Hats off to Gary Neville
(There's a title of a post I never thought I'd make)
Neville's words after the England v Holland friendly about the motives of Nike in supporting football's anti racism campaign were admirable to say the least.
The fact Nike make Man Utd's shirts and his criticism might lead to Neville being victimised in the pocket make his stand all the more impressive.
The full story is here
Neville's words after the England v Holland friendly about the motives of Nike in supporting football's anti racism campaign were admirable to say the least.
The fact Nike make Man Utd's shirts and his criticism might lead to Neville being victimised in the pocket make his stand all the more impressive.
The full story is here
10 Comments:
Apparently this business is what started the whole row in the tunnel at Highbury before the Arsenal v Man Utd game. Neville and Scholes didn't wear the Nike anti racism tracksuit tops for the pre-match warm up which both sets of players had been asked to wear. Vieira decided to enquire why, and Neville supposedly told him that he wasn't wearing: "that cunt Thierry Henry's rubbish". It kicked off from there and Roy Keane got confused with Vieira's Senegalese charity and the Henry/Nike racism thing, hence Keane's strange comments about Senegal to Vieira ("you love Senegal so much, why don't you play for them?") during the whole incident.
Incidentally have you noticed that G Neville and Paul Scholes never sing the national anthem before England games. Rebels!
that was me (Dom) by the way.
Good to see that no good deed goes unpunished.
DY (assuming this really is DY),
You really should look into Nike. They are a scummy company who use dubious business methods (cheap labour... predatory trading).
They wouldnt do a thing for anyone unless there was plenty of $$$ in it for them
I was expecting this kind of comment from DY, but you'll do :-)
Yes we know that's how it works. But there still is the question of degree. When you read about how much Phil Knight is worth and the conditions his Asian workforce suffer under, doesn't even a tiny little bit of you, deep down inside, think "that's not right" ?
You run a business mate - if one of your bean-counters came up to you and said "we can increase profits by employing children to work 14 hours a day in sweat-shops", would you do it ?
We have to accept the system but we don't have to like it, and we don't have to cheer and wave flags when a company like Nike cynically uses a humanitarian issue for cheap advertising.
Andy.
PS I complained like fuck when my PEP halved in value. But I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from that. Apart from to gamble with my money myself in future :-)
Unfortunately a lot of withnail's argument is valid.Nearly all economically successful countries started out with exploitative labour.In fact today developing countries like Vietnam want to be exploited.They would much rather Nike invested in the country than choose another.However,I think as consumers we can attempt to make ethical choices.I'd rather buy more expensive smaller bannanas from small holders in the caribbean than those long straight things from the giant Bush-bankrolling american corporations operating in central america.I'd rather not purchase ridiculously expensive designer guff for chavs,that is nike.I'd rather not purchase Gap emblazoned T shirts which anounces to all and sundry'I am a twat that buys overpriced gear,produced in sweat shops,that falls apart after 6 months'.
And by the way,is T.Henry a cunt cos he refuses to be bought by that Russian gangster?
Withnail,
Fair points well made. As long as you agree that it's also not as one-sided as your original post made it seem, that's ok by me !
Andy.
The whole idea of a company who pay Asian children 30 cents an hour to work 14 hour days caring about anything other than profits is hilarious. Although they probably do think everyone should be treated equally regardless of race. Because if that was the case, they may be able to pay white westerners the same sort of money.....And wouldn't they love it...Rarely do I make sweeping generalisations as mostly, the issues are not that simple. BUT in this case..Nike = scum b*stard anti-Christ ****** **** **** **** gits !!!
I will except the excuse "they are a company and therefore it's their job to make money. I therefore condone ANY action they make take to achieve this, regardless of cost or effect on any person, animal or thing. And I mean ANY....I wont be told what to do by any whining liberals who seem to think there are any other factors other than profit....pussies..the lot of them "
If that is your stance, then I salute you for having a consistent defence for Nike, Nestle et al.
CB
free-range, eggs tuna - people make alternative choices based on some ethical chain that leads to the end product. It is a matter of degree, one doesn't have to support capitalism and accept such level of abuse. It is not inevitable consequence of capitalism as people make ethical choices. It certainly is not laughable that people complain about such things, because the bottom line of their product chain doesn't always or even often lie in abuse of rights in some way (although the nature of economics does mean that no money is ever clean).
If folk boycotted Nike to save the children in the way they might have boycotted Sainsbury's to save the tuna then things would be different and we'd still live in a capitalist society. Ethics contribute to consumer choice, and people can, therefoe, be angry if they want to.
Are the countires better off without the cheap labour? Tough question. Short term, long term ?
30c an hour isn't meaningful bacause cost of living isn't an issue. Unless, you assume the facility to buy a Nike top affects an individual's quality of life.
to save the dolphins (not tuna!)
Post a Comment
<< Home