Derek Jeter, Peyton Manning, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, I am sure that nearly all of us know these names and some of us may even look up to them. Professional athletes are some of the most famous and influential people in the United States and the world. People naturally look up to their favorite athletes and in turn are influenced by what they do off the field as well as on the field. The enormous impact that they have on society begs the question of whether or not professional athletes are obligated to give back? In addition, another topic of controversy among the philanthropic ways of professional athletes is what stimulates their giving. Why do pro athletes give? Do they give to make a difference, or do they give to enhance their image in the realm of sports?
Before continuing please read this article:
Personally, I disagree with those people who say that athletes have an obligation to give back to their community because without their fan base they would be nothing. I am in disagreement with these people because it is now the athletes money and although they made that money because of others, it is their money, and they can do what they please with it. This does not mean that I do not think that professional athletes should give, in fact, I think that professional athletes can be the most influential donors. Since people look up to professional athletes, they will follow what they do. Therefore, when people who look up to Lebron James see that in one year alone he donated over 5 million dollars to the boys and girls club and other charities, they will be more inclined to follow in their role model’s footsteps and also give to organizations similar to the boys and girls club. As Haas said, “the power of sports is larger than life in this world,” the influence that athletes and teams have on society is tremendous. For this reason, I think that professional sports would be an ingenious place to promote philanthropy and charitable giving. If professional sports organizations like the NBA, NFL, and MLB decided to all make a pact to try to make a difference in the world by freely promoting philanthropy, they could affect real change more quickly than we have ever seen. During this year's SuperBowl, at any point in time there was an average of 111.9 million viewers. So if the NFL allowed for one free commercial with a very popular player, such as Peyton Manning, to promote charitable giving, it would compel tens of millions of people to give to charity. If each professional sports organization allowed for just one commercial during a championship game, it would spread awareness for the need of charitable giving and stimulate millions more to give and create a huge difference in the lives of those in need.
Lastly, I would like to address why professional athletes give. For the most part professional athletes are just like us, they are normal people who feel for others in need. Most athletes probably just give to charity in order to give back to the community and fan base that has helped them so much throughout their careers. In addition to these athletes, there are also athletes that give in order to improve their image among the sports world. Some “dirty” players may start out giving to make people like them more and to make people see that they are not these hard hitting, blind siding players. Ndamukong Suh is known as one of the dirtiest players in the entire NFL yet he is the second most giving professional athlete in all of sports. Even though this may have started off as a selfish reason used to improve his image, I believe that he got so much out of giving that he decided to give more and more over time.
Do you believe that professional athletes have an obligation to give back?
Should professional sports organizations promote philanthropy?
Why do you think most professional athletes give?
This topic briefly came up around Superbowl time, and I am glad you wrote more about it in your blog too! I would agree that we cannot require athletes to give as an obligation, but rather as an opportunity like your article says. Of course professional athletes have a reasonable amount of income as professionals, and they could significantly help Organizations. But, even more so they are role models too. When they are involved with philanthropy, they greatly attract others to consider giving also. I think one of the best ways of creating a positive attraction to philanthropic acts is through sports organizations and media attention, and this is clearly used as seen in the Superbowl articles we discussed earlier in the semester. In regards to why professional athletes may give, perhaps it could be some image boosting, but mostly I would like to think it has to do with the fact that they each have individual passions and stories that eventually put them into their positions as professional athletes. Looking back on those things, I am sure many feel that they should help others reach their potential too through programs like the Boys and Girls Club and I am sure that they give knowing how much of an impact organizations such as these had on their success.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to your post and in relation to our upcoming reflection paper, I did find an article from ESPN which reviewed the reliability of charities headed by professional athletes. The source quotes Ken Berger in saying that a significant problem with these organizations is that the athletes and people running the program often are unable to adequately run a nonprofit and as a result, their worthy cause fails unfortunately. In examining 115 charitable nonprofits headed by high profitable athletes, "at least 74% fell short of the groups standards" in relation to Charity Navigator, Guidestar, and the Better Business Bureau. Perhaps this information then proposes a bit more skepticism of the charitable work that many of our role models might be involved with. As we are learning in this class, we have to be more certain of where our donations are going in terms of how effective our contributions are. Therefore, even the organizations advertised by our favorite all stars may require greater research too.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9109024/top-athletes-charities-often-measure-charity-experts-say-efficient-effective-use-money
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate the points you make about professional sports and philanthropy. I would also argue that it could be comparable to celebraties and other millionaires that would also have this obligation to give back due to the massive amount of money that they are paid. I personally believe that all people should, and can, give back in some way or another. I feel that it is not difficult to donate a small portion of your paycheck if you are able to live with a roof over your head, running water, and with food everyday. If you have these basic needs met, then you should be able to give back slightly. If you are truly in an economic stress, you should always be able to volunteer at least a small portion of your time to give back to society and help others.
