Ethical sponsorship

In the news recently Newcastle United have been embroiled in the ethics of taking the money from the usurers Wonga in a city where payday loans apparently are a problem. Indeed Papiss Cisse made right berk of himself by being exposed as a total hypocrite after taking religious leaders' advice to reject wearing the sponsorship logo then being snapped gambling in a casino.

I have said before that the 6Ns sponsorship by RBS and therefore rugby's image in its association by proxy to RBS's appalling conduct in the lead-up global economic downturn. Effectively it's the 6Ns sponsored by a bunch of careless crooks.

Then there's Leicester Tigers who are sponsored by Caterpillar whose earthmoving gear is used by Israel to subjugate the Palestinians in their horrific acts of inhumanity over poor and oppressed peoples.

What about Ulster's sponsorship by BT? The very company that is at the core of threatening to tear down the very edifice of the Heineken Cup?

Is ethical sponsorship by global or national corporations of whatever description a credible option?

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
I have said before that the 6Ns sponsorship by RBS and therefore rugby's image in its association by proxy to RBS's appalling conduct in the lead-up global economic downturn. Effectively it's the 6Ns sponsored by a bunch of careless crooks.

That's no way to talk about us, the taxpayer.

thomh wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
I have said before that the 6Ns sponsorship by RBS and therefore rugby's image in its association by proxy to RBS's appalling conduct in the lead-up global economic downturn. Effectively it's the 6Ns sponsored by a bunch of careless crooks.

That's no way to talk about us, the taxpayer.

It will be if we allow the government to resell the assets back at al loss after baling them out, thom.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Then there's Leicester Tigers who are sponsored by Caterpillar whose earthmoving gear is used by Israel to subjugate the Palestinians in their horrific acts of inhumanity over poor and oppressed peoples.

Or depending on your point of view, keep the Israelis safer. I Don't think these kind of Political statements are appropriate for a sports forum.

I've read the terms 'English oppressors' and support for 'Help for Heroes' loads of times, Dot.

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Then there's Leicester Tigers who are sponsored by Caterpillar whose earthmoving gear is used by Israel to subjugate the Palestinians in their horrific acts of inhumanity over poor and oppressed peoples.

Or depending on your point of view, keep the Israelis safer.   I Don't think these kind of Political statements are appropriate for a sports forum.

I agree - especially as ethics vary from person to person. Is there anything ethically wrong with Wonga? You could argue yes or no.

Keeping specifics out of it (I agree this sin't the place to discuss them), it is the same for most companies - they could be argued as being ethical or not. Who decides what the ethical companies are? Are there any?!

That's just hiding your head in the sand, screamingabdabs.

Oooh this is rugby!

How my club/country gets its sponsorship cash is off-topic!

I don't care how or from whom the dosh comes in just as long as it does...

Pathetic.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:In the news recently Newcastle United have been embroiled in the ethics of taking the money from the usurers Wonga in a city where payday loans apparently are a problem. Indeed Papiss Cisse made right berk of himself by being exposed as a total hypocrite after taking religious leaders' advice to reject wearing the sponsorship logo then being snapped gambling in a casino.

I have said before that the 6Ns sponsorship by RBS and therefore rugby's image in its association by proxy to RBS's appalling conduct in the lead-up global economic downturn. Effectively it's the 6Ns sponsored by a bunch of careless crooks.

Then there's Leicester Tigers who are sponsored by Caterpillar whose earthmoving gear is used by Israel to subjugate the Palestinians in their horrific acts of inhumanity over poor and oppressed peoples.

What about Ulster's sponsorship by BT? The very company that is at the core of threatening to tear down the very edifice of the Heineken Cup?

Is ethical sponsorship by global or national corporations of whatever description a credible option?

This is a difficult political question, Port.  I know nothing about the Newcastle United situation, but the others have valid counter points:
RBS employs many, many people in the Home Nations.  Perfect, no?
Caterpiller equipment is used all over the world to build roads, other infrastructure, and housing for poor or needy people (recently refugee camps for Syrian refugees for the fighting - sme funded by Israel).
BT - willing to pump more money into Rugbgy than anyone previously in our country.

