Should athletes have a say in corporate sponsorship?

[David]

A happy ending for all: Netball Australia recoups the same amount of funding it lost with a new $15m sponsorship deal, and Gina gets to take her money to the dwindling number of places where it's wanted:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-31/netball-australia-sponsorship-deal-visit-victoria-hancock/101596136

[stui magpie]

Great result taxpayer funded sponsorship.

Ginas money is still very welcome in the Olympic sports she sponsors.

[Jezza]

What a waste of money.

Fits the bill of Andrews though. The man loves spending other people's money.

[What'sinaname]

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

Netball is a great participation sport, bush footy clubs almost all have a netball club associated with them, the Toc one is now a single club.

It's great fun to play and more physically taxing than it looks, I played a social mixed game once, got fouled for trying to take a speccie over the opposition

It's just not a great spectator sport, people don't watch it on TV so it can't get any money from media rights.

Dan's stunt in sponsoring them was pure electioneering. There's no altruistic motive there toward the sport, and no financial reward for the state (unlike the Grand Prix) so it's all pure election timing, spending taxpayers money to try to tap into votes from those who didn't like Gina pulling out.

I'm not even sure where the money will go into grass roots Netball anyway when I think about it. Local clubs build their own courts, buy their own uniforms and balls, the only thing Netball Australia does is provide some rules and maybe some coaching for a handful of high potential prospects.

[eddiesmith]

It won’t, it’ll pay off their debt and that’s about it.

Definitely an ejection stunt given they negotiated a sponsorship deal in a few days and announced on the last day they could do it before caretaker begins.

[think positive]

[pietillidie]

It really doesn't matter if Andrews' involvement is an election stunt. Who cares? There are always half a dozen motives going on at any time. What matters is if the sustainable and proper stance is taken on the problem itself; and no, it's not sustainable for an important grass roots activity like netball to rely on handouts from capricious actors in exchange for whitewashing their costly lunacy.

Virtually everyone I know who goes on about Dan this and Dan that, on both sides of politics, strikes me as a bit batty. Every now and then I have to log into Faecebook (misspelling intended!) for business reasons, and the very same clueless relatives are harping on about 'Dan' in the very same way they were last year and the year before that and however many years before that. No advancement, no maturing or sharpened insight, no new ideas, no new interests, no independent thought — on both sides of politics. It strikes me as a particularly provincial obsession.

It's as if no one can think for themselves anymore, American style.

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

[stui magpie]

[David]

But plenty of free publicity in the newspapers, so maybe that helps balance it out somewhat.

I get that this is a transparently and narrowly political decision and I guess you can argue that that makes it illegitimate. But I'm with PTID here: supporting and encouraging sports participation (particularly for something commonly played like netball rather than some niche Olympic category that hardly anyone competes in and only gets noticed once every four years) is already a societal good on a number of levels, so it makes good sense for it to get what is essentially public funding rather than depending on Faustian pacts with harmful industries. It's a misconception that that kind of funding has to be justified purely by the logic of the market. Basically, it's in everyone's interest that the sport thrives, and if this sponsorship boosts Victorian tourism in the process then it will already be a mutually beneficial arrangement regardless of whether every dollar is accounted for.

For me it's an entirely satisfactory outcome, and I get the feeling it's really only those who so badly wanted to see the right get a culture-war win (and for "woke" athletes to be punished) who will be pissed off by it.

[stui magpie]

[David]

I get that, but I think it does filter through – having an elite level gives players in lower leagues something to aspire to, and thus inevitably boosts participation (which in turns aids those clubs financially). I'm guessing the emergence of AFLW has had a similar effect on lower-grade women's football.