Forced AFL resignations were a holier-than-thou and sexist over-reaction

AFL Chief Gillon McLachlan, according to press reports, forced the resignations of two senior ­executives after they admitted having "inappropriate relationships with younger female employees working in the industry".  The men, Football Operations Manager Simon Lethlean (a 41 year-old married father of four, reportedly earning $900,000 a year, and architect of the successful AFL women’s league), and General Manager - Commercial, Richard Simkiss (also married with children, in his mid 30s, and presumably also on a high salary), were said to have undermined the football code’s attempt to "set the ­standard for community and ethical leadership".  Mr McLachlan said he was unaware of "any formal complaints" by the women affected by the scandal. 

All this left me wondering what exactly the two sacked executives had done to lose their jobs.  Were the women concerned really young?  Would the relationships have been OK if the women were older or worked outside the AFL?  Were the women "ill-treated" in some way?  Were the men concerned abusing positions of power to gain sexual favours from inarticulate junior women?  Was the AFL taking a position against philandering in the broader workplace?

Alternatively, are we just seeing a return to some form of old-fashioned (Victorian?) morality that severely censures sexual indiscretions, in contrast to the modernist view that, while we may not necessarily approve, what consenting adults get up to is largely their own business?

While nobody has articulated in detail which aspects of Lethlean's and Simkiss' affairs were "sackable" offences, several aspects of their behaviour seem to have been frowned upon.  The biggest issue seems to be the AFL's desire to be "setting the standard" (for community and ethical leadership), and its desire to get away from its historic "blokey culture". 

Most people (and in particular sponsors) would support the various football codes in their efforts to stamp out "gross" behaviour and avoid scandals.  Such measures include censuring behaviours like player intoxication, assaults, drug-taking, and spouse/girlfriend abuse.  Both men apologised for their actions, indicating that they "did not live up to the values of the AFL".

McLachlan said the two men had been conducting "inappropriate" relationships "with younger women in the industry"..."I expect that executives are role models and set a standard of behaviour for the rest of the organisation",  McLachlan said.  "They are judged, as they should be, to a higher standard". 

But should they be judged to a much higher standard than everyone else?  Such double standards are debatable and, arguably, are unfair and unrealistic.

Setting the highest community standards and stamping-out blokey culture?  That comes across as a bit rich in that football (especially AFL and the two rugby codes) is about as "blokey" an activity as you can get.  Football players also widely live up to the cliché of being "over-paid and over-sexed", and the AFL has recently given its professional players a 20 per cent pay rise.

It is worth canvassing the issue of the "younger women".  The men concerned reportedly are aged 41 and "mid-thirties" respectively.  The "other women" (identified in the press) each  attended two different universities, completing their studies around 2012.  One is a lawyer for the AFL, and the other was a Sydney-based administrator (of the NSW/ACT division Auskick, junior AFL).  The women therefore both seemingly are in their mid to late 20s.  My summation is that the age differences between the sacked executives and these women were barely remarkable, and the women themselves come across as articulate educated middle executives.  One of the women had already left the AFL (in September 2016), while the other is said to be on leave.

So why were the relationships inappropriate? 

They relationships were "work romances" in the sense that those concerned were employed by the same broad organisation.  It is not clear that the parties actually worked closely together.  While office romances have drawbacks, especially if they do not work out, the reality is that a lot of marriages, including second marriages, result from parties getting to know each other through work.

The men, being married, would be regarded as "cheating" on their wives, who would likely be distressed and embarrassed by the affair.  The AFL, on the other hand, would hardly be assessed as having the interests of the wives in mind, since the publicity generated by the public resignations and the loss of their husbands' high paying jobs would have created considerable additional anguish.  Married men having affairs unfortunately is far from unusual (and outsiders never really know what goes on within a marriage).  If having an extra-marital affair is considered a "sackable" offence, then very large numbers of executives, politicians, public servants and others would lose their jobs.

Why were the men sacked but seemingly not the women?  The men were married with children so that their philandering would have negative family consequences and generate moral censure.  One the other hand, society historically has also disapproved of those having affairs with other people's spouses ("breaking-up families"), so the women are not blameless on traditional moral grounds either.  Also, one of the women had been in a relationship with a high profile rugby player for "at least three years", a matter that the press has also publicised.

What if the two men, instead of carrying-on with younger women, had been having same-sex affairs with young men?  We can only speculate but my guess is that the AFL would have been reluctant to make a fuss.

The Lethlean and Simkiss controversy comes as the AFL is yet to finalise an upgraded "respect and responsibility policy", having engaged consultancy company Rapid Context to provide a report.  The league also has the Sex Discrimination Com­missioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission, involved in the process.  One senses a degree of political correctness here.

The reaction of the women's lobby is interesting.  A commentary on the women's site mamamia is headed "Talk about the AFL scandal as much as you like, but keep the women out of it".   It goes on to say:

There’s nothing that says these women aren’t adult and don’t have agency. There’s nothing that says they were forced into relationships with co-workers. But the very essence of this story centres on the men involved, and the power they held.

No high-profile AFL executives, no story.

I don't agree.  The essence of the story was about forced resignations.  No forced resignations no story.  The alleged abuse of power is all claptrap.  There is no evidence of abuse of power.  While "it takes two to tango" only the men are to be censured or exposed in the media, according to mamamia. 

A remarkable aspect of this case is that the AFL does in fact have an existing code-of-conduct, and the two sacked managers do not appear to have broken it.  There are actually two codes of conduct, one for players and one for coaches and administrators.  While there is not one specifically for management, the second code of conduct can be taken as an official existing expression of the AFL's general expectations.

The code says that "A complaint concerning a breach of the code.... shall be in writing".  There was no complaint. 

The code later states that:

Sexual relationships between Australian Football coaches or administrators in an objective position of authority and the adult athletes that they coach /possess power over should be avoided as these relationships can have harmful effects on the individual athlete involved, and on the public image of Australian Football.  Sexual relationships of this kind may be intentionally or unintentionally exploitative due to a disparity between coaches /administrators and athletes in terms of authority, power, maturity, status, influence and dependence.  Exploitative sexual relationships may be illegal.

There is no suggestion that the relationships between the two male senior executives and their lovers were in any way exploitative, and they don't seem to have been in a direct position of authority over the women concerned.  The code only says that certain sexual relationships should be avoided and does not go beyond that.

Overall, nobody seems to have benefitted from this episode, and the forced resignations, if anything, made things worse.  There would have been little public scandal had the AFL not made an issue of it.  The AFL has managed to showcase its own shortcomings and bad behaviours, and also seems to be applying a double standard with only the males being formally penalised.  The men concerned, their wives, and the "other women" have all been hurt by the unwelcome and needless publicity.

There are also suggestions of hypocrisy in that there is some suggestion that the AFL hierarchy had known about the scandal for some time and had even tried to cover it up.  It also looks as though the affairs had largely run their course, and that any issues were going away of their own accord.

AFL Chief Gillon McLachlan, for his own sake, had better be a paragon of virtue.  This is because, if he ever is found to have committed a moral transgression, he will be judged by the standards he has applied to others, and nobody is likely to show him much sympathy.