Ethics in regard to charity rides

Suppless

Would it bother most cyclists who turn out to charity cycle events in Irl to know that a celeb former pro can be paid a fairly major bung just to do the ride? Most people are happy to donate their hard earned cash to support a charity, should a cycling celeb be allowed to use their name in connection with a charity to make a nice little bit on the side?
I don't know if this happens a lot, but i heard reliably that it did recently.
Would you be as willing to turn out to events if you knew celeb riders were being well paid to do the event? And you paying a big entry fee.
The reasoning behind doing it is that the organisers hope the celeb will draw a bigger crowd.


Me, I don't like it one bit and think it smacks of the antics of a certain Texan.

death1234567

I imagine that pro cyclists get requests to do alot of cycles/races/criteriums and it's standard practice to charge a fee for appearing. Most cyclists spend the week after the tour doing this to earn some extra cash. I would hope that a pro cyclist would waive their normal fee or just charge expenses for charity rides but I'm sure cyclists aren't the only people making money off "charity" events. £$%^ers like Fergus Finlay paying themselves €60k+ a year to work for a charity bothers me alot more.

ROK ON

It annoys the hell out of me how a lot of folks seem to earn a living off of charity. Whether that be the charity organisers/chuggers or promoters.

I dont have to support those charities. I do understand why it happens - purely marketing and promotion. Is it reasonable for a celeb to go unpaid for marketing and promotion work? Unlikley.

The reason it annoys me is that IMHO it is largely unnecessary. Irish people are relatively charitable and there is a great sense of community in this country. I wonder what the celeb actaully adds in tems of net monies raise.

I have done charity rides in the past where celebs were present - cant be sure they were paid but I suspect having dug around that they were.

Charities should have to publicily declair returns from every charity effort in my view including what was paid in terms of marketing and promotion _ I am not saying that they should say Johnny superstar was paid X, but rather Marketing Expenses = Y. Disclosure would solve a lot. I wonder would many people raise the dough if the found out that Johnny superstatr was being paid. Again, I suspect not.

seamus

There's this weird concept that because somebody is doing work for a charity (whether as an employee or as a contractor), they're ethically obliged to offer their services at cost or otherwise super cheap.

There a balance which must be struck whereby you pay someone money to improve the event, thereby bringing in more money. If the money that person's work brings in, offsets the amount you've paid them, then the amount you've paid them is irrelevant. They have added to the coffers and therefore done good for the charity.

This applies equally well whether it's the CEO of the charity or a guest star for an event. How much that person is willing to take is an ethical question for the individual, but for the charity and its supporters, once the figures work out, there's nothing wrong with them paying the money.

On cycling specifically, unless someone has played the game very well, they're unlikely to be a super-rich superstar. Roche and Kelly have bills to pay, which aren't going to get paid by giving their time up for free for 12 hours every weekend.

Now, if the pro themselves set up the charity event and then took payment from it, that's another thing altogether. But as said above, I'm sure pros get hundreds of requests a year to do charity gigs. If they did all of them for free, they'd have nothing to feed themselves with.

Wishbone Ash

I don't understand some of the opinions above. It is quite normal for a charity to pay someone if it draws attention to their cause and increases donations. What would you prefer - less donations?

And it's ridiculous to expect staff at charities to work for nothing. What do you expect them to say to their bank manager when the mortgage is due - write it off because they work for a charity?

Darkglasses

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

What would you prefer - less donations?

Well, what we'd prefer would be if the celebrities would do the decent thing and show up for free. Some do and some don't, that's the way of the world but I have considerably more respect for those who do.

ROK ON

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

And it's ridiculous to expect staff at charities to work for nothing.

This is not about the staff.

The_Captain

ROK ON wrote: »

It annoys the hell out of me how a lot of folks seem to earn a living off of charity. Whether that be the charity organisers/chuggers or promoters.

I dont have to support those charities. I do understand why it happens - purely marketing and promotion. Is it reasonable for a celeb to go unpaid for marketing and promotion work? Unlikley.

The reason it annoys me is that IMHO it is largely unnecessary. Irish people are relatively charitable and there is a great sense of community in this country. I wonder what the celeb actaully adds in tems of net monies raise.

I have done charity rides in the past where celebs were present - cant be sure they were paid but I suspect having dug around that they were.

