Erling Haaland has now sidestepped questions about Manchester City’s guilty verdict twice, and a Norwegian broadcaster has walked away from an exclusive interview with him rather than accept that the subject was off limits.
If there is one topic a Manchester City player does not want to be asked about right now, it is the charges. Some people outside the Etihad would rather not talk about them either.
But according to Norwegian newspaper VG, whose reporting was picked up by Sport Witness, Erling Haaland has been steering clear of them more carefully than most, and City appear to be keeping a tight grip on the conversation elsewhere too.
How Erling Haaland dodged the press with Norway
Haaland was originally down to face the media at a press conference the day before Norway‘s Nations League match against Portugal during the last international break.
He was then taken off that press conference once reports of City’s guilty verdict went public. That was not the end of it.
VG report that TV 2 were then offered a separate, exclusive interview with the striker after he pulled out of his media duties. There was one condition: no questions about the Manchester City case. At that point, the guilty verdict had not yet been officially confirmed.
Why TV 2 turned down the Erling Haaland interview
TV 2 said no. Their sports editor explained the decision: “It would have been a journalistic sin of omission to bypass the obvious questions our viewers wanted answers to. We had a professional dialogue with the NFF regarding this, and we ultimately decided to pass.”
It is a rare thing for a broadcaster to turn down exclusive time with Haaland, which tells you how strongly they felt about the terms.
What Norway’s media officer said
VG also tried to get an answer from Haaland’s agent, Rafaela Pimenta, noting that her team includes former Manchester City media officer Alex Rowen. They had not responded to VG’s request for comment.
So the paper went to Morten Morisbak Skjønsberg, Norway’s media officer, who said: “Since Erling hadn’t spoken to the press, we discussed with his representative the possibility of granting TV 2 access, so they could create relevant content for their viewers and readers. He suggested arranging this for the day before the away match against Portugal.”
He went on: “Given that the context was the same as it had been during the press conference, the understanding was that the focus should remain on the national team and the upcoming match. And that questions regarding Manchester City should not be part of the interview.”
Skjønsberg added: “On that basis, TV 2 declined the interview. In this instance, TV 2 was offered an exclusive opportunity to speak with Erling about national team football during our Nations League training camp. TV 2 was free to accept or decline, and they chose not to conduct the interview.”
Viaplay and the Man City interviews
It is not the only sign of City trying to control the narrative. Last weekend, Haaland and other high-profile players were interviewed by Viaplay.
When the clips went out on social media, they came with a note from Kristian Oma, Viaplay’s head of sport: “Viaplay has not been given the opportunity to ask questions of Manchester City’s players, manager, or management regarding the ruling against the club.”
Oma added: “The terms for the recent interviews with him were made clear in advance. And it was therefore a deliberate editorial decision to proceed with them nonetheless.”
For more on how the ruling is already rippling through the club, our piece on Barcelona waiting on City’s pre-agreed deal for Cavan Sullivan covers the transfer side of it.
Can Erling Haaland keep the questions at arm’s length?
From Haaland’s side, you can see the logic. He is a footballer, not a club spokesman, and he has been in fine form on the pitch, as our look at Haaland’s surge in headed goals under Enzo Maresca showed. Why would he want to become the face of the club’s legal fight over its finances?
But the more interviews come with conditions attached, the bigger the story becomes. TV 2 and Viaplay have both now said publicly that the questions were off the table, and that is arguably a worse look than a polite “I can’t talk about that” in front of the cameras.
At some point the questions will have to be faced. A short, straight answer would probably end this faster than any set of ground rules.
