Uefa warns teams could be fined if they move drinks at news conferences
bbc.com
bbc.com
It's like the dystopic version of a dystopia, not even some evil entity or philosophy shaping the world, it's just people promoting shit for pennies. The real evil is extraordinarily mundane.
How do you change it? Heavy taxes on ad revenue that favor other forms of funding?
"I'll only buy your products if you don't advertise" would be an incredibly difficult proposition. This isn't about one incident with one company, but a general problem with damn near everything.
On the one hand, that’s shockingly low. On the other hand, that’s potentially billions of cans per month.
Presumably you object to observations about human behavior made in the context of the Holocaust being applied to any circumstance less severe than the Holocaust. I don't think that makes much sense. Attributing Coco Cola's promotion of poisonous beverages to the banality of evil is not equivocating the harm of Coca Cola to the harm of the Holocaust. If such an equivocation were made, that would of course be objectionable.
The "evil" being described here is trying to sell a few extra units of sugar water. The analogy would be no more appropriate if the "evil" was trying to sell a few extra servers regardless of what IBM did in the 1930s and 1940s.
It is not that simply selling soda is "less severe than the Holocaust", it is that it isn't even in the same realm. The analogy is drawing comparisons between one of the banalities of living in a capitalistic society with one of the worst atrocities that humans have ever committed. At a certain point it isn't even about offending anyone. An analogy that strained is just straight up a bad analogy.
There is evil to be found in Coca Cola's business model, and therefore, it is appropriate to invoke the banality of evil to explain it.
The comment I was responding to said, "real evil is extraordinarily mundane", which is exactly what Arendt noted. Whether or not the actions of UEFA and Coca-Cola are morally equal to IBM's role in the Holocaust is a different question, but the attitude of subservience to order is certainly comparable.
>Whether or not the actions of UEFA and Coca-Cola are morally equal to IBM's role in the Holocaust is a different question
But that wasn't why I objected. You are not just comparing EUFA, Coke, and IBM, you are comparing those to one of the architects of the Holocaust. Maybe that isn't your intent, but it is what you are doing by directly referencing Arendt. I probably wouldn't have even said anything if you didn't call specific attention to the fact that you knew the origin of the phrase and still went forward with an analogy that working for Coke is like working for the Nazis.
I don’t deny that players get paid a lot but 1) how much is that compared to the total money coming in from advertising? and 2) could we still have exciting games with players being paid much less?
They cannot fund the greed of the fat cats at the top. But ticket sales are plenty to maintain sport as a spectacle, but not the spectacle.
Right there is 215 million if you sold out the stadium with the cheapest price... well I don't know if the stadium sells out and there are season tickets and more expensive tickets... but there's also merch and hotdog sales (no idea what stadium food is for european soccer matches).
In short... cry me a river. If hundreds of millions per year isn't enough money for "everything" needed to support a group of guys to play a game per year, "everything" must include a lot of rent seeking from people getting paid a lot to exist and not much else actually enabling the goal.
Exactly. What a first world problem.
They could also start by, you know, not paying the players wages measured in GDPs and maybe knock them down to say, only-1-super-car type figures? Pretty certain you'd still get people wanting to be (famous) footballers.
Yep. Pretty sure every kid dreams of kicking the winning goal in the world cup final or something of that nature. Back when I had those aspirations I barely had a concept of money, let alone that sporting hero's had more of it than everyone else remotely connected to me in my world combined. For that matter, most of the sports I watched were only just professionalizing then, half of my hero's still had day jobs.
There was zero concept of money, they berely had matching sportware.
Today she would be an ad Christmas tree and make lots of money. - absolutely not a driver at that time.
Basically the €215 Million is off by an order of magnitude.
The majority of revenue for Football teams actually comes from TV revenue, sponsorhsip and Mech. Most if not all EUR and UK Football teams generally keep the ticket price as low as possible to encourage people going in to watch the Game.
>If hundreds of millions per year.......
With Player transfer going at €100+ Million, I am not surprised. Although with Football, so far the game has proven money can buy you the best team ( whatever that means ) but not the trophies. Which still keep it somewhat exciting.
Also there is essentially no competition. If you want to watch that kind of sport you cant really choose. And if you wanna play that sport on that level you also can not choose.
