Field Theory: Pimpin' Ain't Easy
50 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Obviously this made me a bit spitty. There's no law against running a brothel, it's a regulated industry and he has some quite tight law to comply with. He appears to be being judged on a moral failing, one quite separate from his sport. It's the bigger picture that interests me, I guess. To what extent should sporting bodies be punishing athletes for doing things which are perfectly legal but 'disreputable'?
-
Not as if Taekwondo NZ would have too many sponsors to worry about either.
Can’t see the issue; raising money and staying fit.
-
Aren't athletes already generally judged on moral grounds? "Conduct likely to bring the sporting body into disrepute" is AFAIK a fairly normal and generally accepted reason for cutting ties to someone (certainly, I've worked several jobs that had that as a get-out clause in my employment contract). That certainly covers a lot of activities that are legal, but which society may have qualms about. See for example various sanctions applied to athletes for legal, but dumb, booze-fuelled antics.
-
<rant>
I love sport, but I think there's two big 'elephants in the room' with regard to sport that are hardly ever addressed.One is the 'role model' argument. That our sports figures are role models, especially for children. They just ain't! They may be role models for how to do well in a particular sport/activity, but beyond that it's just a crap-shoot. They have as much chance of being a good person (aka role model) as anyone else. The great quote on this is that 'Sport doesn't create character, it reveals it'.
Sports bodies push the role model angle and frown on things that might be 'disreputable' because it has the potential to affect their funding. Pure and simple. And frankly, they have no business holding moral judgments on activities that are legal etc. They should pick people based on how well they perform in their sport.
The second issue is that sport is almost completely funded in New Zealand from freaking gambling! Think about that for a minute. This activity that is held up to be pure and moral and good is funded from something that causes immense community and societal damage. And it's hardly ever discussed or mentioned because no sport wants to upset the gravy train they rely on. And of course it's not a gravy train because there's bugger all funding in general, but it's pretty much all they get.
SPARC (the great provider for NZ sport) is funded from gambling. There is something fundamentally wrong with that!
So the idea of being critical of someone running a brothel whilst being funded from the proceeds of gambling strikes me as particularly hypocritical.
And yes of course, it's not something that can be helped - kids (and adults) look to the achievements of sports people and get inspired
sport here (and elsewhere) suffers from the moral the two biggest pieces of hypocrisy.
</rant> -
Yikes - I really should have hit that 'Preview' button! The last paragraph "and yes of course ..." is incoherent and should be struck down from the record.
-
See for example various sanctions applied to athletes for legal, but dumb, booze-fuelled antics.
How many under the threshhold for being drunk and disorderly?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it clearly does. I'm just trying to work out where the line is or should be.
-
If he would just join Rotary then his business dealings would revert to being just that, 'business dealings', and the fuss might start to go away.
Or maybe if he joined the Masons...
It is, frankly, pathetic that this bloke should be given grief for trying to raise funding for his chosen sport within the laws of the land.
-
I suppose it up to Logan in many ways. Is he going to be a brothel owner who represents New Zealand at TKD
or
is he a TKD champ funded by a brothel? -
Is he going to be a brothel owner who represents New Zealand at TKD or is he a TKD champ funded by a brothel?
Is he going to be a business owner who represents New Zealand at TKD
or
is he a TKD champ funded by a business?The business is legal - and the storm is in the teacup.
-
Regardless of the legality of it all, it is a bad look. The reality is everyone has a general internal moral compass of what sorts of business one thinks it is appropriate for any particular individual to be engaged in. And usually there is a broad agreement about what is and isn't acceptable. Yes, the edges are gray and many made hold dissenting opinions.
But lets face it - we wouldn't be having this discussion if running a brothel wasn't regarded as one step beyond for an athlete aiming to represent his country at the 2012 Olympics. I would have the same general thoughts if he had set up a factory to manufacture AK-47's for legal export to the third world. It just is not right.
Oh - and if he thinks he can run the whole thing like a slightly more serious upmarket nightclub and without getting his hands dirty, then he is dreaming.
Don't worry Logan - the bad boys WILL come knocking.
-
Not content to simply become players in the sex industry, Campbell and Phillips want to transform it, as they believe most clubs and parlours are "seedy".
