Thomas Partey and Arsenal: When Football’s Moral Compass Loses Its Bearings

The legal defence holds, but Arsenal's moral standing is in question

Arsenal’s Handling of Thomas Partey: A Litmus Test for Club Values

There are moments in football when what matters most is not tactical brilliance or managerial nous, but moral clarity. Arsenal’s protracted handling of Thomas Partey’s situation in the face of serious criminal allegations is one such moment, and in my view, the club fell short.

On July 4, 2025, just four days after his contract expired, Partey was charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault. The alleged offences, involving three women, date from 2021 and 2022. Throughout that period, Partey remained a prominent figure at Arsenal, playing in key matches and featuring regularly in the club’s media content. His guilt or innocence is for the courts to determine, and he denies all charges. But the real question for Arsenal was never about criminal responsibility; it was about character, about the values the club chooses to uphold, and about how those values should shape decisions that go beyond football.

Arsenal had been aware of the allegations since 2021. The club received contact from one of the women involved, as well as from the police, who confirmed that Partey was under investigation for serious sexual offences. The club's response was to follow legal advice and safeguarding protocols. But more fundamentally, Arsenal chose to let Partey play. In doing so, they made a conscious choice that will be remembered far longer than any victory on the pitch.

Compliance Over Conscience

Much has been made of Arsenal’s adherence to legal guidance. Under UK employment law and the terms of the Premier League’s standard player contract, clubs cannot suspend players without pay for more than two weeks unless the player agrees to it. Arsenal may have feared the financial consequences of any action deemed prejudicial, particularly if Partey were later cleared. That is the legal backdrop, but it cannot be the full story.

Football clubs often sideline players for tactical or disciplinary reasons, without explanation. Arsenal themselves have done this in the past. Mesut Özil and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang were both excluded from squads for extended periods. These decisions did not result in legal challenges, nor did they spark institutional crises. So, while Arsenal might have been required to pay Partey, they were not required to play him. They could have limited his visibility, kept him out of matchday squads, and removed him from promotional campaigns. But they did not.

Instead, Partey remained a regular fixture in the team. In his final season at the club, he made 52 appearances across all competitions. The manager publicly praised his performances and even confirmed a desire to extend his contract. That speaks not just to legal obligations, but to a footballing calculation, a weighing of risks in which Partey’s on-pitch contributions appeared to take precedence over ethical concerns.

Playing While Accused

The idea that selecting a player is a neutral act does not withstand scrutiny. When a footballer steps onto the pitch wearing the club’s shirt, he is not just participating in a match, he is representing the institution. Every appearance signals endorsement, or at least acceptance. When that player is under active investigation for multiple serious sexual offences, that signal becomes deeply problematic.

Some supporters may argue that he is innocent until proven guilty, and that is true in a court of law. But football clubs are not courts. They are social and cultural institutions that claim to stand for more than trophies and balance sheets. Arsenal, in particular, have often spoken about their commitment to community, diversity, and doing the right thing. Those are fine words, but in this case, they were not matched by action.

The consequences were not abstract. One of the alleged victims has described receiving death threats, rape threats, and daily abuse online, especially when Partey played or scored. Each appearance triggered a fresh wave of trauma, and Arsenal’s continued public support of Partey made clear where the club had chosen to direct its sympathy.

Football Needs a Framework

Arsenal’s response is not unique. Across football, there is a growing list of players who have continued to represent clubs while facing serious allegations. The lack of a consistent framework leaves clubs to make these decisions in isolation, often relying on risk assessments that prioritise legal exposure and sporting performance over moral clarity.

The Premier League has no protocol. The Football Association claims it cannot intervene until the criminal process is complete. Clubs are left to navigate a moral labyrinth with no map, and too often they emerge with reputations diminished and communities alienated. The NFL in the United States, for all its flaws, has a clearer disciplinary code and a more structured approach. Football in England could learn from that.

Support structures for alleged victims are also glaringly absent. While clubs engage legal teams to protect their assets and reputations, those who report abuse are often left with nothing but a hostile online environment and institutional silence. That imbalance speaks volumes about whose interests football is designed to protect.

Where Arsenal Go From Here

Thomas Partey’s time at Arsenal is now over. The club made no public comment upon his departure, other than confirming that discussions over a contract extension had taken place. It was only days later that the charges became public and his name appeared across headlines.

Yet even now, questions remain unanswered. What did Arsenal know, and when? Who made the decision to keep playing Partey? Why were the club’s stated values not reflected in their actions?

Arsenal are proud of their reputation as a forward-thinking club. They celebrate their women’s team, champion diversity, and encourage community engagement. But none of that aligns with the decision to continue playing and promoting a player facing some of the most serious allegations imaginable.

I do not believe Arsenal were powerless. They were not compelled to put Partey on the pitch. They were not obligated to negotiate a new contract while awaiting a charging decision. They had a choice, and they made it.

Football is not a normal workplace. Its public nature, its role in shaping culture and community, means clubs have responsibilities beyond the boardroom. When those responsibilities are neglected, the damage cannot be measured only in legal terms or lost sponsorship. It is felt in the erosion of trust between club and supporter, in the disillusionment of fans who believed their team stood for something greater.

Some will say that Arsenal simply followed the rules. But there is a difference between doing what is permitted and doing what is right. In this case, Arsenal may have done the former, but they failed at the latter.