Why do we let footballers speak?

I've been reading a whole bunch of stuff on Jason Akermanis and his recent departure from the Western Bulldogs (I am amazed that I know that much about this issue to be honest). Apparently the club could not continue his contract because let's face it, the man has a mouth on him and he says some really dumb stuff. He was a risk to the club and if you ask me a risk to the public.

My argument on this is closely linked to my argument on Mel Gibson. Sports players are paid to do exactly that. Play sport. Footballers in particular do not need to be very intellectual and nor should we expect them to. We want them to be athletic, team players who can get the ball across the line. My confusion exists when we let them speak on issues that they just shouldn't comment. Football shows like 'the footy show' are fine, for as long as they just talk about football (snore), and are not OK when they try to tackle other issues or treat woman like trash. But much of what Akermanis spoke on had little to do with football. We let his views on the world be published in our media and we either cheered him on or criticised him for what he said. But really, we shouldn't take any notice of him at all... He is paid to play football and from his comments, obviously has little to offer beyond that.

OK so the Mel Gibson spin. He made that movie 'Passion of the Christ' because he wanted the world to have a better appreciation for what he believed happened during the terrifying hours of the bibles story of Jesus. He pushed this religious agenda and claimed to be high and mighty. The Christian world then stood up and applauded his courage and passion for their cause. Now we realise the man is a pig. The comments he made to his ex partner, whether he was in a heated conversation or not, were completely unacceptable.

Here's the weird thing. Mel is an actor. His brain is trained to be whoever he is being asked to be. When he can strategically make some money or gain some power or influence by playing a 'role' he would obviously do it. It's his job to be what someone wants him to be and not to actually reflect what he personally feels or thinks. Same with models and in most respects, same with politicians (who in my view are often failed actors).



So in a Western society where we accept a culture that would hold up celebrity and say these are our role models and people who we look up to, I would say, why? Why do we allow these people to be role models for our children or community. They are not particularly bright or have much to say with any reasonable content (there are some rare exceptions to this rule). They're pretty, but also pretty boring. They don't think for themselves most of the time which makes them a bit of a puppet and usually what they say reinforces stereotypes and stops us as a community from truly being liberated and growing and developing to better understand what the future has for us.

In my view (which I admit is limited) some of the difficult decisions we face today (how we solve world hunger, what do we do with illegal boat people, how we manage human rights) often are not that difficult. There is a logical reasonable solution to many of these issues. The problem is we let the people who are not all that bright spend time and money talking about it instead of having the courage to do something about it.

And that, my dear friends, is why I applaud the Western Bulldogs. People who criticise their move and claim we just want footballers without character or personality are completely spot on. We just want people who play football to be on our football teams and not people who want to use it as a communications platform to spread their sexist views and bigotry.