Not mentioning right or wrong.  Just counter points.  

Methinks this is a discussion would could go pear shaped if people don't mind their Ps and Qs.

I have to say this is an interesting debate, if a slightly problematic one.

FC Barcelona for years had no kit sponsor, then in 2006 announced that they would advertise UNICEF on their shirts, and pay 1.5 million Euros a year to UNICEF for the privilege.

That deal expired in 2011 and Barcelona are now sponsored by the Qatar Foundation to the tune of 150 million Euros over 5 years.

I don't believe for one minute that there is a rugby club in the world for whom paying out for the privilege of a logo on their shirt is viable, and therefore they essentially have to take what they can get.

Sport and ethics in the professional arena are sadly become further and further apart I suggest.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:That's just hiding your head in the sand, screamingabdabs.

Oooh this is rugby!

How my club/country gets its sponsorship cash is off-topic!

I don't care how or from whom the dosh comes in just as long as it does...

Pathetic.

It's not hiding my head in the sand.

I didn't say it's not a valid question, I didn't say that we shouldn't consider whether a company is ethical or not. I also said we should keep specifics out of it as it can become inflammatory when people disagree (especially about Israel!) so it is best to stick with general, non-specific cases.

What I did was to ask a question in the hope of extending the debate.

Let me ask again:

Who decides what the ethical companies are? Are there any?!


Let me give a sample response you may have given:

The clubs committee should decide if the company is ethical by their standards and supporters should hold them to account. The club could define certain business practices that they do not like that they will therefore not accept sponsorship from. Perhaps a a group of supporters could lobby the club if they make a decision they don't like - hence making the supporters the people that decide if a company is ethical? Maybe the club should consult their supporters before accepting a new sponsorship deal.

A contrary opinion may be:

It is no-ones business save that of the owner as to who sponsors. If you don't like it don't go.

For clarity I would say that I fall somewhere far nearer to the first option. Either of these responses however is constructive and adds to the debate, where as calling me pathetic does not.

Define ethical?

Are take aways ethical? For example Sarries are sponsored by Domino's Pizza. Pizza isn't exactly the healthiest food around is it? It's encouraging people to be lazy and unhealthy.

Rugby has had a lot of assocation with alcohol. Alcohol is actually very dangerous.


Cars are dangerous too. They add harmful emissions to the planet. Are they ethical?

Some sponsors promote casinos and gambling. Are they ethical?

Garmin with their nat navs promote laziness in drivers - an overreliance on technology. Is that ethical?

I agree.
People will have to be careful but just because a topic is difficult, it shouldn't mean that it can't be discussed.

Portnoy's Complaint who are your dream sponsors?

I suppose a question would be which companies would you prefer sponsored the clubs? Where is the line drawn?

A lot of companies could be seen to be a bit unethical. Insurance companies not looking or any excuse not to pay out, leaving Mrs Miggins with a ruined car/home etc, software companies products are likely to be used somewhere in the world by some fairly horrible people, Mugabe will have Mercedes/BMW's etc.

My feeling is that I can't think of any rugby sponsors which I personally have a problem with. The exception being RBS as I don't see why a publically funded company should sponsor anything and I can honestly say that working for a company which has used RBS, that has not been based on them sponsoring the 6N, so I don't buy into the whole argument of 'its needed to raise the profile'.

This is why I would argue that it is up to the supporters of the club/competition to decide if the sponsor is appropriate. The question then is whether they should have a system in place to ensure that is so or whether it would be up to the supporters to group together and officially complain/boycott for change.

In other words, should the supporters be consulted on which sponsor the club/competition takes on?

