Club sponsorship and value conflicts

[Bloods05]

Its ridiculous , anyone can stand up for what they believe in but no player is bigger than the team (or the game itself) and therefore provided they are prepared to forgo their role and their salary in the name of that virtue then fine , but a persons individual beliefs shouldn't trump the teams (or the whole game) and if sponsors leave and revenue falls then hes not only hurting himself , he will be hurting everyone in the game.

Would you have said that about fag companies' sponsorship? Sometimes people have to make stand, because others have lost sight of what really matters.

[Mr Magoo]

Would you have said that about fag companies' sponsorship? Sometimes people have to make stand, because others have lost sight of what really matters.

Personally I didnt have a problem with it . I grew up in that era , dont smoke , never have and never will. Im a little sick of everyone telling me how they think I should live and the sacrifices I should make while not doing any of the heavy lifting themselves.

It doesnt mean that I stand for nothing but I also dont think I should be entitled to impose on you my beliefs and vice versa .

Like I said, happy for him to make a stand as long as hes prepared to forgo what he currently benefits from those things in the name of it.

[Bloods05]

Personally I didnt have a problem with it . I grew up in that era , dont smoke , never have and never will. Im a little sick of everyone telling me how they think I should live and the sacrifices I should make while not doing any of the heavy lifting themselves.

It doesnt mean that I stand for nothing but I also dont think I should be entitled to impose on you my beliefs and vice versa .

Like I said, happy for him to make a stand as long as hes prepared to forgo what he currently benefits from those things in the name of it.

Taking a stand is not the same thing as imposing your will on someone else. It's just saying this is what I believe - take it or leave it.

[Mr Magoo]

It is if the result is that the whole team or the sport suffers from your choice to take a stand . While you forgo nothing

[barry]

I wonder if those cricketers and netballers will be so willing to take a stand if it hits them in the hip pocket personally.

It's an admirable stance but not very pragmatic in the real world, and who is the arbitrator of what is an "acceptable" sponsorship

The cricketers are filling the leadership gap that the senior executives have left vacant.
That's what they call 'woke' apparently. Lol.

[mcs]

All clubs accept gambling money from the AFL's sponsorship. It's a real contradiction.

At least the Swans (and a few others around the place across different codes) have broken the nexus of direct revenue from gambling companies - it is a small step, but one in the right direction. But on the broader point you are exactly right.

I'd love to know the true amount the AFL (and indeed the other codes) receives per year in total from gambling related income. I'm not that interested in the direct sponsorship payments they get (insert official wagering partner here whoever that is - which should be the first bit to go), but at least it has some form of transparency.

This article has a decent go at it from earlier this year in total, but still seems a reasonable amount of guess work (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...14-p59wa7.html.

The worst part of all in my opinion are the product fees paid by bookmakers for every bet taken on AFL. As that article suggests, that is where the big gold mine is.

A part of every $ bet (if the fees are based on turnover) or on every $ lost (if based on net profits) flowing straight back directly to the AFL. That to me is the true blood money - and I suspect the $30m to $40m suggested in that article may well be somewhat lower than the true value, given the astounding year on year growth in sports betting in recent years. Sports betting turnover in Australia is up somewhere around 500 - 600% in the last decade alone (from about $3.2 billion in 2011-12 to somewhere around $16.6 billion in 2020-21).

That is the element I detest the most. And it'll be the part the AFL will never give up (nor will any other footy code). Like the racing codes, that extra little money spinner is a not insignificant feed trough for the fat cat largess of the modern corporatised sporting landscape..

[Bloods05]

The cricketers are filling the leadership gap that the senior executives have left vacant.
That's what they call 'woke' apparently. Lol.

Precisely.

[barry]

I dont think you can equate gambling and climate damage, and modern day slavery as the same thing.

Cricketers: Knocking back fossil fuel sponsorship. Nothing is truer than these companies are destroying the environment and quality of life for everyone. Its only a matter of time before fossil fuel advertising is banned. The only thing delaying it is govenment corruption and the long tenticles of the fossil fuel industry, but times are changing.
Qatar: Swans should get rid of that ASAP. There is no possible argument where this is acceptable. Tom Harley's poor judgement here.
Gambling: While obnoxious, isnt in the same league as climate destruction and slavery. Hitching anything to this just invites attack.

climate change is the one all parties should be 100% focused on, and how good is it to have people of integrity like Cummings in roles of influence. Good Job.

[mcs]

I dont think you can equate gambling and climate damage, and modern day slavery as the same thing.

Cricketers: Knocking back fossil fuel sponsorship. Nothing is truer than these companies are destroying the environment and quality of life for everyone. Its only a matter of time before fossil fuel advertising is banned. The only thing delaying it is govenment corruption and the long tenticles of the fossil fuel industry, but times are changing.
Qatar: Swans should get rid of that ASAP. There is no possible argument where this is acceptable. Tom Harley's poor judgement here.
Gambling: While obnoxious, isnt in the same league as climate destruction and slavery. Hitching anything to this just invites attack.

climate change is the one all parties should be 100% focused on, and how good is it to have people of integrity like Cummings in roles of influence. Good Job.

Get where you are coming from Barry, but they are all pretty awful in my book. Different degrees of bad, but still bad.

And I wouldn't call the harm gambling does to some people 'obnoxious'. It is a complex policy area, but for those people it ruins, it is pretty awful.

[Blood Fever]

Get where you are coming from Barry, but they are all pretty awful in my book. Different degrees of bad, but still bad.

And I wouldn't call the harm gambling does to some people 'obnoxious'. It is a complex policy area, but for those people it ruins, it is pretty awful.

When Crown casino was set up in Melbourne at a site different from where it is now, there was a large open car park for its customers. Every car in the car park was pretty run down. Preying on those who could least afford it.

[Kafka's Ghost]

I wonder if those cricketers and netballers will be so willing to take a stand if it hits them in the hip pocket personally.

It's an admirable stance but not very pragmatic in the real world, and who is the arbitrator of what is an "acceptable" sponsorship

It is an admirable stance, and one which should be applauded.
All these things evolve. It would be unthinkable today to accept sponsorship money from the tobacco industry.
Qatar is already having the spotlight shone on its human rights failings thanks to the World Cup. May prove not to be the positive its government had hoped.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Captain]

I wonder if those cricketers and netballers will be so willing to take a stand if it hits them in the hip pocket personally.

It's an admirable stance but not very pragmatic in the real world, and who is the arbitrator of what is an "acceptable" sponsorship

Absolutely spot on.

[Markwebbos]

I wonder if those cricketers and netballers will be so willing to take a stand if it hits them in the hip pocket personally.

It's an admirable stance but not very pragmatic in the real world, and who is the arbitrator of what is an "acceptable" sponsorship

There’s a growing acceptance that sportspeople have the same rights as everyone else and don’t lose them because they are professionals.

The right to wear or not a particular sponsor logo is an act of freedom of expression, as is taking a knee, wearing or not a pride guernsey.

[stevoswan]

I wonder if those cricketers and netballers will be so willing to take a stand if it hits them in the hip pocket personally.

It's an admirable stance but not very pragmatic in the real world, and who is the arbitrator of what is an "acceptable" sponsorship

I would think it's those who are being sponsored.....the players.....and they have spoken and now Gina can take her dirty money and shove it. I think it's great that this can happen 'in the real world'.

[Bloods05]

I would think it's those who are being sponsored.....the players.....and they have spoken and now Gina can take her dirty money and shove it. I think it's great that this can happen 'in the real world'.

Gina thinks it's inappropriate for sporting organisations to be used to advance political or social causes, but totally fine for them to be used to advance commercial interests.