Can anyone explain to me who invented the idea that sportsmen and women are supposed to set an example in all aspects of life outside of their sport?
If someone is good at football it is understandable that fans and aspiring youngsters will admire their sporting ability and wish to emulate them on the pitch, but why should we be concerned that the player’s behaviour in private life is influencing young people?
If you have taught your children right from wrong by bringing them up properly, why be concerned that a footballer will corrupt them simply by being on the pitch.
Football is no place to learn ethics anyway.
Players have been known to line their over-full pockets by accepting bribes, many have disgraced themselves by drunken violent nightclub behaviour and a few have disgraced themselves at the wheel of their extravagant cars.
We could also consider the vulgar, racist, uncouth and violent behaviour of many of the fans.
The brotherly teamwork ethic on the pitch lasts only until someone is sold on for financial gain and managers who never kick the ball are sacked purely on the performance of players.
Success is now more to do with financial cunning more than ability. Is that a good example to set?
Worst of all is the widespread acceptance of the professional foul. If that isn’t a disgraceful example to teach our children I don’t know what is.
It is accepted that some professional boxers have a less than angelic background, but those who follow the sport restrict their interest to watching spectacle of the fight. There is never a question that these fighters are to be regarded as exemplars on the road to a decent life. They are admired for their boxing ability and nothing else.
We should respect people who are respectable