To get back to your original question, yes. I do believe that those under the spotlight should give back. Those who look up to these athletes could be inspired by this. They could look at this and think, yes I could also get behind that and may also give back in some way to an important cause that betters society. I think that advertising it via the sports world could become complicated because of different interests involved, but I do support it.
This is a great topic and something that we have discussed a lot in class. The wealthy are basically expected to give back in our society, whether it be athletes, celebrities, or business men. The wealthy are seen as selfish if they don't give back in any way, but I agree with what you said. I don't think anyone should be obligated to donate to anything, and I think that those who earned their money deserve to spend it however they want to. This isn't a popular opinion but I think by making donations an obligation, it takes away from key parts of giving. Giving should be something you want to do and something that you support and by making it an obligation you dehumanize it. Also, when something is an obligation, there is less desire to do it so people would essentially want to give less.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question asking if sports organizations should promote charities I think that they absolutely should. Sports and other events that are in the public eye can have huge impacts. Like you said millions of people are watching these events, and even if they aren't inspired to donate to a cause it can still raise awareness. Look at the ASL Ice Bucket challenge, it was supported by celebrities, athletes, and politicians and it was a massive success for ASL. Everyone knew about the challenge and everyone was participating. When athletes and celebrities support something like that we are more likely to follow in their footsteps.
You also asked why athletes give. Personally I think it is a combination of everything you talked about. I think it is to improve their image but I agree that they are people just like everyone else and are going to donate to causes that are close to them. When someone is wealthy it makes donating easier because they aren't struggling to pay bills so they are more likely to donate more of their earnings. There might be some selfish agenda attached but overall i think that athletes are giving out of kindness and compassion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for a really interesting post and topic for discussion Chris! In regards to your first question, I think that professional athletes have as much of an obligation to give as millionaires and billionaires are told by society to give and even more socially. Professional athletes, whether they like it or not, are pieces of multi-million dollar franchises and corporations, and although they have risen to their positions by merit, they still make exorbitant amounts of money for themselves. A news article on Kobe Bryant (1) mentions that he makes about $233,936 a game. What's astonishing is that people who make great contributions to society, at least altruistically, such as doctors, firefighters, and policemen, are paid not even salaries close to that. Even those who lay down their lives for our country, are not given the same benefits. If professional athletes are going to be making that much money, they need to be, like you said, great role models for their fans. With all the disposable income that they do make, they should not only establish foundations and movements for the betterment of society, but also work as best as they can to being these great representatives of American society. After all, sports is a huge piece of American culture, so athletes need to play their parts to inspiring and changing how people think.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your second question, sports organizations should work to promote philanthropy, because of how influential they are to not just children or fans watching, but to an entire culture of America in that present moment. An article by Kenneth Macri (2) delves into this notion that sports is a big reflection of our own inward thoughts and desires. From observing a sports game, you can easily understand current issues that a society faces or how it thinks. For example, team sports in America seems to emphasize mostly individual statistics rather than team statistics. American sports analysis focuses mostly on the team as parts of a whole, rather than focusing on the whole itself. I think that reflects our desire for individualism, today. Culture philanthropy is extremely impactful. Those in Istanbul donated more personally because of the culture they found themselves in, and the structure of their society. Sports organizations could potentially do so much because of how they have a hold on this culture, and I'd argue that it is their responsibility to benefit society or at least their fans in some way due to the fact that they theoretically profit off their fans' emotions.
