Opinion
Nick Blakey is an excellent footballer, an All-Australian defender in the prime of his career with speed and a lethal left foot.
North Melbourne officials were excited to land him in this trade period for that reason, but it was no ordinary trade that sent him from Sydney to the Kangaroos.
That’s because Blakey remains one of four AFL players still subject to a Victoria Police investigation into allegations of sexual assault at the Pullman hotel, where the Swans were staying after beating Essendon at the MCG in round 23.
The five players who were suspended by Sydney for breaching behavioural standards, including Blakey, have consistently denied any wrongdoing. None have been charged.
But it remains a challenging situation, particularly for the women who made the allegations.
Because, less than two months later and with that police investigation unresolved, a club board decided to offer one of the players involved a spot in their team, and for a salary close to $12 million over eight years.
In what world does that happen?
We have the answer: in the AFL, where a club exists to win and any concerns about behaviour can be addressed with an apology and a promise to do better.
That is all Blakey can really do. His dissatisfaction with the Swans shows he doesn’t believe his involvement in whatever may have happened at the Pullman has been fairly reflected in Sydney’s decisions. My discomfort with the trade is not directed towards him.
My issue is that the club’s decision and the AFL’s willingness to wave it through makes all the virtue-signalling words the industry uses ring hollow. The league creates an impression that it is a leader on social issues, which carries an assumed yet laughable mortgage on defining what makes someone “a good person”.
CEO Andrew Dillon wrote in the days after the Pullman incident: “Our first question should not be what this means for a football club. It should be whether our actions match the standards we stand for and the community expects of us.
“As a sport, and as an industry, we are clear about the standards we expect and the values we stand for and the need to uphold them.
“Being clear about our standards also means being prepared to act when those standards are not met.”
Sydney acted. They took a strong stand to show they stood for more than just winning, and it cost them.
North Melbourne certainly acted. They now have Blakey on more money than anyone else at the club.
The Roos showed it was one club taking a stand, rather than the industry, by seizing on the opportunity Sydney’s approach presented them.
The AFL will say it can’t dictate to the clubs what they do during trade period, particularly during an active police investigation. But every decision reflects on the league, and the size of the deal is incongruous with those words from a month ago.
The AFL waving the trade through implies, whether true or not, that the league knows something we don’t. Surely a club wouldn’t sign a player to such a long-term deal and give away such draft capital if it wasn’t confident he would line up the next season.
Actions speak louder than words and the trade showed in stark reality that the defining feature of the game at the highest level is how well you play it and the rest can be, to use a football cliche, worked through.
That’s fine and not unexpected, but spare us the bullshit. The right many in the game assume – to lead on social issues – is disappearing before our eyes. That’s unfortunate because their power to influence is unquestionable.
That’s why this trade is challenging for those who love footy, as the decisions the players made that night – regardless of whether anything criminal may have occurred – were out of step with the expectations that clubs and supporters have of players.
Seeing one of them rewarded financially so soon after just felt wrong.
North Melbourne’s offer is challenging for volunteers working their guts out to maintain great community football clubs with inclusive environments for no reward except in giving people a safe place to gather on the weekend.
It will be challenging to people within the North Melbourne Football Club and at other AFL clubs who sell a vision that tries to create a purpose beyond merely winning.
North Melbourne players and staff members are now representatives of the decision to bring Blakey on board – whether they like it or not.
They will be muted in what they can say because anyone who objects is in for a fight. The machine operates at full tilt to support those who entertain rather than complain.
The Kangaroos decided to communicate the reasons behind their decision to staff and their premiership-winning AFLW team. The forum wasn’t an opportunity to approve or object to those reasons, as such. It was so that everyone understood the club’s reasoning, while giving a chance for questions about how to respond to stakeholders when queries about the decision inevitably arise.
But even if it had been a forum for debate, would anyone who objected have been perceived as difficult?
The Roos have built a strong culture under impressive leadership from the president Sonja Hood and CEO Jen Watt. And they are a football club with the primary aim of winning games. That’s understood and has been reinforced time and time again across all the clubs.
Perhaps it’s the pretence that it means something more that irks the most.
The salient question for North to answer is this: what gives them the confidence they can absorb Blakey into their program and maintain a strong culture when questions abound about the players’ behaviour at the Pullman?
Having entered into such a big contract, will they pull up behaviour if performance is strong?
They can argue they showed that capacity when they cut Tarryn Thomas for “inappropriate treatment of women” in 2024.
Meanwhile, the league will argue it can’t do anything of substance until the police investigation concludes.
Currently, it seems the outcome of that police investigation will determine the AFL and industry’s standards.
Because the hand-wringing that followed the Pullman incident, and the concern for the women making the complaints that were so frequently expressed before footy issues were discussed back in August, are no longer part of the script.
I am not in a position to lecture and won’t go down that path.
But now that we understand through research, such as what’s laid out on Our Watch’s website, that “gender inequality sets the underlying context for violence against women”, we should all be prepared to do better.
More: