On the one hand, wealthy citizens should be applauded for donating anything to charity. On the other fist, the mission of so many charitable organizations is laughably transparent: positive PR for the organization's founder, and employment for the entourage, especially when so much of the money collected doesn't get spent on the cause the money was purportedly collected for. The charitable organization standard is that only 25% (or less) of the endowment should be spent on administrative expenses.
Big Players in Charity - WSJ.com For pro basketball player Gary Payton, having his own foundation has drawn favorable attention over the years. During his tenure at the Seattle Supersonics, for example, Mr. Payton's foundation sponsored a shopping trip to FAO Schwarz for children with cancer. Stories and photos in the local press showed how the foundation was bringing Christmas cheer to the needy.But by one measure, the Gary Payton Foundation falls well short of being a model philanthropy. In 2005, it took in about $110,000. Just under $11,000 went to charitable programs, while $101,549 went to administrative expenses. That's a roughly 1-to-10 ratio, well below the 75% figure most philanthropy-watchers expect to see spent on charity rather than overhead.
-though, apparently all of Gary Payton Foundation money comes directly out of Payton's bank account.
Your task for the next month: pay attention to how often an athlete's charitable organization gets mentioned - the foundations are frequently just tools for marketing an athlete.
Players, teams and leagues leverage these charitable efforts to market themselves. Players often grant interviews on television, radio and in print on the condition that they be allowed to talk about their latest philanthropic work. Teams tout this work on their Web sites and in media guides that reporters reference for their stories.Teams see player philanthropy as critical, in part because of a widening rift between athletes and fans. Players' salaries have hit astronomical levels, even as leagues have had to crack down on player misconduct. At the same time, rising ticket prices have made it harder for many fans to see games.
“The first thing about marketing a team is that fans have to relate to the players as people,” says Bernie Mullin, the chief executive of the Atlanta Hawks and Atlanta Thrashers. “We sit down with every player to find out about their lives and families to see if there's a cause that's touched their lives... It's not 100% altruistic -- we're a business,” he says.
Some players of note, and their percentages of actual dollars earmarked for charity, as analyzed by the Wall Street Journal (PDF, $, or email me for a copy)
You can tell who is really serious about making a positive change in their world, and who is really just working the PR angle.
“If I just wrote personal checks, people wouldn't know as much about what we're doing,” says Vince Carter, a co-captain for the New Jersey Nets. Mr. Carter's foundation, Embassy of Hope, sent just a third of its spending to programs in 2004, the most recent year for which records are available...
Critics note that some of these organizations provide employment for athletes' relatives and friends -- many of whom have no experience in philanthropy -- whose salaries are paid out of the foundations. Players say they prefer to hire friends and family members because they have a better understanding of the goals and are willing to work for little or no money. Steve Nash's foundation paid $27,500 salaries to its two employees, Mr. Nash's sister and Jenny Miller, the foundation's executive director and a close childhood friend. The point guard for the Phoenix Suns says it would be impossible to find anyone else to do the work for that amount of money and that the two women both share his lifelong interest in the environment.
Dikembe Mutombo Foundation (Houston Rockets) - 81.31% of expenses for charity programs (or $497,397 out of assets of $7,945,682!)
Tim Duncan Foundation (San Antonio Spurs) - 99.47% of expenses for charity programs
Dirk Nowitzki Foundation (Dallas “Choker” Mavericks) - 0% of expenses for charity programs (or $1,704 out of assets of $231,260)
Steve Nash Foundation (Phoenix Suns) - 8.62% of expenses for charity programs (grants low because foundation “just getting started”)
Technorati Tags: Basketball, charity
