With the involvement of the FA, the Premier League, UEFA, and FIFA, the matter of Manchester United's private contact with Vardy quickly escalated and became overwhelmingly one-sided.
Vardy and his agent, David Ornstein, were quickly sidelined, with Leeds United playing the victim and receiving global support. Everyone condemned Manchester United's arrogant poaching behavior.
Even The Times and The Guardian, known for their authority and impartiality, took a rare public stance, expressing support for Leeds United.
The Times dedicated an entire page to reporting on the incident.
The British media outlet noted that many fans were comparing the incident to the Ashley Cole case in 2005, but insisted the two were fundamentally different.
What was the situation with Cole back then?
Ashley Cole was involved with Chelsea at the time, and it was a case of mutual interest. Both parties hit it off. Ashley Cole met privately with Mourinho and Peter Kenyon mainly to discuss Chelsea-related matters, especially plans after his move to the club.
This involved a very crucial point.
Chelsea did not encourage Ashley Cole to rebel.
The Times argued that incidents like Cole's were common before 2005. Even after the scandal, although such incidents became more discreet, they still happened regularly.
"In European football, everyone knows that no major transfer is fully compliant with regulations. It's an unspoken rule that players are contacted privately through various means."
"The vast majority of clubs turn a blind eye to it."
Not long ago, there was a Premier League report that Chelsea had shown interest in Leicester City's homegrown left-back, Ben Chilwell, and contacted him through various channels.
Chilwell also wanted to go to Chelsea, so he informed Leicester's management of his intentions. The club immediately called Chelsea to accuse them of making private contact.
However, during that call, both parties began formal negotiations over the feasibility of Chilwell's transfer.
Situations like this are quite normal.
Especially as transfer fees continue to soar, clubs are increasingly cautious about transfers, wary of recruitment risks.
Even in the Cole scandal, Arsenal and Chelsea never went to court. It was the FA and Premier League that brought charges against Chelsea.
That's why, although the incident happened in January, the FA took six months to investigate before issuing a verdict in June.
But this time, the situation was clearly different.
Manchester United's actions were even worse. They actively encouraged the player and agent to rebel and promised enormous sums of money. This not only violated Rule K5, which prohibits private contact with contracted players, but also created an extremely negative impact.
Imagine if an exception were made. Would there be any rules left in football?
If every club ignored the rules and used underhanded methods to lure players into rebelling, wouldn't the entire transfer market fall into chaos?
The Times quoted a Premier League official as saying, "If that day comes, every professional club will suffer, including Manchester United. No one will be spared."
That is why The Times supported punishing Manchester United to the fullest extent.
At the same time, the outlet issued a warning to Ratcliffe, who was behind Manchester United. The incident had triggered public outrage across the Premier League and even throughout European football.
"No one wants to see such blatant disregard for the rules."
"Leeds United has the support of the other 18 Premier League teams and the vast majority of European clubs."
"Ratcliffe and his team need to reflect on their actions."
The Guardian's analysis echoed The Times, while also revealing that during the annual Premier League Chairman's Summit, representatives from many teams demanded the league punish Manchester United for misconduct.
"Ratcliffe's team has provoked public anger."
Amidst public outcry, the FA and Premier League swiftly handed down their rulings.
The investigation was merely a formality. Ratcliffe's team was caught red-handed, with all the evidence clearly laid out.
The Premier League officially charged Manchester United and the chairman's advisor, Tom Reeves, for breaching Rule K5, which prohibits private contact with players.
A week later, the FA swiftly announced its penalty.
Manchester United was fined £1 million and docked 5 points from their league tally for the following season. Tom Reeves was fined £500,000 and permanently banned from working in professional football.
The news sent shockwaves through European football.
This was the heaviest penalty in Premier League history, combining a fine with a 5-point deduction.
It's worth recalling that in the 18th round of the 1996/97 season, Middlesbrough unilaterally cancelled a home match without notice, without uncontrollable circumstances, and without approval from the FA, Premier League, or their opponents Blackburn. The fallout was serious.
Even then, Middlesbrough only lost 3 points.
So Manchester United's 5-point penalty was a severe blow.
The FA explained that United had committed a serious offense with potentially major consequences for English football, and needed to be harshly punished as a warning.
Following the FA and Premier League decisions, UEFA also issued a ruling.
They imposed a £300,000 fine and a two-window transfer ban.
The punishment triggered massive reaction throughout European football.
Both the FA and UEFA delivered the harshest possible penalties.
This reflected management's discontent with Ratcliffe's conduct, viewing it as seriously disruptive to the transfer market.
Following the FA's ruling, a Manchester United spokesperson said the club accepted the punishment, but would negotiate with UEFA in hopes of overturning the transfer ban.
Media reports revealed that United had dispatched a lobbying team to Nyon, Switzerland, aiming to negotiate with UEFA and offer a higher fine in exchange for lifting the ban.
But UEFA's stance was firm. They wanted to make an example.
Manchester United immediately hired lawyers to appeal UEFA's punishment.
At the same time, the club accelerated its transfer operations.
According to regulations, if a club appeals, the punishment is postponed. This gave Manchester United a small window of opportunity to sign players.
But now the whole world knew that United desperately needed signings and were pressed for time.
In this situation, all offers submitted to Manchester United were far above market value.
United knew this, but were powerless to change it.
Media reports revealed that Ratcliffe had personally injected funds into the club, promising to secure quality signings.
United's management team worked at full speed to complete transfers.
With the club failing to qualify for European competition and facing a scandal, what top player would want to get involved?
As June came to an end and the European Championship was in full swing, Manchester United's frantic transfer activity finally produced results.
United officially announced the signing of Brazilian left-back Alex Telles from Porto for a hefty €40 million.
The 27-year-old had performed well in the Portuguese league and Europa League last season. His quality was widely recognized. United signed him to bolster the left-back position and provide support for Luke Shaw.
Shaw had struggled with repeated injuries.
However, the media quickly revealed that Porto had recently offered Telles to other teams for only €15 million. In a flash, they had swindled United.
Agent Mendes made a fortune from the deal.
And it wasn't just Telles.
Soon after, Dutch media reported that Manchester United, having failed to land Bruno Fernandes for midfield, shifted focus to Donny van de Beek from Ajax.
The 23-year-old Dutch international was regarded as the most talented among his generation. His market value was around €40 million. But Manchester United astonishingly offered €100 million to sign him.
The entire transfer market was in chaos.
A player valued at €40 million sold for €100 million?
Not only outsiders, even United fans were baffled.
People said Ed Woodward was burning cash with deals like Alexis Sanchez and Lukaku, but what about now?
This was practically giving money away.
From now on, United's nickname should change. Instead of "Price-Raising United," it should be "Money-Giving United."
United's desperate and chaotic recruitment further fueled the European transfer frenzy.
After signing Telles and Van de Beek, United first contacted Serbian striker Luka Jovic, who was struggling at Barcelona. But before any agreement was reached, they quickly signed Rodrygo, the Spanish national team's main striker, from Valencia.
Although United didn't disclose the exact fee for Rodrygo, British media reported they paid an astonishing €70 million.
Even The Sun exclaimed, "A month ago, any team could have signed this Spanish international from Valencia for €35 million, but now, Manchester United has shelled out €70 million."
"That's a crazy decision."
The Sun also revealed that, like the Telles transfer, the Rodrygo deal was handled under the oversight of agent Mendes.
"Ratcliffe's team is severely lacking in transfer experience. Under pressure from the transfer ban, they turned to Mendes, who naturally recommended his own clients."
From Telles to Rodrygo, and then to Van de Beek, Manchester United had spent over €200 million in the transfer market, with all players on exceptionally high wages.
According to Manchester United, funding for these transfers was primarily provided by Ratcliffe's investment.
(To be continued.)