THERE are no winners in the sordid fall from grace that sees Adam Johnson awaiting a lengthy custodial sentence following his conviction for serious sexual activity with a child, but amid the rush to apportion blame and guilt, it is worth remembering that there is a very real victim.

A naïve, impressionable 15-year-old has had her life turned upside down because of Johnson’s willingness to use his fame and status to further his predatory sexual ends. She has been abused and unmasked on social media, even though the law is supposed to grant her anonymity, and her victim statement clearly spells out the negative way in which she has been impacted by the events of the last year. Having had the courage to stand in court and help convict the paedophile who preyed on her, it is to be hoped she can move on and put the traumas of the past behind her.

Johnson will never be able to escape his past. An arrogant, selfish figure, who appeared to use sexual activity as a means of bolstering his fragile self-esteem, his life is in tatters. He had it all – fame, fortune, a young family to dote on – but he threw it away.

Even during his case at Bradford Crown Court, as he laughed and joked with those around him in the courtroom, he appeared to be completely unaware of the seriousness of the charges he was facing. “I hope this is finished by Friday – it’s getting a bit boring now,” he was overheard saying to a friend. Filling in time is something he will have to start getting used to now.

It is impossible to have any sympathy at all for Johnson, and it is dangerous to draw too many wider conclusions from his personal crimes. But it is hard not to feel that at least part of his downfall is due to the culture that pervades in the cash-rich world of professional football.

Young lads, closeted away in state-of-the-art academies from their earliest teenage years, with no concept of how wider society operates. Rich beyond their wildest dreams, with sycophants hanging on their every word, they become accustomed to getting whatever they desire.

Johnson wanted a relationship with a child, and in his warped mindset, there was nothing wrong with him having it. Clearly, there are thousands of footballers who would never have dreamed of taking such a course, but would he have felt so emboldened on that fateful night in his Range Rover if he hadn’t been put on a pedestal for so much of his life?

We will never know the answer to that question, but having backed Johnson throughout the judicial process, perhaps the PFA should now be questioning why one of its members felt able to commit such unpalatable crimes. With money, profile and power comes responsibility.

And what of Sunderland’s responsibility in all of this? As Johnson’s employer during the time of his offences, did one of the North-East’s biggest sporting institutions do enough to ensure they were not being represented by a paedophile?

It is a thorny issue, and opinions are already polarised. On the one hand, some have claimed that Sunderland continued to play Johnson even though they were aware of the nature of his offences, solely because they hoped his performances might help them gain the points they needed to avoid relegation to the Championship. Johnson has played in 20 matches this season, and scored crucial goals against Newcastle and Liverpool.

The counter-argument is that Sunderland were duty bound to stand by someone who was protesting his innocence, and who entered a not guilty plea to all four counts he was charged with at a pre-trial hearing in June. Aware that they risked prejudicing the forthcoming legal proceedings, Sunderland decided not to re-impose the initial two-week suspension that was lifted following a discussion with the PFA and receipt of independent legal advice.

Legally, Sunderland have done everything by the book. As their detailed statement, released within minutes of Wednesday’s guilty verdict, explains, they would have sacked Johnson immediately had he not continued to insist he was going to contest the charges, a stance he maintained right up to the start of his Crown Court trial.

Yet there is still an ethical question for Sunderland to answer about their decision to continue playing Johnson, even though their chief executive, Margaret Byrne, had been present at a meeting with the player and his barrister, Orlando Pownall QC. Bradford Crown Court heard that at that meeting the club was made aware of the contents of Johnson's police interviews, in which he admitted kissing his teenage victim. Byrne was also presented with the 832 What’s App messages that proved such a crucial part of the prosecution case, it was claimed.

Sunderland’s statement skirts over this meeting, merely stating that: “Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgement on the outcome of the case nor on Mr Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations.”

Given Byrne’s background as a trained lawyer, is that good enough? And given that Johnson was still a multi-million pound asset while the legal process was taking its course, why didn’t Sunderland send a representative to the pre-trial hearing, where more evidence of Johnson’s alleged crimes was revealed?

Sunderland were unquestionably placed in a difficult position because of Johnson’s crimes, and their desire to respect the judicial process is commendable. As things stand though, they have not adequately addressed the accusation, voiced in open court, that they were willing to be represented by a high-profile paedophile who they knew to have sent a series of explicit messages to a 15-year-old fan.

That has damaged Sunderland’s reputation immensely, but the club can claim to have been badly let down by someone they went out of their way to promote and protect.

All of which brings us back to Johnson, and the core of the case. For all the peripheral debates, the brutal reality is that Johnson alone took the decision to prey on a star-struck supporter in order to satisfy his sexual urges. He decided to make contact on social media, he decided to initiate the seedy meeting behind a Chinese takeaway, and he decided to engage in sexual acts that were illegal. Now, he must face the consequences of his crimes.