Club sponsorship and value conflicts

[monopoly19]

So it makes a difference whether its public or not ? By keeping these players and stopping them from going public or leaking to the press , they are just as culpable and are saying its acceptable . So our hands arent clean either way . We might as well take the money we can get and put it to good use . Putting on an event for the gays does some good does it not ?

The point of it being public is about the club’s public response (and how it presents its values). I would hope that their private response to instances we don’t hear about would be the same.

[Roadrunner]

The reason I think TB is basically correct in his call is that we are always left with some kind of compromise to make. Fair enough if you believe the Qatar sponsorship is a bit too much of a conflict for you, but others that are less upsetting to you are not bad enough. There's going to be another corporate sponsorship that does things you either aren't aware of or don't care all that much about: Pollution, sweat shops in Bangladesh, corruption, fraud, military activities, etc.

I personally think we should either drop the Qatar sponsorship or drop the Pride game. The conflict is too great. To tell you the truth, I didn't think about it until someone brought it up. I simply wasn't paying attention. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same applies to other corporate affiliations of the Swans that I'm also not paying attention to. So where does it stop?

Your 2nd paragraph is what I’ve been saying- drop one or the other next year.

[liz]

How do you think the Swans would react if one of our players publicly said that homosexuality should be illegal? I think they’d have a pretty strong negative reaction to that. Is the player allowed to think it, yes; but it’s in opposition not only to club values but also broader societal consensus here in Australia. Players are free to choose not to align themselves with clubs/associations that don’t match their values.

That's not entirely hypothetical. A Giants AFLW player chose to sit out their Pride game not so long ago because she felt wearing the jumper conflicted with her religious values. I think it was broadly accepted that she was entitled to hold her religious views. I note that she didn't come out with any statements about homosexuality itself, merely that promoting it didn't align with her religion.

Everyone got on with things.

[TheBloods]

Sorry for swearing all , i am passionate , too much sometimes. We are a great club i will defend it to the hilt

[monopoly19]

That's not entirely hypothetical. A Giants AFLW player chose to sit out their Pride game not so long ago because she felt wearing the jumper conflicted with her religious values. I think it was broadly accepted that she was entitled to hold her religious views. I note that she didn't come out with any statements about homosexuality itself, merely that promoting it didn't align with her religion.

Everyone got on with things.

I imagine Haneen’s situation was a tricky one for the club & AFL, but I think there is a clear difference between beliefs vs behaviours. Her public statement (which is all I’ve seen) emphasised respect and inclusion.

And yes, clubs get on with it all the time despite lots of things. Having Qatar as our sponsor certainly hasn’t impacted the club in any negative way, other than a murmur of discontent among some supporters. But murmur I shall!

[KTigers]

It's a pity we still live in a world where you need to have a Pride game. People should just be cool about how others live their lives,
and stop minding other people's business.

[jono2707]

That's not entirely hypothetical. A Giants AFLW player chose to sit out their Pride game not so long ago because she felt wearing the jumper conflicted with her religious values. I think it was broadly accepted that she was entitled to hold her religious views. I note that she didn't come out with any statements about homosexuality itself, merely that promoting it didn't align with her religion.

Everyone got on with things.

I thought her actions were disgraceful at the time and gave me yet another reason to hate that filthy mob from across town.

She made a choice not to play, sending a not so subtle message to people like me that she doesn't think we deserve to exist. I've gotten on with things but I won't forget what she did.

[liz]

I thought her actions were disgraceful at the time and gave me yet another reason to hate that filthy mob from across town.

She made a choice not to play, sending a not so subtle message to people like me that she doesn't think we deserve to exist. I've gotten on with things but I won't forget what she did.

The reply I'd like to make to that doesn't belong on the footy forum as it is straying far away from football. I might come back later this evening and respond, but will do so on Open Chat.

[Captain]

Clearly it’s time to drop the pride game. Everyone is welcome at the footy and Sydney is a fantastic city at enabling this.

If it was taboo to still be gay and not welcome at the footy then for sure we would need the pride game. But it’s not so time to move on.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Forgive me for being naive, but what's the issue with a cryptocurrency sponsor?

It's a financial scam.

