Manchester United settlement revives legacy safeguarding liability

Manchester United reached an out-of-court settlement in March with a man who alleged that former club employee Billy Watts sexually assaulted him at the club’s Cliff training ground in 1986 when he was 14.The claimant had launched High Court proceedings in November 2025. The settlement involved an undisclosed payment and Manchester United did not admit liability.A Manchester United spokesperson said: “We take any allegations of this nature extremely seriously and have met and listened to anyone who has come forward with dignity and respect.”Watts, who died in 2009, worked in several roles at United including as a caretaker, kit man and groundsman. He was later named in the FA-commissioned Sheldon Review into historic sexual abuse in football after United referred complaints concerning him to the inquiry.The review recorded several allegations concerning Watts, including inappropriate comments and physical behaviour towards young people at the training ground. Watts had also faced an internal disciplinary hearing in 1989 and was subsequently redeployed from the Cliff to Old Trafford before leaving the club later that year.United have previously said they have no surviving official records relating to that disciplinary hearing.The new settlement is commercially and institutionally significant because it demonstrates that historic safeguarding matters can continue creating civil liabilities long after the underlying events and formal inquiries.That exposure extends beyond the settlement amount itself. Clubs can face continuing legal costs, management demands and reputational consequences where historic record-keeping or safeguarding processes come under renewed examination.The absence of surviving disciplinary records also illustrates the difficulty organisations can face when defending or resolving claims concerning events that occurred decades earlier.United cooperated with the Sheldon Review after the allegations became known to the club in 2016.The amount paid under the March settlement has not been disclosed and should not be inferred from settlements involving other clubs.The case provides another reminder that football’s historic safeguarding scandal remains an active corporate-risk issue rather than solely a matter of retrospective institutional review.