Until Tuesday afternoon, my perspective on Nick Kyrgios was bemusement. His capacity for making people’s heads explode seemed close to a perfect illustration of Australia’s contradictory relationship with its sporting heroes. What if he wins Wimbledon, while continuing to behave like an entitled dickhead? How are we to feel about that?
But the game changed with the breaking news that Kyrgios is facing a criminal allegation of common assault, summoned to appear in the ACT Magistrates Court over a so-far not particularised incident involving his former girlfriend. It is a serious charge, with a maximum two-year prison sentence.
According to Kyrgios’ lawyers, the technically correct position is that he has not at this stage been “charged”; that won’t happen until he faces the court and it “formally accepts the prosecution will be proceeding with the charge”. It’s important that the media gets this right in its reporting, although the substantive position remains that the allegation has been formally made and Kyrgios stands accused of an act of violence against a woman.
The organisers of Wimbledon, the world’s premier professional tennis tournament in which Kyrgios had reached the quarter-finals when the news broke, issued a statement:
We have been made aware of legal proceedings involving Nick Kyrgios in Australia, and as they are ongoing, we are not in a position to offer a comment. We are in touch with Nick’s team and he remains scheduled to play his quarter-final match.
That was their answer to a question they haven’t been directly asked: why is Kyrgios still playing?
It’s an issue that professional sports everywhere are by necessity slowly coming to terms with: what should they do when one of their stars has been accused of doing something that society would, if it were proved true, condemn?
Historically, most sports have retreated behind the presumption of innocence and refused to take any action in the absence of a criminal conviction. Most still do.
It’s been a big question locally, with the peak bodies for our two biggest sports at odds. The National Rugby League broke ranks in 2019 after a spate of rape allegations against NRL players brought intolerable pressure on the game’s reputation, instituting a “no-fault stand down policy” that mandates that a player charged with a serious criminal offence (carrying a maximum prison term of 11 years or more) must be stood down and prevented from playing until the case is resolved.
The AFL has so far declined to follow suit, maintaining that it is more appropriate to deal with each alleged atrocity on a case-by-case basis. Globally, the NRL’s approach is still a stand-out.
The principles that ought to be guiding professional codes are far more straightforward than the public debate would suggest. There is no overwhelming complexity in the attempt to balance the rights and interests of players with those of their sports, clubs and communities. It just requires some dispassionate consideration and the application of a consistent and transparent approach.
The thing that always gets in the way is the presumption of innocence, a concept constantly abused by misuse. It is a creature of the criminal law, where it plays a critical role because it is the foundational principle of the whole system. Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, following an inquiry in which the entire burden of that proof falls on the prosecution, is an incredibly high bar by design, because it is intended to ensure that only the definitively guilty person is ever subjected to the punishment and opprobrium that follow conviction.
That equation was not created for, and is inapplicable to, contexts outside criminal justice. In the workplace, for example, we have come to accept that there is behaviour that falls well short of being criminal but which is absolutely unacceptable. Sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination are examples, any of which could suspend or terminate a perpetrator’s career.
A school, if one of its teachers has been credibly accused of committing an act of violence or violation, must act ahead of any criminal prosecution to protect its students. That’s beyond questioning.
A sport has different considerations: its own integrity, its social licence, the interests of the community and the status of its players as role models. If a tennis player has been charged with assault, allowing them to continue playing is unlikely to present a physical risk, but it raises different concerns that the organising body should address.
If Kyrgios was a company director, senior public servant, trustee of a charity or government minister, the question would be framed in terms of whether he is “fit and proper” to continue in that capacity while the allegation hangs over his head. Is it acceptable, all things considered, or must his interests (the presumption of his innocence and his commercial/career interest in being allowed to play on) become subsidiary to matters of higher concern?
There is no correct answer to that question. Under the NRL’s policy, Kyrgios would not be automatically stood down, but he might be on a discretionary basis in line with the game’s stated position on gendered violence.
I’m just surprised, without proposing an answer because that’s not for me to do, that the question isn’t even being asked. It should be.
There is a fundamental difference between tennis and sports such as NRL. In NRL and AFL the players are employees. They can be stood down on full pay, minimising their loss. This is a fair balance between maintaining presumption of innocence and protecting the sport. This approach cannot work with tennis because of the different competition structure. Eg if Kyrios had been excluded from Wimbledon then fully exonerated, who would compensate him and how much? Not saying this dictates the answer but it needs to be considered.
I can’t stand the sight of Kyrgios (and think he should be booted out of tennis) but he deserves the right to Due Process and the presumption of innocence in criminal legal matters.
Trial by Media and Social Media is nothing more than “mob justice”.
What has happened to the presumption of Innocence?
I fail to understand a lot of the logic in the arguments put forward in this article.
Simply because there is an allegation of wrong doing does not justify actions that should only apply if they were proven.
The logic behind the article is purely clickbait. Crikey is as much prone to it as the bigger rags.
Am not much of a sports fan so do not follow tennis closely and pretty much all I know of Nick Kyrgios is his reputation for bad behaviour on court. However regarding this allegation against him isn’t it important to observe the principal that he should be allowed to earn his income entitled to the presumption of innocence until and unless he is proven guilty when the matter is tested in court? When a rugby/AFL player is stood down aren’t they still retained on pay till the matter is in court? Perhaps the issue of bringing the game/sport into disrepute is something that could be resolved after innocence/guilt is determined and recompense sought (maybe the threat of such a consequence could tidy up some of the bad behaviour) but the presumption of innocence should be upheld against the possibility of vexatious allegations for whatever reason (while not suggesting that is the case here).
Really? Has anyone looked at the timing of this allegation?
He has finally performed close to his ability and progressed accordingly and this comes out after 7 months?
There is more to this than meets the eye.
Astute observation Jonesy ! How long ago was the alleged incident? Timing is everything so “they” say. I like what’s happening with this allegation much less than the man himself.