No cryptocurrancy is actually backed by anything substantive. But post Bretton Woods, no currancy is. It's all a confidence trick - but one we are pretty much wedded to.

The club is desperate for sponsorship $$, everyone knows that, especially with two interrupted COVID years. For all those saying they shouldn't have Qatar as a sponsor, where do you expect to get alternative sponsorship money from? Are you putting your hands up to replace the $$?

Raises an interesting question. Are there no sponsorship monies that you'd refuse Captain? If not where would you draw the line?

And I wouldn't be surprised if the same applies to other corporate affiliations of the Swans

Yep I'd be stunned if there wasn't someone on this board that doesn't regard insurance companies as being beyond the pale.

To tell you the truth, I didn't think about it until someone brought it up. I simply wasn't paying attention.

However, you have now. Which does suggest that the contradiction of the Qatar sponsorship may have done more to raise awareness of the plight of the gay community in that country than the Pride round alone could. It's a funny world.

[WomblingFree]

The whole issue of where you draw the line is not black and white and personal experiences and values come into play.

I’d prefer we weren’t sponsored by Qatar but accept it’s a commercial arrangement.

Personally I’d have a much greater issue with a gambling sponsorship.

And if we ever ever make a cent from poker machines directly I’d have to seriously reconsider my level of support

[Captain]

Raises an interesting question. Are there no sponsorship monies that you'd refuse Captain? If not where would you draw the line?

Personally, I don't care less who sponsors us, provided they don't make the club follow their values. It's a slippery slope when you start taking the moral high ground at every opportunity.

Let's look at some of our sponsors:

Nike - sweatshops
McDonalds - makes money off obesity
Origin - fracking
VW - emissions debacle
realestate.com - Murdoch
HSBC - Mexico drug money laundering

Do you guys want us to cancel every sponsorship??

[Roadrunner]

Personally, I don't care less who sponsors us, provided they don't make the club follow their values. It's a slippery slope when you start taking the moral high ground at every opportunity.

Let's look at some of our sponsors:

Nike - sweatshops
McDonalds - makes money off obesity
Origin - fracking
VW - emissions debacle
realestate.com - Murdoch
HSBC - Mexico drug money laundering

Do you guys want us to cancel every sponsorship??

No sponsor makes a club follow their values, Captain. They are there to promote themselves. This case is a bit different as we are promoting a value in the Pride game which is in direct contradiction to the practices of a major sponsor. No problem having them as sponsors; as you and others point out no sponsor is squeaky clean. It’s just time we dropped the Pride game, that’s all.

[Faunac8]

I must admit that sporting sponsorship’s and the associated branding are wasted on me and as far as I am aware don’t influence any of my buying decisions.
It’s apparent that some of our associations have the potential to create division and discussion but at the end of the day it’s up to the audience being targeted by that marketing to decide if they want to be influenced by it or not.
What this discussion has done is potentially create more awareness of just how bad the human rights record of Qatar is.
Democracy has its faults but it’s much more preferable to the hereditary monarchy model in Qatar.
Would I prefer they didn’t sponsor our club ? Of course but it is a commercial decision made by our club and so I accept that.
Does their sponsorship lead me to want to fly with them ? Not at all and every one of us who doesn’t align with their , or for that matter any other sponsors values , can make a personal decision to not spend money with them.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Personally, I don't care less who sponsors us, provided they don't make the club follow their values. It's a slippery slope when you start taking the moral high ground at every opportunity.

Let's look at some of our sponsors:

Nike - sweatshops
McDonalds - makes money off obesity
Origin - fracking
VW - emissions debacle
realestate.com - Murdoch
HSBC - Mexico drug money laundering

Do you guys want us to cancel every sponsorship??

Perhaps a touch defensive, my query was not making any value judgement whotsover. But it's made your position absolutely clear. No ambiguity at all.
Other posters have what you might call a more slippery slope approach, illegality is a stop line for some. Others have different criteria.
One concern is the danger of the "silent assent" or "tacit agreement." If the club were to remain silent on a topic because of the preferences of a sponsor, that becomes pretty much "cash for no-comment" - I don't believe that's taken place in the Qatar case, has it? Should it ever do so, it's only a short step to "cash for comment".