Sportswashing
-
@nzzp said in Sportswashing:
Crusader Women's Refuge in Wellington turned down a donation from a strip club back in the day.
I get that. That's quite legit in terms of "we don't want your filthy money".
Pretty much the least hypocritical anecdote I've seen on this thread.
-
@mariner4life said in Sportswashing:
what is everyone's thoughts on this term?
I first heard it from English football, where it's used as a term to bash City and Newcastle (easiest to do when the owners are brown i guess?). From what i understand, the word is used to describe a situation where an entity (normally a country) uses sports to boost its public profile and hide the bad shit it does.
So the Saudis buy Newcastle to so people will like them, or City win a lot so no one cares about what Abu Dhabi do. Seems like a crock of shit to me, but then I'm not on Twitter.
But this week it's a little closer to home, and, from where i sit, a lot stupider. First there was the Aussie netball team who don't want Gina Reinhart to pay for their sporting careers. Because mining i think? Also her dad may have said some pretty reprehensible shit, but that seems the token, tacked-on reason. Now the Australian cricket captain won't endorse the major sponsor of CA for the same reasons.
Apparently putting money in to sports is sportswashing, and it's bad if it doesn't align with the "values" of the players.You selfish, entitled fucks!! That money doesn't just pay for your very hefty salaries, and your ability to jet around the world playing a sport you love. It pays for all the grass roots stuff these sports do, all the community programs they run. The lot. And you giant fuckwits want to end said sponsorships because reasons? get the fuck out.
Hey Pat, you take a massive pay cut to get rid of that sponsor? Really? You stop playing IPL because India is a heavy, heavy emitter of carbon pollution? the fuck you will.
The entitlement here is off the fucking charts.
Nothing to do with ethnicity of owners. That was lobbed recently by an anonymous source from City to shut down any chatter (what exactly did Klopp say that was wrong) about where City get their purchasing power/funds from. Both PSG and City have allegedly taken money from suspicious sources close to their state owners, e.g. PSG got an investment from Qatar tourism and it just so happened to be enough to help them finance the Neymar transfer. What a coincidence.
I think there is a question as to where you draw the line. Is it ok for someone like Abramovich to buy Chelsea to funnel his ill gotten gains from Russia through, but not ok for Qatar or Saudis or Abu Dhabi to do the same? Sure, the Gulf states have more money overall, but at that level, we are splitting hairs. Illicit funding is illicit funding.
-
@booboo said in Sportswashing:
I get that. That's quite legit in terms of "we don't want your filthy money".
Guess that depends on your viewpoint eh. It's legal isn't it? What if the strip club is owned and staffed 100% by women? Is it still filthy? I'm assuming it was women stripping in there...
-
@stodders said in Sportswashing:
@mariner4life said in Sportswashing:
what is everyone's thoughts on this term?
I first heard it from English football, where it's used as a term to bash City and Newcastle (easiest to do when the owners are brown i guess?). From what i understand, the word is used to describe a situation where an entity (normally a country) uses sports to boost its public profile and hide the bad shit it does.
So the Saudis buy Newcastle to so people will like them, or City win a lot so no one cares about what Abu Dhabi do. Seems like a crock of shit to me, but then I'm not on Twitter.
But this week it's a little closer to home, and, from where i sit, a lot stupider. First there was the Aussie netball team who don't want Gina Reinhart to pay for their sporting careers. Because mining i think? Also her dad may have said some pretty reprehensible shit, but that seems the token, tacked-on reason. Now the Australian cricket captain won't endorse the major sponsor of CA for the same reasons.
Apparently putting money in to sports is sportswashing, and it's bad if it doesn't align with the "values" of the players.You selfish, entitled fucks!! That money doesn't just pay for your very hefty salaries, and your ability to jet around the world playing a sport you love. It pays for all the grass roots stuff these sports do, all the community programs they run. The lot. And you giant fuckwits want to end said sponsorships because reasons? get the fuck out.
Hey Pat, you take a massive pay cut to get rid of that sponsor? Really? You stop playing IPL because India is a heavy, heavy emitter of carbon pollution? the fuck you will.
The entitlement here is off the fucking charts.
Nothing to do with ethnicity of owners. That was lobbed recently by an anonymous source from City to shut down any chatter (what exactly did Klopp say that was wrong) about where City get their purchasing power/funds from. Both PSG and City have allegedly taken money from suspicious sources close to their state owners, e.g. PSG got an investment from Qatar tourism and it just so happened to be enough to help them finance the Neymar transfer. What a coincidence.
