Non - Marcus Rashford

Really poorly judged and timed from the spectator. What do they expect? Because he does something charitable he therefore has to become a saint and donate everything to charity? Sort of s*** I'd expect from the Sun.
 
Without having seen the article I suspect the Spectator are pointing out by being the good guy footballer he's actually done a lot to help his brand and wealth.

Whether it's honest or cynical is near impossible to discern but where he's raising and spending his own wealth (as opposed to tax revenue) why should he get anything other than praise?

Is it a British or more human trait to have a natural cynicism towards public philanthropy?
 
Without having seen the article I suspect the Spectator are pointing out by being the good guy footballer he's actually done a lot to help his brand and wealth.

Whether it's honest or cynical is near impossible to discern but where he's raising and spending his own wealth (as opposed to tax revenue) why should he get anything other than praise?

Is it a British or more human trait to have a natural cynicism towards public philanthropy?
It's a British media trait.
 
Without having seen the article I suspect the Spectator are pointing out by being the good guy footballer he's actually done a lot to help his brand and wealth.

Whether it's honest or cynical is near impossible to discern but where he's raising and spending his own wealth (as opposed to tax revenue) why should he get anything other than praise?

Is it a British or more human trait to have a natural cynicism towards public philanthropy?
He’s only doing what the Spectators Government are failing to do.
 
Without having seen the article I suspect the Spectator are pointing out by being the good guy footballer he's actually done a lot to help his brand and wealth.

Whether it's honest or cynical is near impossible to discern but where he's raising and spending his own wealth (as opposed to tax revenue) why should he get anything other than praise?

Is it a British or more human trait to have a natural cynicism towards public philanthropy?

What the spectator are doing is without doubt cynical, then again that doesn't mean there's no truth in it. I'm pretty sure all the footballers who set up kids academies aren't doing it 100% to give back as they say.

I found this article when looking into rashfords PR firm after you mentioned it...

https://unherd.com/2020/12/whos-behind-marcus-rashford/

Unherd can be a dubious publication at the best of times and this article clearly contains a load of b*llocks from the start, but the interesting bit is his use of Roc Nation Sports Media. Boosting a player's profile in this way could be for a number of reasons.. money, could be but I'm not convinced that's his prime motivation. Pure philanthropy, again it could be. There is also clearly a political angle too given that he's waded directly into politics.

It's a perfect move... Agree with rashford or you want kids to starve. I'm a lefty and don't necessarily agree with him, I think they should boost benefits through a UBI and not have the government dictate how families allocate their money. I bet Rashford might even agree but he's gone down the route he has.

I certainly don't blame him if his motivation is PR, you only have to look at the PR of black footballers when left to the traditional press. A press that absolutely has it's agenda and promotes the old school powers that be in this country.

In short I think there may be some truth in Rashford being involved in a PR campaign for political purposes. Good for him! It's about time someone pulled the rug from under the traditional media's hegemony.
 
Oh no, he's not benefitting himself from being in a position where he's paid millions is he?? Ffs. Whoever is writing the article, I hope he/she isn't taking a salary and giving it all to charity.
 
I'm a lefty and don't necessarily agree with him, I think they should boost benefits through a UBI and not have the government dictate how families allocate their money. I bet Rashford might even agree but he's gone down the route he has

Great to see UBI get a mention. My PhD research is currently examining its ecological implications and I'm involved in a couple of trials in Europe and India. It's certainly proving to be an exciting and increasingly credible idea, and has to form part of the transition to a sustainable and just, post-growth economy, in my opinion.

On Rashford specifically, his entry into the political arena was reactionary, based on the fact that he saw a policy he affiliated with being axed. Like you say, in an ideal world I'm not sure that he'd necessarily favour in-kind benefits over something like a UBI, but it wasn't an either-or-option at the time.

For me, this is another example of class politics. Conservative media outlets like the Spectator hate to see working-class footballers like Rashford getting above their stations and meddling in things that they shouldn't. It's interesting how the financial affairs of Tory (or other) politicians don't come under the same level of cynical scrutiny.
 
Great to see UBI get a mention. My PhD research is currently examining its ecological implications and I'm involved in a couple of trials in Europe and India. It's certainly proving to be an exciting and increasingly credible idea, and has to form part of the transition to a sustainable and just, post-growth economy, in my opinion.

On Rashford specifically, his entry into the political arena was reactionary, based on the fact that he saw a policy he affiliated with being axed. Like you say, in an ideal world I'm not sure that he'd necessarily favour in-kind benefits over something like a UBI, but it wasn't an either-or-option at the time.

For me, this is another example of class politics. Conservative media outlets like the Spectator hate to see working-class footballers like Rashford getting above their stations and meddling in things that they shouldn't. It's interesting how the financial affairs of Tory (or other) politicians don't come under the same level of cynical scrutiny.

yes, kind of takes me back to last March where Hancock (I think) called out footballers as needing to help from a financial perspective.
 
Great to see UBI get a mention. My PhD research is currently examining its ecological implications and I'm involved in a couple of trials in Europe and India. It's certainly proving to be an exciting and increasingly credible idea, and has to form part of the transition to a sustainable and just, post-growth economy, in my opinion.