Charities should have to publicily declair returns from every charity effort in my view including what was paid in terms of marketing and promotion _ I am not saying that they should say Johnny superstar was paid X, but rather Marketing Expenses = Y. Disclosure would solve a lot. I wonder would many people raise the dough if the found out that Johnny superstatr was being paid. Again, I suspect not.

You know that there's a legal requirement that that information is published yearly by every registered charity in Ireland, yeah?

It's unreasonable to ask people employed full-time in charitable organisations to get paid less than market rates because working full-time for a charity without remuneration would prevent them from having any employment where they would be paid, and they have the same living expenses as everyone else.
If (for example) a business director could get paid €50K pa in a private sector job, or €20K pa working for a charity, the only people who would take up the charity's job offer would be people who were so bad at their jobs that they couldn't find work anywhere else.

From a business perspective, paying for an appearance from a celeb cycler would ultimately bring in more money than his appearance fee, by raising publicity and interest in the event

ROK ON

Some people obviously have great difficulty in reading and understanding plain English.

This is not about the staff. It is not aboout what they are paid. Staff are paid to do a job. Jobs requiring similar skills should attract similar remuneration regardless of whether in public, private or charity sectors.

The OP posted about celebs, not staff.

I am not aware of any charity cycle where the fact that a celeb is contracted to provide promtion is publicly declared. I believe that this is the case because some people who support charitable causes would not be happy about that fact.

I understand why celbes are paid, but I do not in general support the notion. Why - I have yet to see an analysis of how much they actually bring in in terms of increased charitable donations.

Several charity rides that I have supported where celebs were present, I am not at all certain that these celebs contributed t increased fundrasining. It was certainly never disclosed how much the fee was and whether this was a fee worth paying.

My point is that in many cases I cannot see why a fee should be undisclosed and I think that charity organisers should experiment with having no celeb but make increased use on online forums and social media to promte the event.

Suppless

This discussion has nothing to do with people whos day job is to work with or for charities, thats another issue and not relevant here.
They are entitled to earn a fair living like us all, no issue there.

The issue for me is really one of transparency. I checked the poster for the event i initially referenced and it could reasonably lead one to believe the cyclist was raising money for the charity and wanted you to join them in the effort. To make matters a lot worse i looked up the press release for the event and it quoted the cyclist saying how glad he was to support the charity and hoped others would join him.

Its a win win for the cyclist. Their image is enhanced by being seen as a great supported of charity, and they are also getting well rewarded. & by that i mean to the tune of, what is for some 7 weeks wages. Sure, pay expenses if needed, but how much can 1 man eat, especially as not being otherwise unemployed.

The other issue for me is that many riders forged their reputations by frankly taking a lot of drugs, and now use that reputation to make money in the name of charity. Thats just not on in my book.

ninoon

I see nothing wrong with a celebrity cyclist getting paid a fee /expenses thereby attracting bigger numbers and more money for worthwhile charities.
Autographs and photographs with same celebrities are quite popular too.

Lumen

I've no idea who or what this is about, so lets say (purely hypothetically) it's about Sean Kelly and the Irish Heart Foundation Tour of The Midlands.

I'm sure Sean or whoever has better things to do with his weekend (donkey fettling, Eurosport commentary, having a life) than riding around with a bunch of Freds for nothing. He already does his own charity Tour down in Waterford which has about 1000x more impact than anything I might do for charity.

So in this hypothetical case I have no issue with him being paid to raise money for research/whatever into largely self-inflicted lifestyle diseases.

quozl

ROK ON wrote: »

I understand why celbes are paid, but I do not in general support the notion. Why - I have yet to see an analysis of how much they actually bring in in terms of increased charitable donations.

Have you looked for any such analyses? Out of curiousity.

AGC

ninoon wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with a celebrity cyclist getting paid a fee /expenses thereby attracting bigger numbers and more money for worthwhile charities.
Autographs and photographs with same celebrities are quite popular too.

Agreed. If a celebrity/current cyclist/former cyclist gets on board and it brings in a lot more money I don't have a major problem

The_Captain

ROK ON wrote: »

It annoys the hell out of me how a lot of folks seem to earn a living off of charity. Whether that be the charity organisers/chuggers or promoters.

ROK ON wrote: »

This is not about the staff. It is not aboout what they are paid.

So it's not about the people working for the charity, just the people employed by the charity to organise the business, the people on the street/phones looking for donations, and the people employed in marketing and promoting them?