I would suggest that there are very few "ethical" businesses out there and every positive has a negative.
It would be for each club to determine whether or not a business is ethical in of itself, I'd be very dubious of someone sitting in judgement and deciding who or what was "good for you".
In the particular case of RBS I wonder whether they are having to fulfil a contract that was agreed in better financial times but has penalty clauses that made it cheaper to finish the contract than withdraw, I'm pretty sure they pulled out of other sponsorship deals.

Irish Londoner wrote:I would suggest that there are very few "ethical" businesses out there and every positive has a negative.
It would be for each club to determine whether or not a business is ethical in of itself, I'd be very dubious of someone sitting in judgement and deciding who or what was "good for you".
In the particular case of RBS I wonder whether they are having to fulfil a contract that was agreed in better financial times but has penalty clauses that made it cheaper to finish the contract than withdraw, I'm pretty sure they pulled out of other sponsorship deals.

A what level does the club decide? The board? The supporters? The DoR etc etc. Who should be consulted? Not saying you are wrong, just wondering what your opinion would be.

I wouldn't like sponsorship by Wonga . More to do with the frightening abominations that they put in their adverts. They are more appropriate for a horror film than as brand ambassadors.

I'm not sure if supporter consultation would change much, except in the case where there was very little differnce in the amount on offer, for example as a London Irish supporter if a sponsor came along who was willing to develop a new ground for club, invest in the squad and generally move the club towards the top four/six I'm not sure there would be many supporters interested in where the money was coming from.

The same shirts these sponsors have their names on being made in an Asian factory/ sweatshop by kids on 1$ a day? You can argue about ethics till sunset.

Bathman... do you hold the same feelings over Emirates sponsorship of Arsenal and Etihad sponsorship of Manchester city.. both are government owned companies?

Manchester United was also sponsored by AIG at a time when the US government owned the stock.

I think it would be a matter for the board/owner of the club in the first instance - there may be feedback from other interested parties but it would in the final analysis be a financial decision in most cases.
There could be exceptions to this for historical/political/social reasons or due to external pressure from the wider public or government- for example if say "Visit North Korea" wanted to be shirt sponsors...

beshocked wrote:Portnoy's Complaint who are your dream sponsors?

Difficult.

Preferably none or like Barça a charitable organisation.

Of the corporations, there may always be an element of cross-contamination but maybe one of the many divisions of the Co-operative Society?

So you are proposing to reduce one of the major revenue streams for club or country Rugby?

If a Welsh region or a Welsh club were being offered a lot of money, from say, Primark, to be their main shirt sponsors, then, if it's larger than any other offer, I think they may as well take it. A Welsh region or a Welsh club wouldn't be unethical for taking the offer if Primark were operating in an unethical way. It's not the Welsh regions or the Welsh clubs' business how Primark conduct their operations. All they know is they get a lot of money coming in.

I assume if Nestle came about and said they were sponsoring your club/competition most people would not have a problem with them.

Well, it hit the news a few years ago that Nestle due to being a swiss company is not restricted into trading with Zimbabwe unlike competitors in the EU and US. It was reported a while back that they bought their milk directly from Robert Mugabe's own dairy farms,... ones that he seized from the previous owners about a decade ago without payment and then awarded to himself and his close family (rather than give them to the people as he said he would).

Their own justification at the time was that whilst they admit they are doing business in Zimbabwe and proping up his regime, given they're swiss, its not illegal and if they would leave 200 people would lose their jobs in the processing plants they have. 200 people saved, keeping the heart beating of a regime that oppresses millions.. hardly ethical wouldn't you say.

Just like back in the old days in SA when all the big European firms were able to trade in South Africa during Apartheid. Countries such as the UK, US, Germany etc were happy to sell products to South Africa such as BMW, Mercedes, Fords etc.

Dig a little under the surface and I think you'll find skeletons in most companies closets.

You think rugby is bad look at where funding for the premierships biggest spenders comes from/has come from:

Al fayed
Abrahamovich
Shinawatra
Al-Nahyan

Dodgy.

