From one point of view the chicken video affair at the North Melbourne Football Club is just another instance of boys behaving badly. But seen more broadly it indicates how greatly professional sport has changed and the new questions that are put to it.
Of the incident itself there is not much to be said. It is another bead on the litany of young men drunk, young men violent, young men abusive, young men driving erratically and young men remorseful stories that is recited publicly several times a year in football and other professional sports throughout Australia.
The same stories of more local affairs are told quietly throughout the land. They are a regrettable part of young men growing up, and hopefully learning from their mistakes.
The public response to public stories of young men acting badly has become ritualised. Commentators point out the wrong in what the young men have done — in the most recent case, the demeaning of women. The players apologise for it and make some symbolic contribution to a cause that embodies the value they have trashed.
Players are then reminded that they are role models and that they must live up to the image which their sponsors would want projected. No doubt the concept of the role model does reflect the influence that sports heroes have on children. But when invoked by sports administrators it is above all a corporate concept. It has to do with preserving the funding stream that supports their competitions.
But beyond this ritual acting out of sin, confession and repentance lies a significant change in professional sport. The change raises more serious questions. It is the change from a part-time professional activity to a full-time professional activity.
The players are now employed by their clubs and spend time there outside of play and training. For footballers, becoming part of a professional team is like the change a member of the citizen military forces might make when he joins the army. The army becomes his whole environment and significantly shapes his values.
For that reason the way in which the army inducts recruits and monitors practices like bullying and discrimination is of legitimate public interest. So are the values that the institution professes and embodies in its practices. Allegations of abuse are rightly publicised and the army is careful to give the impression that they are thoroughly investigated. It acknowledges that beyond its professional competences