Club sponsorship and value conflicts

[Bloods05]

I agree that a lot of people are never able to see their own hypocrisy. Especially those who scream how much they hate Rinehart and then use products made of steel or cricketers who hate energy companies but then play night games and fly the world first class.

This conversation has descended into farce. The simple facts are these: corporations do not sponsor sport because they are nice people. They do so in the expectation that their public image will benefit from their association with the sport in question. If those who play the sport do not wish to have their names associated with these corporations, because they disapprove of their actions, they are perfectly entitled to do so. If the sporting authorities believe that they can no longer finance the sport in the absence of that sponsorship, and are therefore unable to pay the players' wages, they are entitled to say so and see how the players respond. That is what is known as negotiation.

The idea that this is about casting the first stone when we are all at fault in some way is just silly. It is about people making moral choices. If we give up on that, we are truly stuffed.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Funny how one side of the fence screams for protection of 'freedom of speech' then when people excercise this right, the same people scream 'cancel culture' when that speech freedom leads to some sort of response. They like to have it both ways......never able to see their own hypocrisy.

Not able to see one's own hypocrisy is a pretty common tell tale of narcissistic personality and other empathy deficit disorders.

[KTigers]

This conversation has descended into farce. The simple facts are these: corporations do not sponsor sport because they are nice people. They do so in the expectation that their public image will benefit from their association with the sport in question. If those who play the sport do not wish to have their names associated with these corporations, because they disapprove of their actions, they are perfectly entitled to do so. If the sporting authorities believe that they can no longer finance the sport in the absence of that sponsorship, and are therefore unable to pay the players' wages, they are entitled to say so and see how the players respond. That is what is known as negotiation.

The idea that this is about casting the first stone when we are all at fault in some way is just silly. It is about people making moral choices. If we give up on that, we are truly stuffed.

The thing is of course it won't be the players that are hurt financially, it'll be the club admin staff that make a fifth or a tenth
of what the players make that will be hurt. There is a salary cap for the players and the clubs have to spend 90% or 95%
(I'm not sure which it is) of it. Remember during 2020, the players took a 20% pay cut and a whole lot of club admin staff
were laid off. So Isaac Heeney went from $700K to $560K (he lost about $70K after tax, the poor thing), and bunch of
club staff went from $70K or $80K to nothing. It was pretty much the same as what happened at Qantas. Alan Joyce went
from $11M to $10M and 800 baggage handlers went from $80K to nothing. This is what always happens. The "important"
people have an inconsequential beard trim and the "little" people have their whole head cut off.
But hey, the important folk have made a statement and the world is now a much better place for it.

[Bloods05]

The thing is of course it won't be the players that are hurt financially, it'll be the club admin staff that make a fifth or a tenth
of what the players make that will be hurt. There is a salary cap for the players and the clubs have to spend 90% or 95%
(I'm not sure which it is) of it. Remember during 2020, the players took a 20% pay cut and a whole lot of club admin staff
were laid off. So Isaac Heeney went from $700K to $560K (he lost about $70K after tax, the poor thing), and bunch of
club staff went from $70K or $80K to nothing. It was pretty much the same as what happened at Qantas. Alan Joyce went
from $11M to $10M and 800 baggage handlers went from $80K to nothing. This is what always happens. The "important"
people have an inconsequential beard trim and the "little" people have their whole head cut off.
But hey, the important folk have made a statement and the world is now a much better place for it.

Inequities like these are a fact of life and need to be dealt with separately. They do not in themselves constitute a reason for ignoring the issues that are being raised by the players. Some good sense here:

https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/10/24/gina-rinehart-netball-australia-donnell-wallam/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fb_ads&utm_campaign=engagement&fbclid=IwAR2LVAzPhc_8zXn9LQDfp8tOKS28xi0Mkmgpqhs_4cExeBkWBxR7NtRaY-s

[KTigers]

Inequities like these are a fact of life and need to be dealt with separately. They do not in themselves constitute a reason for ignoring the issues that are being raised by the players. Some good sense here:
https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/10/24...BkWBxR7NtRaY-s

The only people ignoring the issues raised by the players were the players themselves for their entire lives up until about 15
minutes ago. It's taken Nat Fyfe till he's 30 to figure out what a lot of kids knew when they were 19. I guess he's been busy
and all, chasing a little ball around.

[stevoswan]

The thing is of course it won't be the players that are hurt financially, it'll be the club admin staff that make a fifth or a tenth
of what the players make that will be hurt. There is a salary cap for the players and the clubs have to spend 90% or 95%
(I'm not sure which it is) of it. Remember during 2020, the players took a 20% pay cut and a whole lot of club admin staff
were laid off. So Isaac Heeney went from $700K to $560K (he lost about $70K after tax, the poor thing), and bunch of
club staff went from $70K or $80K to nothing. It was pretty much the same as what happened at Qantas. Alan Joyce went
from $11M to $10M and 800 baggage handlers went from $80K to nothing. This is what always happens. The "important"
people have an inconsequential beard trim and the "little" people have their whole head cut off.
But hey, the important folk have made a statement and the world is now a much better place for it.

