I read a good article on the topic of aristocracy the other day, if I can remember where I'll link to it, the conclusion was that we can't expect a lot from the masses when we have The Kardashians, Bono Vox and the cast of Big Bang Theory occupying the position of aristocrats in the social hierarchy.
So it is with the knights and champions of the people, they've always been rough around the edges and played up in private but in the old days they were restrained from publicly humiliating themselves and their peers by the code of behaviour established by their aristocratic patrons.
An aristocracy comprised of whores isn't going to inspire virtue and introspection in it's champions.

A bit one sided there Nick, you have missed at least half your target.

Yes some of these sportsmen are not far removed from thugs. Their habit of excreting in inappropriate places is rather disgusting, but their behaviour with the female of the species is basically what those females desire. You only have to look at the ladies at their presentation nights, half covered by the most revealing dresses they can find, to see how they think of themselves.

Many women have always wanted to attract the alpha male to breed with, & the behaviour is basically the same, the only thing that has changed is the reporting of the sexual exploits of sportsmen, politicians & the ladies

It is not only the beautiful ladies either. When living in share accommodation 40 years ago in Sydney, it was usual to see odd males around, or departing, on Sunday morning. Many of the single ladies went out Saturday night planning on getting laid, & brought home the best bloke they could pull.

I don't recall seeing any football heroes, but there was no shortage of males, & I probably wouldn't have recognised them anyway.

So mate, nothing has changed, except the publicity.

Generations of sportsmen have behaved like Shane and Kurtley. It used to be gossiped about, but tacitly accepted.

Now, everyone has a sense of entitlement to match a sports star, so these men's sexual conquests are less accepting of being disgarded.

The article attempts to tie the behaviours of some individuals back to changing social values, I got the impression of an attempt to cast a negative light on those changing values.

That point is only really valid if bad behaviour was a new thing or dramatically increased in conjunction with those changed social values and a causal relationship can be established. I don't think that either has been dine here.

A lot of different failings of human behaviour from the past could be explored but I'll point to just one area for the sake of simplicty.

The abuse of children by catholic clergy and members of various other orders appears to have been widespread and of horrific proportions. Far greater than the failings of most sportspeople.

Those abusers were members of a body whose central tenents stand against the social values the author appears to be highlighting. An organisation with an extreme devotion to central authority, with specific rejection of the types of personal autonomy that I get the impression the author is pointing to. The abuses appear to have been covered up, excused, enabled not just amongst those directly involved in the abuse but by most if not all levels of that organisation.

Human beings have our failings, some will make damaging choices regardless of the social values in place. If its a choice between a society with a slavish devotion to central authority and its failings and excesses or individuals responsible for their own choices and able to speak out against abuse and excess I suspect the later is far more likely to result in sane outcomes.

R0bert