If I was convinced that Taylor was concerned with the good of the game and not primarily interested in having a very secure place on the Premier League gravy train, bolstered by support from the most cynical collection of union members on the planet, I'd say he is a very silly man.
As it is, I think he knows exactly where his extremely lucrative bread is buttered and would back any members to the hilt on anything, as long as it retains the support of a profession whose members are generally, lets say, lacking in a social conscience.
If he had anything about him he would realise that professional footballers in the UK have an outrageous public image problem - one that is either not present in many countries (Germany) or not as exaggerated.
Put simply, as a whole, the general public have nothing but contempt for professional footballers. They are viewed as a bunched of total bastards who have no sense of perspective or reality. Now, that's a gross generalisation and not fair on many members of the profession, but it does reflect the feeling of the public.
Yet Taylor would rather cut off his bollocks than address this. The PFA is probably the only body that can take steps to shift the public's position and opinion. But time and time again not only do they fail to encourage their members to engage in behaviour that would change public opinion, but they also manage to find themselves defending, or at least appearing to defend, behaviour that the public find disgusting.
I understand it is the duty of a union to stand behind their members, but the very public nature of footballers and the ridiculous wealth of those that tend to make the big news, and therefore shape public opinion, means that a shrewd organisation would act in a much more publicity aware manner.
But Taylor isn't interested in admonishing his members imo or being anything like a driving force behind the rehabilitation of professional footballer's image and reputation. To do so would risk the ire of his members and be gambling with his very lucrative position on the gravy train.
His union, or at least the parts of it and cases which make big news, is totally different in nature to what you would class as workers unions. And as such, he should be shrewd enough to realise that their actions should not necessarily be governed by exactly the same concerns as all times - at least when dealing with extremely wealthy arseholes, for whom the public have contempt, engaging in ridiculous behaviour.
(I'd also love to know how he encourages his members as a whole to address the perception of them having no sense of social conscience or reality and why he really thinks that the profession in Germany is not viewed as full of wankers who are thick as pigshit - again, yes, this is a cliche and generalisation, but it is, without doubt, a reflection of the public view that has been moulded by the actions of his members)
