Scott Wilson
April 3, 2008
IT could be the issue that
decides the next general
election. How is Gordon
Brown going to tackle
the problems of burgeoning
youth crime, rising anti-social
behaviour and a general
lack of respect for authority
and the law? Easy, he's going to
use footballers.
"Footballers have a greater
responsibility than anyone
else," said our Raith Roverssupporting
Prime Minister. "It
makes it so much harder for
parents, schools, the police and
the Government to teach respect
and tackle anti-social behaviour
if some of our children's
biggest role models are
teaching them the opposite."
So that's it then. Forget about
issues of social exclusion, child
poverty and a systemic underinvestment
in failing inner-city
areas - children are pursuing a
life of petty crime because John
Terry swears at the referee
every now and then and the
Manchester United squad tend
to have one too many drinks at
their Christmas party.
What utter nonsense. Politicians
like nothing better than
to pass the buck and, at the moment,
the nation's footballers
are public enemy number one
when it comes to the failings of
the "Respect agenda".
Now, I'm not saying that they
don't have a part to play. The
likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and
Steven Gerrard are hugely influential
figures, and their behaviour
on a Saturday afternoon
unquestionably affects
what happens in playgrounds
and parks throughout the country
the following weekend.
But we have no right to demand
that they are role models.
They are footballers - no more,
no less. They have not signed
up to be behavioural advisors to
the disaffected youth of the
land.
Ah, but they have responsibilities,"
some will say. Yes,
they do. But Wayne Rooney's
only responsibility is to Manchester
United - not to some
ethical advisor in Whitehall.
When he signs his contract,
he agrees to abide by certain
conditions that are designed to
ensure he performs at his best
whenever he is called upon.
Hence a 48-hour
curfew before
a game. He does not sign up to
be a paragon of virtue, providing
spiritual guidance to the
rank and file of Manchester
United's fans. His employers do
not demand that of him, so why
do the rest of us feel he should
meet sky-high standards that
most other 22-year-olds would
not come close to reaching?
Because he's rich? I don't see
too many chief executives of
companies in the FTSE 100
being held to account for their
actions. Politicians have to
meet certain standards - although
quite how many of
them behave as they should is a
moot point - but each and every
one of us pay their wages out of
the public purse.
If I was paying Ashley Cole's
wages, I'd expect to have some
say over how he conducts himself
in his workplace. I don't
though, so I have to let him get
on with it.
What about because he's famous?
Well he's no more famous
than Amy Winehouse or
Pete Doherty and I don't see
Gordon Brown berating those
two performers for behaviour
that is far worse than anything
Cole does on a football pitch.
Rock stars can get away with
it. Take some drugs, spend a
couple of hours in a police cell,
and then get splashed all over
the front cover of the NME
three days later. But then rock
stars aren't role models are
they - they're standard-bearers
for a socially acceptable
counter-culture
that glamorises excess
and illegality.
Footballers aren't allowed
to be part of
that world, even
though the average
14-year-old
is likely to
be
every bit as aware of Doherty's
drug taking as they are of
Rooney's latest red card.
Double standards abound,
but then the Prime Minister
will know plenty about that.
Far better to chastise England's
footballers for a lack of respect
than to criticise Michael Martin,
the House of Commons
speaker, for allegedly using
£4,000 of public funds to pay for
his wife's taxis.
IF Brown really wanted to
make a difference to modernday
Britain, he could don a fluorescent
jacket and unload a
few bags from the handling
chamber of Heathrow's Terminal
Five.
While the country's cyclists
were claiming nine World
Championship gold medals in
Manchester to prove just how
positive an effect the London
Olympics could have on British
performances, the nation's
politicians and administrators
were highlighting why the
event could still turn out to be
an unmitigated disaster.
Britain's recent record on
major infrastructure projects
is dire - think Wembley Stadium,
the Millennium Dome or
the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh
- and if we can't build
an airport that can cope with a
few bags, what chance is there
of us constructing a fully-functioning
Olympic village that
people can get into and out of
with minimal disruption?
The Government continues
to insist that there is nothing
to worry about, but I wouldn't
be too sure.
A FEW weeks ago, the editor
bragged about successfully tipping
Tidal Bay to triumph in
the Arkle at Cheltenham. What
he neglected to say was that the
tip came from the
sports desk. I would
hate any of our
readers to lose
money unnecessarily,
so no
matter what he
might write,
remember that
Peter Barron
couldn't tip a
wheelbarrow
let alone a
winner.
11:19am Thursday 3rd April 2008
Print 
Email this 
Comment
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