RobFowl

I've no problem at all about this.
The presence of high profile celebs/ex pros makes far more people turn up and means the charity raises more money.
Ex pros and celebs have the right to earns a living too......

Also Fergus Finlay is doing a good job for Barbardos and why some gob****es seem to feel he doesn't have the right to earn a living is beyond me....

victorcarrera

death1234567 wrote: »

.... £$%^ers like Fergus Finlay paying themselves €60k+ a year to work for a charity bothers me alot more.

Bad example to use. The only thing he is guilty of is being a consistent overachiever in whatever field he cares to work in. A man of his caliber is cheap at twice that price. ( I have no allegiance here).

Examples:
Fergus Finlay is the chief executive of the charity Barnardo's in Ireland. In April 2010 the Sunday Business Post said he is "one of the great backroom operators of Irish political history, a strategist, tactician, and media briefer par excellence." Finlay is also credited and helped to organise the visit of the Special Olympics to Ireland. In 2009, Finlay was listed as 59 on a list of "most influential people" in Irish society put together for Village magazine.
You could have picked more worthy individuals in support of your argument from recent press cuttings.

12 sprocket

RobFowl wrote: »

I've no problem at all about this.
The presence of high profile celebs/ex pros makes far more people turn up and means the charity raises more money.
Ex pros and celebs have the right to earns a living too......

Also Fergus Finlay is doing a good job for Barbardos and why some gob****es seem to feel he doesn't have the right to earn a living is beyond me....

Rob
Don't be letting them upset you, its probably just a case of good old Irish begrudgery, its best ignored

ashleey

Suppless wrote: »

This discussion has nothing to do with people whos day job is to work with or for charities, thats another issue and not relevant here.
They are entitled to earn a fair living like us all, no issue there.

The issue for me is really one of transparency. I checked the poster for the event i initially referenced and it could reasonably lead one to believe the cyclist was raising money for the charity and wanted you to join them in the effort. To make matters a lot worse i looked up the press release for the event and it quoted the cyclist saying how glad he was to support the charity and hoped others would join him.

Its a win win for the cyclist. Their image is enhanced by being seen as a great supported of charity, and they are also getting well rewarded. & by that i mean to the tune of, what is for some 7 weeks wages. Sure, pay expenses if needed, but how much can 1 man eat, especially as not being otherwise unemployed.

The other issue for me is that many riders forged their reputations by frankly taking a lot of drugs, and now use that reputation to make money in the name of charity. Thats just not on in my book.

Was it the Ozzy Osbourne Tour or something?

Bloch

When I see a celebrity name attached to a charity event, I generally assume they are doing it voluntarily. Perhaps I'm naive?
I've lived a long while abroad, in Germany and eastern Europe. Ireland is still a bit of a strange country to me.

But if a celebrity WAS being paid, AND the amount was known to be large, then the celebrity pull factor would possibly be diminished somewhat.

dogsears

I have no idea who gets paid or how much but would have thought that each charity, faced with the choice of paying a cycling celebrity to boost their event or not, will try to assess whether there is a net benefit to them. If, using whatever calculus they employ, they decide its worth it, the beneficiary is the charity.

If they reckoned it wasn't beneficial, they wouldn't do it.

So I've no problem with it - I do agree that if the amounts were known that might sully the view of some who might otherwise take part, and so put them off, which would be disavantageous to the charity overall.

Suppless

I'm quiet confident that the presence of a pro or former pro at an event significantly increases the days fundraising. So i understand very well
why an organiser or charity would see it as a good idea to have one there.
What i have an issue with is the rider being presented as a supporter of the charity, and using their image to make money.

Two things seem to be coming through in the comments so far, 1, that most people were not opposed to a celeb rider getting a payment in principal, and that 2. at the same time they though if this was widely know it would effect the fundraising. So there is something of a contradiction there.

As for the notion of this being about Irish begrudgery, bit of a cheap shot, you're pretty far from the mark. I'm not a huge fan, but Kimmage called it right and was called all sorts of things when he said the cancer had returned at the time of Armstrongs return. Him being mister charity and all.

And on that i'm just struck with the feeling that use of the name of Lance will one day become the cycling forum equivalent of Godwin's law.

07Lapierre

I would be amazed if any Celebrity Cyclist appeared F.O.C. at any Charity event. How much they are paid is between the cyclist and the event organiser's.

at1withmyself

That's your second dig at Armstrong so I can't help feel there is an underlying issue you have with him in particular....

