Super funds should be spent on sports sponsorship, Royal Commission or not
As the Royal Commission into the Banks and Financial Services gets underway, South Sydney Rabbitohs CEO Blake Solly makes the case for why sports sponsorship makes just as much, if not more sense than print, radio, television, digital or outdoor advertising.
Back in November, the New South Wales Government announced its decision to invest heavily into stadia infrastructure to ensure the state remained a major destination for Rugby League, Football, Rugby Union and entertainment events.
The reaction to this announcement amongst some media bordered on the hysterical – insanity, waste and largesse at the service of ‘Big Sport’.
Stadium Australia Source: Wikipedia
I notice you chose the Australian Open as your example and not the taxpayer funded loss making Melbourne Grand Prix. If investing in stadiums is such a great investment, why aren’t private developers doing it? If you think shorter queues for pies are going to save your sport and get people off the couch, god help you. About time the NRL got it’s house in order and the clubs stopped constantly asking for taxpayer handouts.
Any chance of some stats to back up all these claims?
Super funds are obliged to act in the best interest of members but in sponsoring professional sporting teams they are using members money for sponsorship, thereby negatively impacting the balance of their accounts. There is no benefit to members – only a detriment. The only purpose I can imagine for this expenditure is to provide luxury seating for the fund trustees. There is a clear breach of fiduciary duty here and the Royal Commission did not address this.We need to rub these practices out of all super funds as well as other nest feathering activities. When is someone going to act to clean up these illegal activities.
A blind eye is turned just as it was in the disgraceful behaviour of certain members of the late NSW Labor Party.
No matter what Mr Solly from the South Sydney Leagues Club says, superannuation funds should not be sponsoring professional sporting groups. This expenditure does not benefit existing fund members in any way. It is a charge on members returns and trustees are acting outside the sole purpose test. It cannot be shown that any advertising is in the interest of members. The trustees must be obliged to explain the use of members funds in this way.