There have been more than a few instances recently of premiership footballers trying to prevent information from entering the public domain. Injunctions have been sought and granted, and rumour and speculation about the identity and alleged transgression of the players concerned. Eventually, in almost every case, the player is identified, the injunction is lifted, and the story is written.
So who benefits from this game of cat and mouse? Obviously, the legal team employed to apply for the injunction charge handsomely for their services. The player "enjoys" a brief period of anonymity. We, the public, get to have conversations in pubs and coffee bars about who might have done what to whom.
However, at some point, the "truth" will out. and the player concerned becomes either a figure of fun or sympathy, depending on your moral stance.
But is there a wider point here? In my view, absolutely. In business, if there is something damaging that you think you can keep away from the media, consider confessing immediately. That way, you become the prime source of information, and prevent any speculation, which could be damaging in itself. You get to choose the time and method of release. You have the chance to apologise and explain your position. The sooner the news is out, the sooner it will be forgotten.
So, footballers and business people alike, rather than employing an expensive legal team, why not look at a way to manage the information by releasing it yourself?
Of course, the other option is not to do anything daft in the first place.....