Also there is no contradiction at all, 2 people commented on the fact of the full amount been disclosed MIGHT have an effect on peoples contribution to the event.

For me I've no issue with them been paid, I think Lumen put it best and these people have there own life to live so if there appearance overall helps raise the events profile then all the better.

With so many events on nowadays and so much to chose from the help of a 'Celeb' can really help a charity.

Suppless wrote: »

I'm quiet confident that the presence of a pro or former pro at an event significantly increases the days fundraising. So i understand very well
why an organiser or charity would see it as a good idea to have one there.
What i have an issue with is the rider being presented as a supporter of the charity, and using their image to make money.

Two things seem to be coming through in the comments so far, 1, that most people were not opposed to a celeb rider getting a payment in principal, and that 2. at the same time they though if this was widely know it would effect the fundraising. So there is something of a contradiction there.

As for the notion of this being about Irish begrudgery, bit of a cheap shot, you're pretty far from the mark. I'm not a huge fan, but Kimmage called it right and was called all sorts of things when he said the cancer had returned at the time of Armstrongs return. Him being mister charity and all.

And on that i'm just struck with the feeling that use of the name of Lance will one day become the cycling forum equivalent of Godwin's law.

12 sprocket

Suppless wrote: »

I'm quiet confident that the presence of a pro or former pro at an event significantly increases the days fundraising. So i understand very well
why an organiser or charity would see it as a good idea to have one there.
What i have an issue with is the rider being presented as a supporter of the charity, and using their image to make money.

Two things seem to be coming through in the comments so far, 1, that most people were not opposed to a celeb rider getting a payment in principal, and that 2. at the same time they though if this was widely know it would effect the fundraising. So there is something of a contradiction there.

As for the notion of this being about Irish begrudgery, bit of a cheap shot, you're pretty far from the mark. I'm not a huge fan, but Kimmage called it right and was called all sorts of things when he said the cancer had returned at the time of Armstrongs return. Him being mister charity and all.

And on that i'm just struck with the feeling that use of the name of Lance will one day become the cycling forum equivalent of Godwin's law.

Professional cyclists, well succesful professional cyclists, work very hard and make lots of sacrifices to be succesful.. organisers wouldnt want them if their name wasnt worth something. So good luck to them if they make some money from their name and add to the experience for people participating.
In regard to begrudgery there is a certain element in ireland that love to begrudge especially succesful irish people, and its something that i dislike intensely. Its a mean spirited thing, often goes hand in hand with a self righteous and judgemental approach to things where everything is seen as black and white or right or wrong..

niceonetom

McQuaid granfondo, anyone?

LeoD

I'll go one further and state that I think the volume of charity events in general is a sad reflection on society. Since when has it become a prerequisite to put on some sort of a performance (a 10k walk, a 100k cycle, a weeklong trek along the Great Wall of China, etc) to raise a few bob for charity? Why everyone doesn't just give what they can as often as they can to whatever charity they like without being prompted or entertained is beyond me.

ragazzo

LeoD wrote: »

I'll go one further and state that I think the volume of charity events in general is a sad reflection on society. Since when has it become a prerequisite to put on some sort of a performance (a 10k walk, a 100k cycle, a weeklong trek along the Great Wall of China, etc) to raise a few bob for charity? Why everyone doesn't just give what they can as often as they can to whatever charity they like without being prompted or entertained is beyond me.

Maybe it is a sad reflection on some parts of Irish society.
Perhaps those who willingly gave to charities in times past are eking out an existence and struggling to keep afloat in present times.
Perhaps they are now charity cases themselves and the new overlords expect value for money and are reluctant to willingly help those less fortunate.

Times have certainly changed. Will I eat or pay the gas bill this week? Choices!

borntobike

The only celeb event I would bypass in the future is the Tour of Connemara. I never even seen Hinualt. The food stop was poor and there was not even tea or coffee at the finish.

Suppless

at1withmyself wrote: »

That's your second dig at Armstrong so I can't help feel there is an underlying issue you have with him in particular.....

And anyone with any sort of moral compass doesn't? ... slightly dumbfounded.

The point some of you are ignoring is this:
I made it clear that the rider was quoted as saying he was supporting the event in the promotional material. I feel this was less than honest.
Simple as.

wirelessdude01

What has Armstrong got to go with charity sportives in Ireland