I was fascinated to read some of Gary Neville's (Man Utd and England footballer) comments this morning about the anti racist campaign - kick it out. He was suggesting, and rightly so I think, that Nike are using the kick-it-out campaign as a PR stunt. Thierry Henry and Ronaldino were interviewed about the campaign at the FIFA world player of the year awards and they both mentioned Nike on a number of occasions - hence raising the profile of Nike.
There are currently a number of Ads on TV featuring footballers that promote the kick it out campaign which are sponsered by Nike. Are Nike doing this out of the good of their hearts? Or is it a PR stunt....unfortunately I think the later. I guess i have a problem with this because this quite simply because of what Christ said in yesterdays lectionary reading in Mat 6: 1-4.
' Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before people, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honoured by people. I tell you the truth, they have recieved their reward in full. But when you give to the needy do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret.'
5 comments:
(Forgot to preview previous post, and have re-published it without the appalling typos!)Keane and Scholes share Gary Neville's view on this, and I do believe there is a genuine concern amongst these players about Nike's motives. The passage from Matthew you quote is very applicable if Nike is seeking some kind of glory from sponsoring this campaign. On the face of it, it does appear so.
I've been thinking about Nike, and how they have approached not only this campaign, but also their whole PR strategy. It seems to me that Nike have had a very bad press over the years due to their appalling trading standards with sweet shops across the developing world. Again, rightly so. But perhaps this latest campaign is part of a strategy to rectify their bad image?
To offer an alternative view, I'll use Matthew again (Matt 21:28-32):
28“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29“ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30“Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31“Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."I guess we can easily demonise corporations like Nike, Nestle and others as they do act so shamefully poorly, and when they do try to rectify their behaviour and try to do something good, we are rightly suspicious. Without knowing the true motives behind this campaign, I can't come down on one side or the other with any confidence, but I do want to believe Nike is perhaps acting like the former son, rather than the later. Whether it is or not, I simply can't say.
Sweet shops...I thought that they just sold sporting goods!
LOL! I will never master the english language.... I, of course, meant "Sweat shops", as in.. o bollox, you all know what I mean!
:)
...Lev
The problem with using that passage is it's ambiguous... the first son on the face of it looks to be doing the right thing, and this is what the disciples thought to - and Jesus' reaction when they answered thusly?
"The tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you"The clear implication is that the second son was doing the right thing. No I don't understand what that means either... I can't believe it's saying it's better to offer to help then not do it.
Post a Comment