Realistically, that's not going to happen. So you're asking the Swans to choose between their sponsor and their support of the Pride movement. And as noted before, that sponsor hasn't asked the Swans to choose between the sponsorship and their support of the Pride movement.
Sports sponsorship is competitive (as Harley, Pridham et al keep reminding us). I imagine the decision to accept the Qatar sponsorship was hotly debated by the Swans board. If they had a realistic, similarly valued alternative, maybe they would have gone with that. None of us really knows.
Would I prefer they had a different sponsor? Yeah. Would I prefer the Swans risk their financial viability (which lives on a knife's edge, as the COVID years reminded us) on this issue. No. Not when there are so many things I wish were different in the world, and organisations with their fingers in activities / values that I wish were different.
Yeah, these guys (Pridham and co) aren't idiots. They would be aware of the potential blowback that may come with the Qatar Airlines
sponsorship, but decided to go ahead with it. They will be aware of the situation with the club's finances going forward and the likelihood
of bringing new major sponsors on board down the track. And they've stuck with the airline, and vice versa. It does go both ways. Qatar
Airlines is not a charity and unless they see there is some value to them in sponsoring the club then they will bail.
I mightn't want to fly on Qatar anymore but that is just a personal thing. It's up to everyone to make their own call on stuff like this.
The club is desperate for sponsorship $$, everyone knows that, especially with two interrupted COVID years. For all those saying they shouldn't have Qatar as a sponsor, where do you expect to get alternative sponsorship money from? Are you putting your hands up to replace the $$?
I don’t accept the suggestion that the club either takes their money or ceases to exist.
Qatar airlines sponsorship goes back to 2016, so COVID had nothing to do with it.
True, Captain, but you must admit that it becomes problematic when we host a Pride game. Qatar Airlines and Pride are at 100% opposites on this issue and surely we are hypocrites if we don’t see it. The question is : what do we do about it? Do we choose one over the other? Having both just doesn’t sit well with some of us. For me it boils down to this- if hosting a Pride game is very important, then we can’t have Qatar as a sponsor. Keep your money.
Alternatively, don’t host a Pride game, if money is what you’re after.
My guess from looking at the club's total sponsorship revenue and the number of major sponsors they have the deal with Qatar
Airlines is probably worth between $1M and $1.5M a year. This is a guess though. Basically the club breaks even, some years
they make $500K, some years they lose $500K. So how do you replace up to $1.5M a year? You can try and find a replacement
sponsor. Trust me this will be extremely difficult in the current climate. Or you can to the AFL and ask for a bigger distribution
(they could easily say no) or you can cut spending within the club. Cut the number of office and admin staff.
Or you can cut spending in the football department. How does everyone feel about cutting that? Or you can increase the price
of the membership and seat packages. Or you can do a combination of some or all of these? The other issue if the club ditched
the Qatar Airlines sponsorship on "ethical grounds" you are saying to all new potential sponsors that they better be well behaved
if they want to sponsor the Swans. Many companies would immediately assign the club to the "too hard" basket.
I'm not saying the club shouldn't cut ties with the airline (and by proxy the Qatar government), I'm just saying this is a very
complicated issue.
Everyone has principles of course. But when they start costing you serious money then usually they start becoming a little
"flexible".
I am struggling with the logic of this argument. The club does host a Pride game and it appears to be important to it. They also accept a much needed sponsorship. So they already have both.
By accepting the Qatar Airlines sponsorship they play some role in promoting the air transport business but they are not promoting or aligning with every single value of every entity connected with the business. And, as already stated, they are not prevented from promoting their own values, even those that don't align with entities connected with the business.
I get that there is some kind of tension there, but you dig deep enough and you would find tension in pretty much every commercial arrangement that exists on the planet.
Of course the Swans don’t need to align with every single value of their sponsors, but the Qatar Airways situation is vastly different given how vocal the club is on inclusivity. Saying things like “all money is dirty money” is such a cop out. There’s a difference in being able to guarantee every action of a company is ethical, and accepting money from the Qatari government.
In their recent member survey the Swans literally asked about value alignment with their sponsors & our attitude towards the sponsors. They clearly care, as they should. We’ve also seen sponsors drop clubs/athletes for behaviours which indicates the values relationship is two-way (although I’m doubtful Qatar Airways would ever take such a stand).
The sponsorship is a real problem for me.
all money is dirty money is not a cop out , its the truth . You want to be sponsored by a global corp then guess what , they are doing something that is harmful in some way whether you know about it publicly or not . They are all full of board members who donate to all kinds of awful causes , they donate to politicians who are against gay rights , climate change , healthcare , you name it . There is no difference between Qatar and the rest , they just dont hide it . Not saying its better , im saying its no different
Liz, we’re promoting a specific airline here, as one of our sponsors. The government which owns this airline has a view diametrically opposed to ours on this issue. Thus the point of the Pride game is in 100% conflict with the advertising boards we display so prominently at the SCG- we’re not promoting airline travel in general, we’re promoting Qatar Airlines!
That’s fine- we don’t have to align with every single value of our sponsors, but if we promote our values which are radically different, at the same time, then there is a major conflict. The only way to avoid it is to drop one or the other,
Otherwise we’re hypocrites. Our Board needs to decide which is more important to the Swans: it seems they want to have their cake and eat it too! I’m not saying we should be holier-than-thou but a line should be drawn- all money is not the same.
Bookmarks