I think there is a question as to where you draw the line. Is it ok for someone like Abramovich to buy Chelsea to funnel his ill gotten gains from Russia through, but not ok for Qatar or Saudis or Abu Dhabi to do the same? Sure, the Gulf states have more money overall, but at that level, we are splitting hairs. Illicit funding is illicit funding.
The furore over Klopp's quite innocuous statements was baffling, but not surprising. All he really said was that there's 3 clubs in world football for whom money is no issue and Liverpool ain't one of them. He didn't say anything about where that money was coming from, what kind of a project it may or may not have been, etc.
-
@Bones said in Sportswashing:
@booboo said in Sportswashing:
I get that. That's quite legit in terms of "we don't want your filthy money".
Guess that depends on your viewpoint eh. It's legal isn't it? What if the strip club is owned and staffed 100% by women? Is it still filthy? I'm assuming it was women stripping in there...
I assumed they were taking a stand against the blatant exploitation of men desperate for a view of the female body.
-
@Bones said in Sportswashing:
@booboo said in Sportswashing:
I get that. That's quite legit in terms of "we don't want your filthy money".
Guess that depends on your viewpoint eh. It's legal isn't it? What if the strip club is owned and staffed 100% by women? Is it still filthy? I'm assuming it was women stripping in there...
You and your optimism.
I see @Crazy-Horse has covered it.
I don’t see any hypocrisy in that case.
-
@booboo said in Sportswashing:
I don’t see any hypocrisy in that case.
Not hypocrisy, jsut short sightedness in my opinion. Take the money, state you don't endorse stripping but welcome the gift.
It's kind of the reverse of sportswashing, but it does introduce the issue of what is 'clean' money and what is 'dirty'. I understand the refuge position, but it's putting taking moral high ground over actually helping women who need it. A classic tension of pragmatism against purity.
-
Netball loses $15mill
-
Loooool
I shouldn't laugh because the only losers are kids.
But seriously
You fucking idiots
-
@mariner4life said in Sportswashing:
Loooool
I shouldn't laugh because the only losers are kids.
But seriously
You fucking idiots
the problem with chasing cars is sometimes you catch one
-
@mariner4life I love the anti mining brigade.
Basically if it isn’t wood or from a carcass of an animal, it’s come from a mine or a quarry.
Give up your phones, your tvs and nearly everything you own all you anti mining tools.
Even our soft as shite govt has backtracked on mining
-
I’m not a hundy sure of the exact fact but gold in NZ is three times more enriched than Aussie and other large gold producers.
So that means you only need a third of the displacement to get the same amount.
The more we displace oil and gas the more we need to mine.
-
@booboo said in Sportswashing:
Netball loses $15mill
I was discussing this yesterday with a mate and he summed it up beautifully: This wasn't sponsorship, it was an act of charity. Gina would have got absolutely nothing out of this given no one watches the sport.
I blame the sports administrators for not pulling these players into the office and telling them that they'll either STFU or find another job.
-
@Nevorian said in Sportswashing:
The political spokesperson endorsing the net ballers position is independent senator David Pocock. Would be interested to see what companies logos he wore while he was playing
He's another hypocritical moron. Made millions from the benefits of fossil fuels and mining.
I bet he never once gave a thought to how he managed to fly to a stadium, play under lights wearing a kit, mouthguard and headgear, televised to an audience without fossil fuels and mining.
-
@antipodean wasn’t he playing for the Force when Twiggy Forrest was secretly bankrolling it?
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Sportswashing:
@antipodean wasn’t he playing for the Force when Twiggy Forrest was secretly bankrolling it?
The irony is strong in this one. It clearly wasn't enough money.
David Pocock set to switch allegiance from Western Force and sign with Brumbies this weekend
"For the past six months, RugbyWA has done everything within its power to retain his services as a leading player within the Western Force. "David's concerns were principally around the club's inability to recruit high-profile players with this challenge highlighted by the recent opportunity presented to (Wallabies and Reds halfback) Will Genia which ultimately was unsuccessful in bringing him to WA.''
-
David Pocock is a muppet of the highest order.
This guy took a sabbatical on full pay, played overseas for more coin, travelled, then came back and abruptly retired.
He has now developed a conscience that apparently means no junior athletes should be developed unless they're sponsored by the fantasy that is green hydrogen.
He can fuck right off