It seems appropriate that Jason Akermanis was shafted in the middle of an election campaign. The tensions between conflicting interests that led to his sacking have also been exhibited in the election campaign. But in politics they have been negotiated much more disreputably.
In the Akermanis story the individual good, the common good and the good of sectional interests have clearly stood in tension with one another. Akermanis' individual interest was to exploit his footballing talent in order to increase his income and to prepare for a media career after football. So he contributed to the media while continuing to play football.
The common good to which Akermanis contributed by playing football was the happiness and success of the Western Bulldogs. This was not incompatible with his individual interests, but stood in tension with them. Comments by an individual on the club to which he belongs are always likely to threaten the culture of trust on which the welfare of the club depends.
The sectional interests in the Akermanis affair were the media to which he directly and indirectly contributed. Controversial stories that provoke internal conflict are the food and drink of sports media. The thirst for sensational stories was in tension both with the good of the club and ultimately with Akermanis' own good.
The end of the affair saw the club properly gave priority to the common good over Akermanis' individual good. But it also revealed the conflict of interests inherent in the financial reliance of football clubs on the media. The interest aroused by the media adventures for which Jason Akermanis was sacked by the Bulldogs ultimately provides the justification for the media to invest in football, and so underwrites the existence of the Bulldogs and other football clubs.
The tension between the individual good, the common good and the good of sectional interests seen in Akermanis' sacking turned malignant in the Melbourne Storm affair. The common good of a happy and successful team was completely compromised. The good of individual players was secured by clandestine payments.
It then became apparent that sectional interests in the form of a media company effectively controlled the Storm. It sacked its independent directors, commissioned studies which were not made public, and cited the studies in order to apportion