A tennis sponsor gives a certain amount of money every time someone hits an ace in a tournament. Similar thing really. I've never heard an outcry about that, and nor have I ever thought that it's a terrible thing.
ok ......its the principle that's wrong....lets assume that the players score no goals/hit no aces and therefore the donor company gives no money? In effect it says "yes we have money, we could have given it to alleviate hunger in children but now we won't because our arbitrary and self serving condition wasn't met. Go away and starve kids"
I have just had a thought....this has the potential to disrupt the whole World Cup....I mean what if players decided that feeding starving children was more important than winning and allowed those players to score goals unopposed?
I wouldn’t brand the person who thought of it as some sort of lower species. Unfortunately this is the sort of idea someone probably dreams up on the spur of the moment without giving it much thought. Looks like thought has belatedly been given to it
Regardless of this campaign they have already pledged £1 million pounds to the starving children of South America.I don't think they deserve all the flak they are getting.
Messi scores massively in every game, still thousands of children starve.
As mentioned, the principle has been used before without a murmur. Perhaps the best the outraged might do is to raise additional funds to help further ?
Mastercard and the WFP announced a joint 100 Million Meals global initiative last year, aimed at raising significant funds and meals for those in need around the world.