Race for Life
I’d perhaps best
make clear what I am not criticising here, as otherwise I’m sure that there
would be lots of comments and arguments (and indeed probably still will be –
though this would be down to ignorance).
I am not
criticising anyone who goes on the Race for Life, anyone who fundraises, anyone
who organises events or gives money. It
is this case that I shall be sponsoring people who are taking part as this is
an excellent cause (many of you will know why I think so).
The problem was
perfectly characterised by a male school pupil who asked the sensible and
reasonable question – “why am I not allow to run in it?”. He had just watched a video explaining the
need for the money & the horrors that breast cancer causes. The film explained that it was not just women
that are affected, but also men – both in terms of having the disease, and
knowing those who are affected. The boy
was told that it mainly affected women, so only women were allowed to run –
but he could go along to support and sponsor people if he wanted. The young man looked rather reasonably
perplexed by this.
On consideration
this seems even odder. Why would the
organisers choose to exclude half the population from taking part? Notwithstanding the fact that it could annoy
people who wanted to, it would also limit the number of people who would take
part and reduce the total funds raised.
Why would somebody choose to raise less money – indeed the correct word
here is choose?
The only possible
thing that I can think of is where our second topic (The Olympics &
corporate sponsorship) comes in. I note
that I have been using the wrong name for the event – I meant to say ‘The Tesco
Race for Life’. Could it be that this corporate
sponsorship has influenced the policy over admissions? Could it be that they want to align
themselves with a women only event to ingratiate themselves with their pre-eminent
customer base? I’d like to think that
this is not the case, but I have no other suggestions so far.
Some might say that it is not possible to criticise the event as it is charitable. I would refer those who think so to the comments of Christopher Hitchens on the harm that Mother Theresa has done in Calcutta (1). A far more extreme example, but it illustrates that charitable concerns should be scrutinised.
The Olympics
& Corporate Sponsorship
You might think
from the comments above that I am a socialist who thinks that all corporate
sponsorship is wrong. I do not think
that corporate sponsorship is wrong (you may draw the appropriate inference
from this).
Do you remember
when we called it ‘sponsorship’? When did
‘corporate sponsorship’ start? Is there
a difference?
Sponsorship has
always been corporate. One might wonder when
and why we inserted the added moniker.
It seems that this coincided with when sponsorship moved from putting up
a billboard with your company name on it, to expecting you and all you friends
to be invited to the event, fed, given free drinks, ferried to and from the
event and being told what a terribly good chap you were.
This is being
taken to a brand new level by The Olympics.
Those who organise the games have realised something even better, they
could go along and thank the sponsors personally, and it would obviously be
rude not to join them for a drink or two, some food, excellent seats, and be
ferried to and from the venue.
This having become
a bit standard in many sports, it is obviously necessary for The Olympics to go
a step further. What else could we
provide these ‘important’ people? I
know! Why not make special lanes that
they (and those who can pay enough) can use so that they don’t even need to
wait in traffic? Obviously those who
have been squeezed into the other lanes won’t mind waiting, these people are
important!
If you want to
advertise at the games, then do so. It
will pay back a tiny bit of the money that we will be paying in taxes at a time
of ‘austerity’. Put up your billboard
and watch it on telly.
