I don’t think it’s very complicated. To me, the whole thing unfolded with the tragic inevitability you would see in a Greek play or a Coen Brothers film. Everyone acted according to their nature.
I. Netball Australia went chasing a $15 million sponsorship, but was probably a bit dollar-struck to consider the ramifications for every single player who would play for Australia. Maybe an oversight, but not particularly egregious.
II. Lang Hancock, the prospector, advocated genocide. The company still bears his name. I understand that Gina probably wants to honour his legacy by keeping that name, but if that’s the case then you need to wrestle with all of that legacy.
III. Wallam, one of the people Hancock the prospector wanted bred out of existence, very reasonably had concerns about advertising to the world she was cool with Hancock the genocidal prospector.
IV. Wallam’s teammates supported her to their own potential financial detriment, which is fantastic, an in most circumstances people would hold up as perfect example of Australian mateship, to the extent that’s actually a thing.
V. Wallam ended up agreeing to wear the Hancock branding, which demonstrates she also had something like the greater good of netball in mind.
VI. Gina could have renounced her father’s genocidal comments, or even just empathised with Wallam, but because she’s a billionaire used to getting her way she spat the dummy, took some parting shots on the way out, and claimed victimhood.
VII. Dan Andrews, who I reckon couldn’t help but troll Sky News, jumped in the breach the financial gap.
Every single person or entity in that chain of events acted as you’d expect, but it functions as an interesting social Rorschach test for how people see the world.
Personally, I can’t see how anyone looks at those events, and sees anyone other than Gina as worst on ground (well, perhaps other than Lang). That a great number of people arrived at the view the semi-professional Diamonds players are the ‘spoiled’ ones is absolutely baffling to me.