GunsGerms wrote:You think rugby is bad look at where funding for the premierships biggest spenders comes from/has come from:

Al fayed
Abrahamovich
Shinawatra
Al-Nahyan

Dodgy.

"Dodgy" used here is probably one of the world's great understatements.  And meant that way, no doubts.  But in that context, is a good word.  

Perspective and context.

doctor_grey wrote:So you are proposing to reduce one of the major revenue streams for club or country Rugby?

Did I say that Doc?
No I didn't.

I was responding to a direct personal question.

I thought that ethics was a primary concern in the medical industry and as such it would avoid drawing from an inference from a personal view to an holistic one.

Hasn't the co-operative society been bailed out by the government recently for having a unworkable business model and haemorraging cash?

fa0019 wrote:Bathman... do you hold the same feelings over Emirates sponsorship of Arsenal and Etihad sponsorship of Manchester city.. both are government owned companies?

Manchester United was also sponsored by AIG at a time when the US government owned the stock.

No I don't, but then I'm not a tax payer in any of those places. My issue isnt sponsorship from a foreign company, but more UK taxpayers money paying for boxes at Twickenham. But as someone said above, it was probably all drawn up before the bail-out, so it was hard to get out of it.

Portnoy

But you did say you'd rather end sponsorship and have a charitable one like Barcelona or be sponsored by a firm like the co-operative which has recently been bailed out by the goverment no?

Doc's question sounds logical.

fa0019 wrote:Hasn't the co-operative society been bailed out by the government recently for having a unworkable business model and haemorraging cash?

Its bank is certainly in trouble, probably not the best sponsor to suggest if you are against failed banks.

fa0019 wrote:Portnoy

But you did say you'd rather end sponsorship and have a charitable one like Barcelona or be sponsored by a firm like the co-operative which has recently been bailed out by the goverment no?

Doc's question sounds logical.

No I didn't, I was reading the question as my dream preference for the Tigers.

And I responded in that mindset.

And I said a division of the Co-op society (with an acceptance that there maybe some cross-contamination) not the Co-op Bank.

ok, sure thats your dream situation, your preference right.

But given that, wouldn't you agree that in itself would lower the revenue received as Doc asked? Where would you want the pick up to come from? Increased ticket prices?

Caterpiller supplied us with free excavating tools and advice/support when we built an orphanage/clinic in Bosnia after the war. Stayed out there for months with us. Don't recall seeing anything in the papers about that at the time. Monsters the lot of 'em.

Breadvan wrote:The same shirts these sponsors have their names on being made in an Asian factory/ sweatshop by kids on 1$ a day? You can argue about ethics till sunset.

Boom.

I read somewhere that Tiger Woods gets paid $150000 a day for wearing Nike gear. The same gear that is made in India by people making $1 per day.

It would be hypocritical of me to say I don't wear clothing produced in this manner but after hearing that I made a pledge never to buy nike merchandise again.

fa0019 wrote:ok, sure thats your dream situation, your preference right.

But given that, wouldn't you agree that in itself would lower the revenue received as Doc asked? Where would you want the pick up to come from? Increased ticket prices?

There are of course different ways of thinking about the problem.

Tigers are a rarity in rugby in that they are profit-making so passing the begging-bowl to the corporates is not a life-or-death issue.

What I would like to see is any un-sold seats in the ground auctioned to the highest bidder with tickets collected on the match day at the ticket office on production of the bidder's credit/debit card.

That should raise a bob or two.

Yes but the seats are unsold for a reason. Why would someone want to get into a bidding war for a seat they didn't want in the first place?

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I've read the terms 'English oppressors' and support for 'Help for Heroes' loads of times, Dot.

Not sure what you are getting at, can you expand? Not saying that as a wind up.

Elephant

Could be a good idea.... some people may bid £5 for a £40 ticket and win. £5 is better then £0 and an empty seat.