While I agree with the crux of your post (about the little people), I'll remove the sarcasm from your last sentence by changing it to "some people who still have a moral compass and believe integrity is still important in life....and business.....and in turn sport, have spoken".....and yes, the world hopefully WILL be a much better place for it. What sporting organisations need to understand and be reminded of is that if they didn't have the players, they would not even exist. They would not have a cash cow which they can exploit to make them rich....they would actually have nothing.

We all understand 'the realities of business'.....that should actually read the 'negative realities of business', because there are many......so it's about time businesses returned to a more morals based approach to getting rich if they want to have their name up in lights being associated with the 'wholesomeness' of sport....instead of using/exploiting sport to launder their tainted public image. It can and should work both ways. Money has ruled over morals for way too long now and public apathy and acceptance of this apparent 'reality' should cease. It seems sports people in general are realising this and are way ahead of many members of the public, where apathy appears to reign supreme.

[Bloods05]

The only people ignoring the issues raised by the players were the players themselves for their entire lives up until about 15
minutes ago. It's taken Nat Fyfe till he's 30 to figure out what a lot of kids knew when they were 19. I guess he's been busy
and all, chasing a little ball around.

What an odd thing to say. Human beings are always evolving and changing. We aren't born with a fully formed moral conscience, even if we are great footballers.

[Markwebbos]

Tom Harley has spoken / spake on this very subject:

No Cookies | Herald Sun

[KTigers]

The thing about the Qatar sponsorship is that at some point it's possible that the áirline will decide that the negative
publicity around their sponsorship is actually detrimental to their business. And they may well pull it for that reason.
The Swans will then have a $1M-$2M (my guess) per annum hole to fill. I suspect it will be extremely hard for the
Swans to fill it. Long term deals like the Qatar one are very thin on the ground. The club would rather not have to
even have to try to replace it, and so they are going to be defensive about that sponsorship and other commercial deals.

[BRS328]

You are totally correct.
I should also add Qatar Airlines consistently win the international airline of the year year award, and with good reason. Being a frequent flyer, due to the Swans sponsorship, I decided to give Qatar a try. They are now my airline of choice.

I get the concerns about human rights issues, but if pales into insignificance when compared to a myriad of other countries including China, Russia, Iran etc

[Bloods05]

The thing about the Qatar sponsorship is that at some point it's possible that the áirline will decide that the negative
publicity around their sponsorship is actually detrimental to their business. And they may well pull it for that reason.
The Swans will then have a $1M-$2M (my guess) per annum hole to fill. I suspect it will be extremely hard for the
Swans to fill it. Long term deals like the Qatar one are very thin on the ground. The club would rather not have to
even have to try to replace it, and so they are going to be defensive about that sponsorship and other commercial deals.

That's what they said about the fag sponsorships. For years. Then it stopped, and other companies quickly filled the void.

[KTigers]

That's what they said about the fag sponsorships. For years. Then it stopped, and other companies quickly filled the void.

I think you'll find cigarette sponsorship back then was pocket money compared to what sports and teams receive now even after you
factor in inflation. The local plumbing supply business could have sponsored the cricket then. There was very little money in sport.
Things are a bit different now and turning off the tap of corporate money will be hard as expenditure at the clubs has risen so much.
Give it five or ten years and there will be a complete paywall encircling the Swans.

[Blood Fever]

Swans are sponsored by Qatar Airlines, Volkswagen and HSBC

Qatar - human rights abuses as described before

Volkswagen - founded under the Nazis and used slave labour producing vehicles during World War 2 as well as providing transport vehicles in relation to the concentration camps

HSBC - Involved in money laundering for drug cartels in South America and some of its accounts in Saudi Arabia linked to terrorist organizations.

Where do we start and stop with these sorts of issues, especially if you start going way back in time? In Rinehart's case, it is not even her, but her father.

[barry]

Indigenous publication - you disputing their description of her? Wow.

Sure do.

- - - Updated - - -

Swans are sponsored by Qatar Airlines, Volkswagen and HSBC

Qatar - human rights abuses as described before

Volkswagen - founded under the Nazis and used slave labour producing vehicles during World War 2 as well as providing transport vehicles in relation to the concentration camps

HSBC - Involved in money laundering for drug cartels in South America and some of its accounts in Saudi Arabia linked to terrorist organizations.

Where do we start and stop with these sorts of issues, especially if you start going way back in time? In Rinehart's case, it is not even her, but her father.

Simple, You stop at Qatar. Stop trying to strawman dumb arguments.

[liz]

This discussion has wandered far from the issue of reconciling values with sports sponsorship.

I have moved the raft of posts addressing Rinehart and her relationship with indigenous Australians to Open Chat. Please carry on that conversation there.