Eva Carneiro Rejects Chelsea’s £1.2 Million Settlement Offer


Official documents have revealed that former Chelsea physio Eva Carneiro has rejected a settlement offer of £1.2 million tabled before her by her former employers. Carneiro’s tribunal began in Croydon on Monday with the case expected to run over seven to 10 days.


It will be recalled that the 42-year-old doctor was publicly criticized by Mourinho for running on to the pitch to treat Eden Hazard in the closing stages of Chelsea’s draw with Swansea City on the opening day of the season last August.

See Also: Arsenal Set To Sign Leicester’s Jamie Vardy

In post-match interviews Mourinho called Carneiro “impulsive and naive” and subsequently stripped her of her first-team duties before she left the club in September. Carneiro is suing Chelsea for constructive dismissal and in a separate suit is suing Jose Mourinho for alleged victimization and discrimination.

Eva Carneiro

The former Chelsea boss, who was confirmed as Manchester United’s new manager last month, has admitted to using the Portuguese phrase “filho da puta”, which translates to “son of of a bitch or whore”, towards Carneiro but has denied that his words had any sexist connotations.

See Also: Look Who Is The World’s Most Expensive Player

An extract from Mourinho’s statement, which was read out by the panel, said:

 “Filho da puta is a phrase I often use, all of the players know it. There is no sexist connotation in the use of the phrase – it is just like saying ‘f**k off’. “In the world of football, a lot of swear words are used.” Carneiro insists that Mourinho used the term as a sign of abuse.


Mary O’Rourke QC, counsel to Carneiro, said:

 “He uses the word ‘filha’ because he is abusing a woman.”

 Chelsea have confirmed that an “open offer” of £1.2m has been made Eva Carneiro as a settlement fee.  A statement on behalf of Chelsea and Mourinho stated:

 “The respondents have taken these steps only because they believe that it is in no-one’s interests that this dispute should be determined through litigation. They are conscious that, whatever the facts of the matter, it is likely to be widely and incorrectly assumed that they could have avoided this coming tribunal.”