So here we are again, ladies and gentlemen. Another footballer, another allegation, another opportunity for the chattering classes to feign outrage before quietly moving on to the next scandal. This time it is Achraf Hakimi, the Paris Saint-Germain and Morocco star, facing a rape trial that threatens to tarnish his reputation and, more importantly, expose the hollow core of modern football culture. The Premier League clubs, ever eager to appear virtuous, are now being urged to enforce a zero-tolerance policy. But let us not kid ourselves: this is not about justice. This is about public relations.
Hakimi, a man of considerable talent and even greater wealth, now finds himself at the centre of a legal storm. The details are sordid, as they always are. A woman, whose identity remains protected, has accused him of rape. The French authorities are investigating, and the football world is holding its breath. But why should we be surprised? The trajectory from adulation to accusation is well worn in this industry. From Cristiano Ronaldo to Benjamin Mendy, the pattern is depressingly familiar. Fame, money, and power corrupt absolutely. And football, with its tribal loyalties and multi-million-pound contracts, is a perfect petri dish for such corruption.
The call for Premier League clubs to adopt a zero-tolerance policy is a classic example of moral panic masquerading as reform. As if a few sternly worded memos and mandatory training sessions will somehow cleanse the sport of its deepest pathologies. The problem is not a lack of rules. It is a culture that elevates young men to godlike status, surrounds them with sycophants, and shields them from consequence. We have seen this before. The Roman Empire did not fall because of barbarians at the gate. It fell because of decadence within. And modern football, with its bloated salaries and puerile behaviour, is a microcosm of that same decline.
Let us consider the historical parallels. In Victorian England, the public schools and universities produced gentlemen who were expected to uphold a code of honour. They often failed, but the ideal was there. Today, we have football academies that produce athletes, not men. The moral education is left to chance, or worse, to agents and sponsors. The result is a generation of players who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Hakimi, like so many before him, appears to have fallen into this trap. But do not mistake my cynicism for sympathy. He is a grown man, responsible for his actions. If the allegations are true, he deserves the full weight of the law.
Yet the focus on zero-tolerance policies misses the point entirely. It assumes that the problem is systemic, but the solution is bureaucratic. No policy can replace the basic decency that should have been instilled in these men long before they signed their first professional contract. The clubs, the leagues, the governing bodies: they are all complicit in this moral vacuum. They create the environment, then wring their hands when it produces monsters.
What we are witnessing is not an aberration but a symptom. A symptom of a society that worships celebrity, confuses wealth with worth, and treats women as disposable accessories. The Hakimi case is just the latest chapter in a long, sordid history. And unless we confront the rot at the core, it will not be the last.
So by all means, let the Premier League clubs draft their zero-tolerance policies. Let them hire more diversity officers and issue more platitudes. But do not expect it to change anything. The problem is not the rules. It is the men who break them, and the culture that enables them. Until we address that, we will continue to see these stories, each one more depressing than the last.
Arthur Penhaligon