We bid R800 last year for a signed framed WP shirt by the 2012 Currie Cup team auctioned by a local charity... I gave it a value of welll in excess of R2000 but low balled and we won the bid... I reckon most people though a low offer wasn't worth it.... in this case it was, shame it didn't go for more but every little helps.

Effervescing Elephant wrote:Yes but the seats are unsold for a reason. Why would someone want to get into a bidding war for a seat they didn't want in the first place?

Because WR never has a large number of vacant seats as the ST holders are such a large proportion of the capacity.
It's only like airlines or tour companies selling off on lastminute.com.

A few seats might be filled at 99p but it'd still be a contribution.

The plan wouldn't work if the ground is normally half or three-quarters empty.

fa0019 wrote:Elephant

Could be a good idea.... some people may bid £5 for a £40 ticket and win. £5 is better then £0 and an empty seat.

As a one off this may work. But if it becomes a regular thing, why would anybody bother buying tickets at full price. Let the seat go empty and buy a ticket in the auction.

Because they may have to end up paying a higher price.

My suggestion for 'un-sold' tickets would be within a week of the game.

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I've read the terms 'English oppressors' and support for 'Help for Heroes' loads of times, Dot.

Not sure what you are getting at, can you expand?  Not saying that as a wind up.

I presume he is agreeing with your point that "one man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist". Or in this case " one man's legitimate and beloved army of a democratic country is another man's oppressor"

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I've read the terms 'English oppressors' and support for 'Help for Heroes' loads of times, Dot.

Not sure what you are getting at, can you expand?  Not saying that as a wind up.

I presume he is agreeing with your point that "one man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist". Or in this case " one man's legitimate and beloved army of a democratic country is another man's oppressor"

Thanks, makes sense now!

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Effervescing Elephant wrote:Yes but the seats are unsold for a reason. Why would someone want to get into a bidding war for a seat they didn't want in the first place?

Because WR never has a large number of vacant seats as the ST holders are such a large proportion of the capacity.
It's only like airlines or tour companies selling off on lastminute.com.

A few seats might be filled at 99p but it'd still be a contribution.

The plan wouldn't work if the ground is normally half or three-quarters empty.

Not quite true, the margins of an airline are so tight that every seat does indeed count. However, i seriously doubt that every seat counts in a rugby ground to the same extent. The sheer cost of holding the auction would negate any benefit of filling the few seats otherwise empty.

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I've read the terms 'English oppressors' and support for 'Help for Heroes' loads of times, Dot.

Not sure what you are getting at, can you expand?  Not saying that as a wind up.

I presume he is agreeing with your point that "one man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist". Or in this case " one man's legitimate and beloved army of a democratic country is another man's oppressor"

Thanks, makes sense now!

He was probably also disagreeing with your point that it should not be discussed on a rugby forum by suggesting that he has seen those terms. (Admittedly totally out of context)

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I've read the terms 'English oppressors' and support for 'Help for Heroes' loads of times, Dot.

Not sure what you are getting at, can you expand?  Not saying that as a wind up.

I presume he is agreeing with your point that "one man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist". Or in this case " one man's legitimate and beloved army of a democratic country is another man's oppressor"

Thanks, makes sense now!

Can't really support the

jennnifer wrote:legitimate and beloved

endorsement bit.

But the sentiment of the comment is appropriate.

Portnoy, it's a nice idea but would be difficult to operate in practice - if the tickets were selling at considerably less than the face value it would lead to a drop in pre-match sales as people would wait for the auctioned tickets to be released.
Also how would season ticket holders and people who have paid full price upfront feel about people getting tickets for a couple of quid when they spend a lot more money, maybe a better idea in terms of developing the clubs fanbase would be to have a scheme like "kids for a quid" for the less popular games to fill the seats or sell them at say 50% face value to the local rugby clubs with the club having the choice of selling them on and making some funds or taking a group of members to the game half price.
Admittedly trying to sell of the last few tickets would be a problem that maybe only Tigers, Quins, Saints and now they are in Barnet Sarries would face?