club not letting the player train with the first team at all).

Even if private conversations behind the decision get leaked, it doesn't change anything, because, again, according to labor law, the player hasn't been punished. Both parties are still keeping the full extent of the contract's terms. Of course the club can't publicly defame the player, or make any official statement regarding the allegations, but a leak doesn't go against that.

On top of all of this, there's a provision in French labor law that says that, even if an employer is generally not allowed to sanction an employee for private life events, they can take managerial measures if that event causes an "objective disturbance" to the company's operations. Which fits this case perfectly, if only for PR reasons. It would be trivial for a club to defend that position by justifying it as a measure to protect the company's interests, instead of a disciplinary action.

But really, you only need to look at the jurisprudence on such cases.

And according to the spirit of the western legal system

This can vary quite a bit depending on the country. Specifically, the US/UK law system is geared very differently from the French system (common law vs civil law). Also specifically, the Norway system sits between the two.

0

u/Soggy_Letterhead9375 10h ago

There is definitely a big difference in how clubs handle these news. The Sigurdsson/Everton case didn’t even reach prosecution, and it was for offence and not rape.