Thousands of young men and women play football at school and for clubs. Out of these a few individuals have come to public attention for negative reasons. Blaming 'football' for the behaviour of the few is like blaming all car drivers for the hoons that are regularly reported in the media.

The few individuals who bring disgrace to their football code most likely would have committed similar offences if they had never played football. Similarly a cricketer sacked for his boozing and inability to obey orders would have had similar faults if he had never laid his hands on a bat. It is the same in all walks of life, for instance some Net users are cyber bullies, while others are into child porn - their behaviour generalises and doubtless if the Net didn't exist they would be up to their dirty tricks elsewhere.

Such is the competition between the football codes for business, any problem with players or management will be self-regulating. In particular, the selection criteria for representatives, players, coaches and management are already taking risk management into account. There will be more of that as NRL clubs tot up the additional risks and costs of erratic personalities. Mega-millionaire Frank Lowy's bid for the 2018 FIFA World Cup for Australia would already be putting a lot of pressure on other football codes.
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=829490

Football is of enormous interest to Australians as evidenced by their involvement as players, supporters or as an audience.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/football/

I played real football well into my twenties and enjoyed it immensely. Although my team-mates and I certainly weren't averse to a beer or three after a match, we never felt the need to have gang-bangs, glass our girlfriends or crap in hotel hallways. My eighteen-year old son still plays, and I very much doubt that he engages in those apparently normal (at least for NRL players and their apologists) activities either.

There are clearly cultural problems that are specific to Rugby League in Australia, and I for one am heartened that the NRL is finally taking them seriously.

However, until the OP retracts his silly and completely unsubstantiated claim about the Rugby League culture producing "most, if not all" the corporate high flyers on the boards of Australian companies, I shall continue to draw attention to the numerous examples of NRL misbehaviour that appear every week in the media.

Even if it was true, are these the sorts of people we'd want as captains of commerce and industry in this country?

TPP: “I did see how aggressive a female friend became when given male hormones and was quite surprised but then I am always surprised when humans can’t overcome their humanness.[smile]”

Your surprise doesn’t surprise me. Overcoming humanness may have been on the feminist agenda for some time, but re-education and legislation go only so far. Good for business as they were, we still veer back to a humanness defined by our genetics and chemical cocktails we produce or ingest. Otherwise we’re just not happy and produce or ingest some more

C J Morgan, "There are clearly cultural problems that are specific to Rugby League in Australia,.."

It that were so, given the number of people involved in rugby league and the close scrutiny of the media, there would be hundreds of serious problems being reported daily. You have had to scrabble to provide two cases, one of which is an allegation which is being contested. Even a man is innocent until proved guilty.

The behaviour of some Rugby League players and their supporters betray their roots in the rougher, tougher ends of town. That is the culture at fault and it is already present to be coped with, minimised and managed by football administrators. You can take the boy out of Ipswich, but how do you take the Ipswich out of the boy (or girl!)?

Why not take the crime statistics for the lower socioeconomic 'burbs from which professional rugby league draws most of its recruits and compare with the amount of crime committed by footballers? Because relatively few crimes are reported for footballers compared with the populations they originate from, it is very likely that the management and handling from the NRL saves many from a life of crime.

Go to the 'burbs on Friday night and watch the locals in their chosen places of entertainment, then try to convince me that the alleged 'football culture' is any different or worse than the 'native' culture you encounter.

The problem for the NRL is weeding out those who cannot rise above this (their cultural roots) and who do not have the will and self-discipline to put their football career, team and club first. Despite the best efforts of coaches and administrators there will always be a few who get through the mesh and do not respond to the intense efforts of coaches and administrators to swing them around. They are the problems and what is changing is the willingness to drop them like a rock despite the investment in them.

..../2

>> Why not take the crime statistics for the lower socioeconomic 'burbs from which professional rugby league draws most of its recruits and compare with the amount of crime committed by footballers? <<

Can you back that up with some evidence? My understanding is that most Rugby stars were fostered by expensive private schools who see it as good training for being brutal and unthinking in the world of business.

I'm pretty sure that only a tiny minority of them come from the "lower socioeconomic 'burbs".

2/

What is also not being recognised is that the ladettes from the lower socioeconomic 'burbs are just as rough as the lads and are more than capable of hell-raising and leading themselves and others astray. Again, go and have a look.

Talk with a coach and find out just how much they put into their players. Modern coaching responsibilities and player management goes well beyond football skills and tactics on the field because every aspect of the player's life impacts on on-field performance.

Of course football players are not saints but they are being stereotyped and ruthlessly used by the media. Anything to sell papers and get an audience. ACA boasted about its record ratings from the Tracey Grimshaw story on Johns. A splendid effort at making news.

BTW, has anyone ever noticed just how many NRL players wince at the boofheaded interviews and pranks they are subjected to on The Footy Show? Many of the players are embarrassed by the antics and show it. Other correct the misleading impressions where they get a chance.

Ever noticed the number of players who consistently refuse to be drawn into the wilful promotion of 'biff' and gratuitous violence by 'jock strap' interviewers wearing the stupid blazers of the TV channels?

Then the is the violation of players' privacy in the dressing rooms and when they are injured.

If anyone is not being professional about football it is the media, who just happen to 'make' the news. True there are others who have their own hobby horses to ride at the expense of sportsmen, but it is the uethical, sensationalist media who provide the opportunity for that.