Mastercard feed kids........but only if Messi or Neymar score

NiCkNaMe said:
I think lots of these things are in bad taste, and if calling MasterCard out on this campaign encourages better behaviours then all the better!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the 'real world' net effect of this 'outrage' is that companies will be less like to give money to charitable causes....

bit of an 'own goal' (yes I know)
 
A well thought out and intelligent response.....

Celebrity edition game shows where the winnings go to charity, is that any different?
 
Yeah, the wording is what has caused this backlash. Celebrity specials keep it high level - '£X to [Charity Name]' instead of Bradley Walsh saying 'You've been caught so we won't be funding those beds in the children's hospice. Sorry kids!'

It probably doesn't help that it's Mastercard rather than a local shop or something. I'm sure most people would believe - probably quite rightly - that they have an endless supply of cash and should just give the money away unconditionally if they are that way inclined.
 
eh ? Mastercard offers money for charity

No! complain because the method of giving the money is in their opinion wrong

Maybe Mastercard should give zero money and let these No! cover the cost for the starving kids
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Putting the focus on 2 players was daft. They should have offered a lesser amount for every goal regardless of who scored it. Just look at the totals from previous tournaments for a rough idea of what the limits should be.
 
Minusorange said:
eh ? Mastercard offers money for charity

Dickheads complain because the method of giving the money is in their opinion wrong

Maybe Mastercard should give zero money and let these dickheads cover the cost for the starving kids
Click to expand...

Yes, the multi millionaire (maybe even billionaire) bank owners should definitely use two of the highest paid footballers in the world (also multi millionaires) to exploit child hunger in a horrible and ill thought out marketing campaign that turns the World Cup into some sort of Hunger Games.

It will certainly put goalkeepers in a moral quandary, if nothing else!
 
I think tv shows are somewhat different in that they are already heavily scripted, it's not really a competition.

A football match though?

Terrible use of charity motivation, you don't see skinheads beating people up over The Chase or HIGNFY. However considering how invariably corrupt FIFA is and most charities, i suppose it fits.

In fact i think MasterCard would have a better time if they'd just kidnapped Messi and put a gun to his head, all the weirdo fans would be emptying their pockets to save their vicarious mascot.
 
NiCkNaMe said:
People blowing things out of all proportion again. They're already a major contributor to that particular charity aid anyway.

Don't see how it's any different to majority of charity schemes whereby people give X if somebody does Y, e.g. skydiving, etc.
Click to expand...

This is correct they have donated millions of dollars to that charity and this is an on top of what they are already doing. So it makes no difference to the kids who would have been fed anyway. Just a few more would be.

So many idiots who cannot be bothered to read the article and just take the 'headline' and then make wrong negative comments.


In a statement, the WFP said it "depends of the generosity of governments, companies and members of the public to fund its life-saving work".

It added: "Mastercard is a valued partner of the World Food Programme and over the past five years has driven a multi-million dollar investment in the agency’s work.

"As part of its current campaign, Mastercard has already raised funds to provide meals to 400,000 hungry children and is committed to providing over a million meals by 2020."
Click to expand...
 
zophiel said:
So it makes no difference to the kids who would have been fed anyway. Just a few more would be.
Click to expand...

Um, yeh that is the point of why people think it is terrible...

If they have the money to give to more children, maybe they should just give it rather than base it on some trivial rubbish like whether Messi kicks a ball into a net?

"Oh you have been fed little Timmy because you were part of our initial donation, Little John though, you get nothing because Messi didn't score a goal - i mean we could still afford to do it, but we won't because a rich guy didn't score enough goals"
 
not quite go back and see the quotes from the people in the article.

90% were omg your only gonna feed kids if someone scores a goal!!
 
I think to be honest there is a large degree of naivety going on with some of the responses to this issue....

People saying why don't company x just hand over the money without any strings (or spectacle etc attached) to starving kids.....

Ultimately companies don't really do charity for purely altruistic reasons.....

They do it either to provide simple exposure for their brand or because they are trying to position themsleves as an 'ethical' brand as a means of selling themsleves to a certain demographic of consumers who are concerned by such things in the businesses they use....

Mastercard just quietly handing over money without some publicity or promotional angle makes zero sense....

So in this case just tried to associate their charity giving with a popular (and highly lucrative for the people financially involved) sport.....

Remove the incentives for business to promote themselves via charity equals less money being given to charities as a result.......

Not exactly the best idea now .. ..
 
perhaps all the other players could show their support of this charitable effort but standing back and letting messi/neymar just score endless amounts of goals.

loads of kids get fed and the rest of the teams have an honorable excuse for losing.

only people that lose out are mastercard
 
I think the issue with it is tying the donations to two players. It's just too cynical to pick the highest profile players in the tournament and piggyback like this, also a bit distasteful to look like you're making a game of it, plus the actual donation is a bit 'swingy', with the potential for literally nothing to be paid out under the promotion.

If they'd said they'd pay out x for every goal in the world cup, I doubt there would have been the backlash.
 
cheesyboy said:
I think the issue with it is tying the donations to two players. It's just too cynical to pick the highest profile players in the tournament and piggyback like this, also a bit distasteful to look like you're making a game of it, plus the actual donation is a bit 'swingy', with the potential for literally nothing to be paid out under the promotion.

If they'd said they'd pay out x for every goal in the world cup, I doubt there would have been the backlash.
Click to expand...


the charity they have been working with for years is based in the south american countries. so it makes sense to me that they chose the two most likely to score the most goals in the tournament from south america
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom