How Far into the Private Lives of players should sport go

[Set piece magic]

I've been following the Karmichael Hunt saga of late, as well as the Barnaby Joyce saga, and it's really got me thinking, what's the right level to be involved in players private lives?

Starting with Hunt, suppose the charges are now dropped. Legally, the Reds may still be able to sack hunt despite no conviction and being not guilty, because all professional sporting contracts have the 'bringing the game into disrepute' clause.

This clause enables any organisation to fire any player, for essentially doing anything they don't like. Typically its used for stuff which isn't a breach of contract but is a really bad look and has the potential to damage the sport. For example, if an NRL player commented about how much they liked Bikie Cartels and that the police are pigs to society, an NRL club can say get outta here.

On the surface, it sounds fair enough, the player has damaged the image of the game and potentially damaged gate takings, sponsorship, revenue etc...

But is this clause, which can also be used as a stalinist way of removing anyone you don't like steadily making our professional players into homogenous, biege drones? Is it not also to blame for everyone giving the same interview, saying full credit to the boys, and generally not saying anything of substance at all?

Should clubs protect players freedom of speech to at least make the game interesting? Because I've gotta say, I find most professional athletes to be incredibly dull and cliche, and it didn't always used to be like that.

I think the clause should be modified - there should be a catch all clause to remove people that have done something illegal and been convicted, but if people aren't doing anything illegal, particularly with regards to speech, should we really be able to tear up their contract?

If someone expresses an adverse view of RugbyAU for example, I don't think they should have their contract torn up.

Discuss

 

[Brumby Runner]

The pity is that we don't have a similar "disrepute" clause attached to Members of Parliament. Quite a few of the current lot would have a problem remaining in the Parliament.

In sport, perhaps the threat of fines by the rugby administrations is the main reason we have dull and cliched interviews. Just get rid of that socialist-like edict and things would certainly hot up in the media confrontations.

 

[Braveheart81]

The reality is an employer whether it is sport or a regular business can terminate an employee.

Often they have to pay for that privilege though. There's a pretty strong chance that if the Reds decide to terminate Hunt they will have to pay him out to some degree (potentially a lot).

Even though his contract would be terminated on the grounds of bringing the game into disrepute it doesn't necessarily mean the player has no comeback.

The money generated in sport comes from the public profile. If the players do something to damage that they can damage the revenue generating potential of everyone.

 

[Zero_Cool]

The reality is an employer whether it is sport or a regular business can terminate an employee.

Often they have to pay for that privilege though. There's a pretty strong chance that if the Reds decide to terminate Hunt they will have to pay him out to some degree (potentially a lot).

Even though his contract would be terminated on the grounds of bringing the game into disrepute it doesn't necessarily mean the player has no comeback.

I imagine in the case of Hunt you would be quite sure the QRU would have required a morality clause and a very strong no-drugs clause, given his... history. I imagine if they are to cut hunt they would more than likely to have completely solid ground. But I think if the Reds want to go down that parth they'd more likely push him to sign elsewhere.

 

[Set piece magic]

The money generated in sport comes from the public profile. If the players do something to damage that they can damage the revenue generating potential of everyone.

Absolutely, but does totally gagging any extemporaneous comments also make players dull, and likewise detract from their public profile and the revenue gathering potential? I would also like to bring in Pocock, who has been known to make somewhat political/environmental comments. I happen to wholeheartedly disagree with his politics but I support Pocock's right to campaign whilst a player, because I think it shows Rugby players are individuals who have values and are unique. But the ARU tried to gag him - interesting.

 

[I like to watch]

The reality is an employer whether it is sport or a regular business can terminate an employee.

Often they have to pay for that privilege though. There's a pretty strong chance that if the Reds decide to terminate Hunt they will have to pay him out to some degree (potentially a lot).

Even though his contract would be terminated on the grounds of bringing the game into disrepute it doesn't necessarily mean the player has no comeback.

The money generated in sport comes from the public profile. If the players do something to damage that they can damage the revenue generating potential of everyone.

I'm pretty sure Khunts latest behaviour would be a termination event in his contract. The Reds might make a commercial decision to give them certainty,and throw him something. The Reds might decide to play hardball, in which case KHunt would need to be very confident or he could be crippled with the legal bill for both sides.

As an aside,I'm puzzled that someone who is so clumsy that they continually stumble over packets of illegal substances,has the agility to be a pro sportsman.

 

[Froggy]

The problem with all this is trying to codify what is acceptable and what's not. I like the idea of players being able to comment freely, however there need to be limits, and they become very subjective. Someone made the comment that they should be able to criticise the ARU. Okay, I criticise them freely, but they don't employ me. In the business world, if someone was publicly bagging out their employer, you would be within your rights to counsel them and give them a formal warning that to do so again could lead to dismissal.

It is likewise with behaviour. Obviously, what goes on in your own bedroom is your own business, but illegal or highly offensive behaviour in public can also lead to dismissal, once the proper processes have been followed. I don't think anything Pocock has done fits this description, but were he to be charged with assaulting security staff, or causing significant criminal damage to property in the name of his cause, that's a different matter.

Which brings us back to Hunt. Assuming he got a proper formal warning after his first charge, I doubt there would be any question that he could be dismissed immediately, with no compensation, should he be found guilty of any of the charges (even with no conviction recorded). I also think it would be reasonable for the club to suspend him until the charges are heard. But if he is found not guilty of everything, it would be very hard to suggest there were grounds for terminating his contract