On Rashford specifically, his entry into the political arena was reactionary, based on the fact that he saw a policy he affiliated with being axed. Like you say, in an ideal world I'm not sure that he'd necessarily favour in-kind benefits over something like a UBI, but it wasn't an either-or-option at the time.

For me, this is another example of class politics. Conservative media outlets like the Spectator hate to see working-class footballers like Rashford getting above their stations and meddling in things that they shouldn't. It's interesting how the financial affairs of Tory (or other) politicians don't come under the same level of cynical scrutiny.


I think the traditional media are going to try and destroy him because they will be worried about his influence. They know how engaged football can make people, to the extent that one's football alleigences can influence their politics - Scotland being a good example.

I think both sides of this go quite deep. Rashford and Roc Nation almost certainly have an agenda deeper than making money for their clients and the Spectator and their ilk aren't just looking to bring Rashford down a peg or too.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.st...z-roc-nation-marcus-rashford-b918514.html?amp

It's not mentioned in the article but clearly there are broader motivations behind JZs company and I suspect it's about changing the narrative around stars from modest backgrounds, particularly black ones. We know what the traditional media do to these people - see Raheem Sterling - so you can hardly blame them.
 
I think the traditional media are going to try and destroy him because they will be worried about his influence. They know how engaged football can make people, to the extent that one's football alleigences can influence their politics - Scotland being a good example.

I think both sides of this go quite deep. Rashford and Roc Nation almost certainly have an agenda deeper than making money for their clients and the Spectator and their ilk aren't just looking to bring Rashford down a peg or too.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/insider/jay-z-roc-nation-marcus-rashford-b918514.html?amp

It's not mentioned in the article but clearly there are broader motivations behind JZs company and I suspect it's about changing the narrative around stars from modest backgrounds, particularly black ones. We know what the traditional media do to these people - see Raheem Sterling - so you can hardly blame them.

Thanks for that, interesting read. And good for them.

In theory, I'm not in favour of a philanthropic system, preferring progressive taxation combined with local, direct democracy for deciding how our collective wealth is spent. However, in the real world, it's great to see these guys taking a stance on social issues and contesting the established structures. Perhaps there are cynical financial motives, who knows. But I generally agree with you and think it runs deeper. And good to see some they've got some weighty backing and support. As you say, their going to need it!
 
Nothing like a bit of sunlight on tax affairs is there. It makes wealthy people on all sides of politics squirm alike. If Rashford does well for himself whilst pushing issues he cares about and engaging some philanthropy, then all well and good for him.

Personally I just pay my tax, like most other nothing special people.
 
Great to see UBI get a mention. My PhD research is currently examining its ecological implications and I'm involved in a couple of trials in Europe and India. It's certainly proving to be an exciting and increasingly credible idea, and has to form part of the transition to a sustainable and just, post-growth economy, in my opinion.

On Rashford specifically, his entry into the political arena was reactionary, based on the fact that he saw a policy he affiliated with being axed. Like you say, in an ideal world I'm not sure that he'd necessarily favour in-kind benefits over something like a UBI, but it wasn't an either-or-option at the time.

For me, this is another example of class politics. Conservative media outlets like the Spectator hate to see working-class footballers like Rashford getting above their stations and meddling in things that they shouldn't. It's interesting how the financial affairs of Tory (or other) politicians don't come under the same level of cynical scrutiny.

My apologies as this veers off topic.

As a complete layman who's read a few bits and pieces both pro and anti UBI and hasn't really formed a firm opinion, do you as someone more involved have any thoughts on price inflation?

One of the main potential criticisms I've seen, suggests that if you just give everyone in a population a regular sum of X (broadcasting the fact), then the price of everything, particularly bread and butter daily items, will inflate in proportion to X. In doing so wipes out the benefit to the people who need it most, leaving them no better off in real terms?

Where I like it is in generating public funding efficiency in cutting swathes of welfare means testing and administration. And as SDD says doing away with a system where Government kind of dictates how people use their money.
 
Last edited:
My apologies as this veers off topic.

As a complete layman who's read a few bits and pieces both pro and anti UBI and hasn't really formed a firm opinion, do you as someone more involved have any thoughts on price inflation?

One of the main potential criticisms I've seen, suggests that if you just give everyone in a population a regular sum of X (broadcasting the fact), then the price of everything, particularly bread and butter daily items, will inflate in proportion to X. In doing so wipes out the benefit to the people who need it most, leaving them no better off in real terms?

Where I like it is in generating public funding efficiency in cutting swathes of welfare means testing and administration. And as SDD says doing away with a system where Government kind of dictates how people use their money.

1) That looks awfully like one law for the rich, another for the poor. In times of economic growth, a whole swathe of people's incomes will grow. No-one worries about inflation on specific items then. But when it's poor people's incomes, "oh it's all too difficult".

2) Prices of goods only inflate when supply can't expand flexibly to meet demand. And even then, they are most unlikely to increase in proportion to the increase in income.
 

;