Lastly, I think that athletes are human too. We like to dehumanize millionaires, but they have their own stories and ambitions as well. Those ambitions can be potentially good or bad. I think however, just like people in other trades of this monetary caliber, there will be individuals who seek more personal gain from philanthropy, and some like Russell Westbrook, who I believe seek to genuinely help society as well (3). Even so, one can not always realistically expect a individual to selfless devote themselves without an expectation of some return on investment. Just like how we donate to expect changes, some individuals will donate and expect recognition for it as well such as a name for a building.
(1) http://www.therichest.com/sports/basketball-sports/how-much-does-kobe-bryant-really/?view=all
(2) http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/676/not-just-a-game-sport-and-society-in-the-united-states
(3) http://rwwhynotfoundation.org/events/launch-of-russells-reading-room-russells-reading-challenge/
Chris,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting topic, and one that relates to my personal interests a great deal. To tackle your first question, I think there are two sides equally applicable. Professional athletes, as you put it, are just like us if we think about it. When any of us go to work, or when we do once we graduate and start careers, we are getting paid based on our skills and the service we provide. For example, while I’ve been in school, I work part time at a movie theater. I get paid based on the skills and services I provide; maybe not as much as a professional baseball player who is getting paid because he can hit a 90 mph fastball 500 ft, but we are both being paid for our services. So if we argue that a millionaire baseball player needs to give back to the community that supports his team, allowing him to make his millions, does that mean I am also obligated to give the money I earn back to the movie goers of Broome County? Their patronage is what is fueling my paycheck, but does that make me indebted to them as much as we believe athletes are indebted to their fans? It is their money that they earned and had the leverage to negotiate for, so they have the right to spend it as they see fit. There is another side to this sword, however, that I believe makes this more complicated. Athletes are afforded a level of celebrity that you or I are not, and as you put it Chris, they are looked up to as role models. This is a major responsibility that we have seen many players handle poorly and set bad example for those who look up to them, and while they may not what this responsibility, it comes with their stardom and cannot be ignored. So while they may not be obligated to give back, they have a responsibility to those who look up to them to set a good example and giving back can be one of the best to set.
I also agree that organizations should promote philanthropy because they have such an enormous stage from which they can do it. One less beer commercial would not hurt anyone, and a commercial speaking to the importance of helping others would help enormously.
I feel that everyone should give back whether you are an athlete or not. We do not need to make millions in order to be donors and be philanthropic. The most detrimental excuse for not giving is "I don't make enough, it is the responsibility of someone else who makes more to give". With this mentality enough is never enough and the responsibility of giving is postponed to someone else when in fact it should be shared among everyone. Therefore, I feel that philanthropy isn't something that should be obligated towards anyone but something that should become second nature.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference between a person giving and an athlete giving is that the athlete's donation would be highly publicized. This recognition is why there is a strong push to get professional athletes to give. Athletes are role models in our society and seeing them give their earnings to charities would encourage others to follow in their footsteps as well. I believe that philanthropic giving should be publicized especially in sports because it reaches such a wide audience. Furthermore, there should be an emphasis stressing that you don't have to wait to be a millionaire in order to give. They can highlight volunteering your time and highlight small donations.
In the end, philanthropic giving is a personal choice but one that should be highly encouraged. If philanthropy becomes an obligation, it becomes a task and something to detest. Rather, you should give on your own volition and have a desire to do so.