I notice that they're advertising their classy new operation with guys holding up "Honk If You Love Sex" ads on street corners...
-
Normally when a brothel owner gets in the paper upon opening a new whorehouse, it's because some neighbours aren't happy at the business opening in their 'hood.
But lucky Logan gets to wear a nice suit and pose with a smile on his face and talk about his "sports fundraising".
-
I think Mike Brown makes two very interesting points above (particularly about the hypocrisy around gambling funding). One other thing I'd like to pick up on is the effect that funding has on ability. It's all very well to say "they should just pick the best athlete and fund them", but part of the effect of the funding is that it allows the athlete time to train and improve. So there's an effect on who actually becomes the best in their sport, if you see what I mean.
But I think Robyn's nailed it above: the guy's using the sport angle to advertise his new business venture, rather than the other way around. Voila, lots of free publicity for his new knob-polishing operation.
-
Aren't athletes already generally judged on moral grounds?
Funny, I'd always had the strange idea they were judged according to sporting achievements.
-
Regardless of the legality of it all, it is a bad look. The reality is everyone has a general internal moral compass of what sorts of business one thinks it is appropriate for any particular individual to be engaged in.
There are perhaps three issues involved: legal, "sexual" moral and "exploitation" moral:
- Legality is a non-issue now.
- "Sexual" morality shouldn't be a question, unless he's representing the Mormons or United Future.
- The morality of the sex industry, in terms of the extent to which its workers are exploited, could indeed be up for debate. Of course there is a lot of misery and exploitation in the sex industry, but I've known women who've worked in the industry and say that that stereotype is far from universal. On those grounds, it might be worse if he'd taken out shares in certain multinational corporations.
-
Is he going to be a business owner who represents New Zealand at TKD
or
is he a TKD champ funded by a business?It's the same-diff really. The reason why Campbell didn't get his SPARC funding was that he wasn't competing. So we can assume then that once his business is up and running he'll leave it in his friends hands while he gets back to training?
On a related note: If you were a gentleman, looking for a club, would you go to one run by a 23 year old? It seems wrong somehow.
-
if I were a gentleman????
-
If you were a gentleman, looking for a club
If I were the sort of gentleman who frequented that sort of club, I would imagine that it's not the age of the owner that would be uppermost in my mind.
-
If I was a sports association and one of our elite prospects for Olympic consideration was arranging his own (legal) funding then why threaten him like this?
Sure, they may have wanted him to tone down the publicity linking the sports body to the brothel, but it seems they have done the opposite and upped the publicity.
-
Something I know for sure:
Logan tried to start a Chauffeuring business in the years before the last Olympics. It failed largely because he couldn't walk away from it for 6-8 weeks at a time.
He is never going to be able to work in an office and working for his father involved time and a fair degree of manual labour.
In the period before the last Olympics he did do quite a lot to promote his sport at a time when better funded and "more important" athletes were already overseas. By way of a specifc example he travelled on his own dime to his old club in Tauranga to give a masterclass before he left.
the guy's using the sport angle to advertise his new business venture
And the advertising machine that backed Hamish Carter for 2004 wasn't a business ?
If Logan manages to get one good piece of publicity out of his Olympic experience then good luck to him - Given what it cost him personally It's not much to ask.
-
One is the 'role model' argument. That our sports figures are role models, especially for children. They just ain't!
I like your argument, but I'm not sure it works. Role models are those whom others (incl. children) model themselves on. Maybe sports figures shouldn't be role models, but that's a different matter from whether they are.
-
And the advertising machine that backed Hamish Carter for 2004 wasn't a business ?
The only sponsorship deal so far that has made me yell at the TV was when I saw Sarah Ulmer's unholy union with McDonalds. Talk about not being a good role model for kids!
-
3410,
Maybe sports figures shouldn't be role models, but that's a different matter from whether they are.
Maybe they are, but that's a different matter from whether they have a greater obligation than anyone else to be so.
-
Maybe Bravo will offer Logan Campbell a sponsorship deal, so much synergy.
-
As an aside, since this has now gone global is Greenlane about to be over run by frustrated and confused tourists?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.