They make a decision when they sign on, that the benefits outweigh the constraints.
In sport, players sign on because they have negotiated their 'worth' to the game both on and off the field.
Folau couldn't be excused for not knowing what expectations he was signing up to.
The controversy surrounding his public views has, to a greater or lesser extent, surrounded him since the Australian Marriage Law Survey November 2017.
Folau, had a second chance to renegotiate his contract or, if his conscience couldn't allow it, to not sign up to clear expectations.
He chose, freely, to sign up and if this artcle -- At peace: Folau opens up about faith, footy and why he's staying put -- is true, it was a difficult process leading to a resolution.
Now, he's back doing the thing that was the cause of the controversy in the first place.
He didn't, as a matter of principle, go to RA and say, 'I can't, in good conscience, do this anymore'.
He just, very publicly, broke the terms of his contract and, effectively, dared RA (and his sponsors) to sack him.
Now he's seeking to sue them.
If free speech was the issue, why sign up to a contract he now says is a problem?
The free speech zealots, don't have an answer for this.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »