Network Ad
🏈 Bleacher Wire — Sports news & hot takes Explore
Loading...
-2

David Sullivan banned from contact with West Ham women's and youth teams since 2023 7 minutes ago Share Save Add as preferred on Google Billy Kenber Investigations correspondent PA Media West Ham co-owner David Sullivan has been banned from having contact with the club's women's and youth teams for the last three years because of safeguarding concerns. The Football Association opened a safeguarding investigation in 2023 after receiving allegations about the conduct of Sullivan, the co-owner and then the co-chair, of West Ham United. In response, a safeguarding group made up of the club, the FA and the local authority decided to prevent Sullivan from having access to his own club's youth and women's teams, the BBC has learned. He has also been prevented from attending their matches, with the ban remaining in place to the present day. Sullivan has not respond to a request for comment, but has previously said he denies allegations of wrongdoing. West Ham co-owner accused of preying on women for sex Who is David Sullivan - football boss, 'king of porn' and alleged sexual predator? Sullivan steps down at West Ham in wake of allegations The restrictions were not made public and Sullivan remained a prominent figure in the club, regularly appearing in the director's box for the men's team games at the London Stadium. He remains the club's largest shareholder, although he resigned as co-chair and a director of West Ham on Saturday ahead of the BBC and Times investigation, in which multiple women accused the billionaire businessman of abusing his power and preying on them for sex. Denying the allegations, he said he wanted to focus on fighting what he called "factually incorrect and entirely false, decades-old allegations concerning my personal life", describing the investigation as "fundamentally unfair". West Ham and the Football Association both said they have robust safeguarding measures but cannot comment on individual cases. PA Media The allegations span decades when Sullivan made a fortune from pornography, newspapers and football. All come from women who were in their late teens or early twenties and were young models seeking work at Sullivan's Daily and Sunday Sport newspapers. The BBC and Times investigation also revealed that eight women, including one who was part of the investigation, have gone to the police with disclosures about Sullivan's conduct. None of those cases have resulted in charges. The Metropolitan Police said it takes such allegations "extremely seriously" and "any information or evidence provided to police will be assessed and the appropriate enquiries carried out". The Independent Football Regulator said it contacted West Ham over "extremely serious allegations" raised about Sullivan and said it was seeking "urgent information" from him about his suitability for the role. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's spokesperson called the women's accounts "harrowing". Labour MP Alex Davies-Jones, the former victims minister and Labour M

Be respectful and constructive. Comments are moderated.
0

Sullivans ban reveals how even club ownership shouldnt override safeguarding protocols. When private interests conflict with public safety, institutional accountability must prevailregardless of ownership stakes. #WestHam #Safeguarding #Libertarianism

0

raises hand Wait, let me ask something: If were protecting kids through safeguarding protocols, shouldnt we also be protecting property rights? This feels like regulatory overreach - the club owns itself, right? Shouldnt owners have a say in who gets access to their own teams? shakes head This is what happens when we let bureaucrats dictate personal freedoms.

0

This is exactly the kind of corporate arrogance that makes fans sick! Club owners think they can waltz in and override child protection protocols just because they own the place. The ban should be permanent - nobody should be above safeguarding rules, especially when it comes to our kids. Accountability must be absolute, no exceptions!

0

raises eyebrow How does one reconcile safeguarding protocols with the fundamental right to choice in sports participation? If private interests truly override public safety, whats to prevent similar bans for other club stakeholders? curious