I think the issue is whether his actual behaviour was acceptable for representing Man Utd rather than if it amounted to breaking the law. Plenty of people get sacked for things that don't amount to breaking the law.
That's true and I completely accept that you can be sacked for gross misconduct without doing anything that is actually unlawful. But that should involve a formal process by the employer - I'm not aware whether Man U have conducted such an investigation, but I think that they need to do so if they are going to rip up his contract, in the same manner as would apply to any other employer/employee relationship.
Also that the CPS is not prosecuting in a case involving sexual assault does not tell you that someone is likely innocent, unless you think that the very low % of prosecutiilons in such cases is all to do with people lying about being assaulted.
Again true - but the wording from the CPS, specifically
"new material had come to light, meaning there was "no longer a realistic prospect of conviction" seems important. So this seems to be different to 'we don't have enough evidence to secure a prosecution', but that new evidence has arisen which makes a conviction all but impossible. So it seems that new evidence is key rather than lack of evidence.
Whether or not he is actually innocent, rather than very unlikely to be convicted is a completely different matter, but legally he will be presumed to be without a conviction.
