The reported refusal of Carlos Tevez to come off the substitutes' bench and play in Munich last night, as well as being a watershed moment in this unhappy footballing soap opera, does give rise to some serious contractual issues which the club will have to grapple with over the next few days.

It is an express term of the Premier League's Standard Player Contract that players participate in any match in which they are selected to play for their club - not an unreasonable requirement some might say, in light of the astronomical wages premiership footballers of Tevez's ilk receive. On the face of it, Tevez's alleged point-blank refusal to play (if true) constitutes a fundamental breach of contract entitling the club to choose, if it wishes, to terminate his services without payment of salary in respect of any remaining unexpired period of his contractual notice. Of course, on the face of it, this may be an outcome which Tevez would welcome as he would then be released as a free agent to play for another club.

Ordinarily a football club would never contemplate releasing such a valuable contracted player without ensuring that it received a significant sum in the transfer market and therefore the summary dismissal route is unlikely to be a path which will suit City, even if they would be glad to see the back of him.

However the reality of this situation is somewhat different as, if the club retains Mr Tevez's services and looks to ship him out in the January transfer market, it faces the likelihood of receiving a significantly reduced transfer fee because of the player's general conduct and overwhelming desire to be away from the club. Keeping Tevez therefore will mean that the club will in any event take a significant loss from what they may regard as being his true transfer value.

However it may be that the club chooses to make an example of Tevez and dismiss him for gross misconduct and sue him in damages for the losses which it would sustain on receiving no transfer fee. Arguably these losses are a foreseeable result of his alleged refusal to play if that was indeed the case. Presumably he will be good for the money if sued, given the vast sums that he has earned through his footballing career. The alternative option open to the Club is to hold him to his contract for the time being but decline to play him, a situation which is unlikely to be tenable for Tevez in the long run.

Of course the other twist to the story is that Tevez denies that he did in fact refuse to play, albeit that his story seems to be changing somewhat following his initial post-match interview. Therefore, if the club did dismiss him for gross misconduct, it may be an action which Tevez would contest.

The risk of an unfair dismissal claim by Tevez is unlikely to keep any of the Club's directors awake at night given the current cap of £68,400 on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal. More likely to cause serious unrest is the prospect of either having to continue to pay his weekly wage whilst he sits on the bench indefinitely, or taking a hit on the massive fee the Club paid for Tevez back in Summer 2009.

Another interesting feature of this situation is that if the club does not stand by Mancini, their manager in agreeing that Tevez will no longer play for the club they may also risk the manager resigning and claiming constructive dismissal as clearly his situation will have become untenable.

To read some of Howard Hymanson's comments in the press, follow the links below:

The Mirror

Yorkshire Post

Irish Examiner

Daily Star

Total Footballmag

29 September 2011