It’s hardly “the court of public opinion”.
They are innocent of a crime, yes.
But their text messages were read out in an actual court - and I guess brands who don’t agree with “spit roasting ****” as being an ideal “on brand” message for their female customer base have made a decision.
Totally agree that they deserve to be rehabilitated - but also see how for a lot of brands they just can’t risk the damage at the moment.
Leaving aside the details of these individuals and their 'crimes', or 'not crimes'. I fail to grasp how companies can justify commercially the expenditure on sponsorship.
There must be an awful lot of 'we think we are getting value for money'. 'We think we are getting the right exposure to our desired target audience'.
It must be the easiest decision in the world to drop a club, or player, and choose someone else. Or leave the money in the bank?