Might be hard to find, there’s not that many global brands out there where you can advertise once and hit the world. Unhealthy food and beverage make up a lot of the sector.
Even Google or Apple don’t hit the China market well.
Even multinational car manufacturers sub-brand way too much.
Whoa! Calm down. It was a statement that we both know to be wrong, but it doesn't warrant this kind of response.
No sponsors, no TV, no TV, less exposure, smaller market, revenue would come from attendance and some merchandising maybe (without sponsors).
He could also take little cardboard boxes that cover the bottles just perfectly, with something like, "Drink Fresh! Drink Water!" all over them.
Again, "I didn't move the bottles! I never even so much as touched them!"
[1] https://sportskhabri.com/player-profile-cristiano-ronaldo/ (and other sources)
It may seem obvious but the implications are immense. This kind of insight underpins just about every advertising campaign in some way. This is not a trivial example at all.
This is how lucative having those bottles positioned just so is to these companies. It also says a lot about how persuasive this kind of placement really is.
>ensuring the development of football across Europe, including for youth and women
how does that "development" even look in reality?
This part is laughable horse shit. You don't need corporate sponsors to give some kids a $10 ball. Nor do you need corporate sponsors even for a field for them to run around in; school taxes or local funding for public parks have that covered. No corporate partnerships were ever involved when I played this game as a kid.
Pro soccer players have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in them before they're even old enough to drink.
In reality the UEFA suits are probably more concerned about the Coke money that's been developing their wives' and mistresses' Chanel purses collection.
Admitting how controlled you are by your sponsors is not a good look for anybody, no?
I side with Ronaldo, drink more water and not the sugary stuff.
I think it's especially good for the public to know that the choice of beverage on the table reflects advertising payments, not player desire.
You should read about how the IOC is pushing for the Olympics to go on, because, well, the sponsors want to see return on investment.
They even said they'll source doctors from all over the world to make sure the games are safe. Doctors who are probably more useful helping in places where the spread of Covid hasn't been caused by some money hungry corporations.
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200420224205/https://www.balti...
Luckily in the next journalist session Ronaldo has a poster promoting UNICEF charity work that he places in front of the coke bottles, for promoting "development of youth and women."
This concept is just so hilarious.
Thanks to everyone who pointed out it's the stock ticker for the Coca-Cola company.
> Uefa's Euro 2020 tournament director Martin Kallen said players were contractually obliged "through their federation of the tournament regulations to follow".
> However, he said he understood the actions of players who, like Pogba, did such things for religious reasons.
Understood the motivation, but it doesn't say if they will support players when a sponsored placement implies an endorsement that runs counter to a players beliefs.
Considering religion is a type of belief, it's hard to draw a realistic line there. Healthy living is too much, but a book you religiously believe in told you no X so that's acceptable? What if CR7 believed religiously in his health ( sure seems he does)?
And it's funny they're making a point to make an exception for Pogba and religion when the beer he moved was non-alcoholic, so his religion had nothing to do with it.
Then the players can find out that they're making less money due to less sponsorships.
This wasn't her having a health issue. This was her being obstinate and deciding that she was a bigger star than the tour and the tournament. She wanted to ignore her on-duty responsibilities and do her own thing.
People who do their own thing need to find their own jobs. She had "talks" with Wimbledon, and they were quick to shoot her down. So maybe she can bully some minor tournaments, but the majors? They'll laugh her out of the stadium, and her endorsements will follow.
No, scratch that.
Giving interviews at a time that the tournaments deem appropriate is a necessary and vital part of her job that is second ONLY to being on the court and playing the games.
If she can't do that, then she's going to have a hell of a time trying to play meaningful tennis for a living.
Did the players agree to advertise for these companies att the conferences?
What if they spend half the conferences talking about benefits of drinking water and dangerous of sugar?
Its current formula in the UK contains too much sugar to apply for any sort of exemption or reduction in the soft drinks sugar levy.
The amount of sugar in Coca Cola sold in the US is similar to the UK (about 10.6g per 100ml).
Better is a matter of choice, and most of the "better" in this case is due to novelty.
Football should be funded by the people who watch it. Fin.
Though I get that sometimes seeming bad publicity fattens your bottom line and all that, there are things that can, in fact, harm you tremendously if it gets out there.
are they allowed to shake them up and put them back?