As we learn that his signing by Oldham Athletic appears to have fallen through for now at least, the phrase "trial by social media" is being used huffily by supporters of poor old victim-of-rape-law, Ched Evans.
Awful, isn't it, that vast numbers of people are moved to speak out against the crime of which he is convicted and his public failure to express any remorse? This is no way to serve justice, by allowing any old person to comment on the matter...
The thing is, there are parts of this affair that are dealt with by the law and parts that are not. That Evans's actions amount to rape has been decided by a court of law. That he is not legally barred from working as a professional footballer is decided by the law. Whether or not a football club ought to choose to employ this unrepentant offender is not decided by law: that dilemma is a matter of judgement, of responsibility, of morality. Oh and money: like it or not, it's mainly a matter of money, and Evans is reduced in the January football sales.
Oldham Athletic is a business. It's a peculiar type of business in that it relies more than most on the loyalty and goodwill of its customers, the fans, and that those customers feel a deeper connection than most to the business they buy from. I shop loyally at Aldi but I don't take my family there to wave and cheer and worship its employees like minor deities (OK, maybe a little: they are VERY quick on the checkout). Oldham is also a business that relies on a third interested party, its body of sponsors, who are all too aware that returns on their investment rely on the same goodwill of the fans.
Does Nando's really care whether it's right for Oldham to employ Evans? Hard to tell, but Nando's really does care if thousands of fans and millions of internet commenters decide they will never again cough up their hard-earned for that spicy chicken. I'd love to think Nando's wants to lead the way in changing misogynist culture - that would make me feel even better about eating peri peri - but I rather think their expensive PR, legal and accounting departments know all of the above and that is how they decide to stay with Oldham or pull out. It's all about money.
After the Scottish independence referendum this year, a financier invoked the wrath of many by admitting that he'd brought home over £1 million on a bet on the 'no' result. He was called callous and heartless to benefit so from the crushed dreams of 'The Forty-Five'. He explained though: it was a bet, plain and simple, with very short odds and a large stake of his own personal wealth (he bet £900k and his actual profit was just under £200k). While his heart was interested in the result from a political point of view, his head was thinking only about how strongly he could predict the outcome and how much to stake. The information he needed to predict the result, he said, was out there to be gleaned on the internet. Glean he did, and he took a precisely calculated risk and won.
It was all about the money. It was a professional gamble, as is every sponsorship deal, as is every decision by a club to invest in a new player. To pay big money for a figurehead star player who will draw the crowds and their ticket money as well as scoring prize-money-generating goals? To sign the talented unrepentant sex offender for a bargain basement price and save some cash for the coffers, offsetting the lost sponsorship and lost ticket sales when fans are turned off? Where would a club find the information they need to make that decision? Where, but all over the internet where fans of the Oldham and spicy chicken and rainwater solutions are making it clear how they feel about paying Ched Evans's wages.
If Evans has had a "trial by social media" then it wasn't to decide his guilt or innocence: it was to determine his worth as a financial investment and it looks rather like the jury of club and investors have found that to be 'not enough'.
Kate O'Hara
@1meanhousewife
No comments:
Post a Comment