Indeed, sources suggest there is some sympathy with Mateta, even in the light of the contractual dispute, amid a feeling the striker could have been advised differently, though supporters on social media have been far less compassionate towards him.
Employment lawyer Libby Payne said: “It is possible to argue that the terms of the option are inherently unfair and therefore void, although the threshold for this is high and such challenges rarely succeed.”
So with just eight days left of the transfer window left, you cannot help but wonder if this once happy marriage is heading towards divorce.
There is said to be interest from rival clubs heading into the deadline. Aston Villa are among the clubs credited with an admiration for Mateta, with Ollie Watkins’ future in doubt at the midlands club.
Despite his efforts to prove otherwise, Mateta still has 10 months left on his contract.
That is significant for a number of reasons.
It means if Palace are to recoup any money in transfer fees for Mateta before he is eligible to sign a Bosman pre-contract with an overseas club in January, then this window provides their last opportunity to do so.
That fact will not be lost on those at Palace and there is a view from some at the club that they should look to sever ties in the coming days.
But with Mateta less than 12 months away from a free transfer, which would most probably be more financially lucrative for him than leaving for a fee this month, it would be understandable if the striker was not rushing out of the exit door.
Palace have attempted to renew Mateta’s contract over the past the 12 months but to no avail.
And while the option of an extension cannot be completely discounted, it seems inconceivable that Mateta would perform a U-turn now given the lengths he has gone to to prove his current one is invalid.
Palace are likely to, at the very least, listen to offers for Mateta, who – by his actions – has indicated he views his future away from Selhurst Park.
CORRECTION 24 August 2026: This article has been updated to reflect the fact that the case was taken to the Premier League’s Player Related Dispute Commission by Crystal Palace not, as the article originally stated, by Mr Mateta.