Right To Play booted from Olympic movement?

First, the athlete-powered humanitarian organization Right To Play learned they were being shut out of the athletes village for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Now, it looks like they could get booted out of the Olympic movement, too.

Andrea Shaw, vice president of marketing for the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC), told the Star as much in a late night email she sent yesterday. This was after an interview earlier in the day in which she explained how Right To Play would not be allowed to set up a booth in the athletes village as done in the past because they had conflicting sponsors with VANOC.

"It is VANOC’s (our) understanding that the IOC has raised the same concerns on conflicting sponsorships with Right To Play and has taken the position that Right To Play can no longer be associated with the Olympic Games," said Shaw.

This could be a huge blow for Right To Play, which has been an integral part of the Olympic movement, although the organization has incredible support from its athlete base, which is primarily made up of Olympians.

Right To Play started out as Olympic Aid, created in 1992 for the 1994 Lillehammer Games in an effort to put more heart and soul into the sports extravaganza and try to spur an Olympic truce where all wars ceased during the Games.

Its greatest champion early on was Norwegian speed skating great Johann Olav Koss, who donated all his prize money in 1994 to Olympic Aid and leads the Toronto-based Right To Play to this day.

Koss made it clear in a statement to day they’ve not given up hope of remaining a part of the Olympic Games, despite VANOC’s statement.

“Right To Play is currently in discussions with the International Olympic Committee,” said Koss, President and CEO of Right To Play. “The Olympic Games are part of our heritage and always will be, thanks to the support of hundreds of Olympic athletes worldwide who share our vision of a healthier and safer world through the power of sport and play.”

Comments

[JP Boutros]

How infuriating! GM has completely lost any chance of me getting another Chevy or GMC truck. It is truly hypocritical and petty to suggest that Mitsubishi's $480,000 donation is anything but a fine example of being a good corporate citizen because GM's sponsorship of the Olympics is being made with Ontario taxpayer subsidies. Hopefully Mitsubishi allows for Right To Play to not use its logos and then enter the Olympic Village. If not, then Dalton McGuinty should withhold further taxpayer propping to GM.

While we're at it: Why not make charitable donations - in terms of net donation - at least equal to equivalent political donations?

As a middle-class Ontarian in 2007, a $400 donation by me to a political party would have garnered me a $300 tax credit, yet with the same $400 donation to a registered charity I would have received only $123.42 in tax credit. Is politics worth 243% more than charity?

In Canada charity hurts more than it need to. It becomes insulting when deductions charitable taxpayers should get are instead used to prop up hypocritical dinosaurs like GM.

[Torontoworker]

I have to turn in my CTS next June (end of lease) and even though I love the car and was considering 'buying' a new 2009 CTS model outright - I now will NOT do so because of this. If GM really wants to gain any respect out of this mess - they would make an offer to RTP to double the donation RTP got from the other car company if RTP would agree to return the money and replace the logo's on their websites.

However: Is the VANOC group playing 'don't get mad - get even' here by getting the IOC into the picture? VANOC hasn't gained ANY friends in Vancouver lately - this is but only one negative issue with this group. Why didn't we see these issues with the Calgary group in 1988? Leadership - plain and simple. VANOC and the 2010 games are heading for major trouble if they can't solve small issues like this. Wait for more mud flinging from this organization.

[M. Bartlett]

I'm dismayed by Stu Low's comments in your article.
"As much as they're still.......where the conflict comes from."
"Beyond that"? Beyond what? The charitable industry is driven by gifts/sponsorships like Mitsubishi's. Without such gifts, programs like Right to Play (RTP) wouldn't exist. Sponsorship practices like this are at the core of the industy's existence; providing brand exposure through a web site or pamphlet is the value offered to Mitsubishi in exchange for this gift.
I would expect the Communications guru for GM to understand this; didn't they just pay VANOC $67 million for the same exchange of value?
Too bad GM didn't step up to the plate for another half-million and support RTP themselves. What's another half-million? Especially when it would have had a much greater impact on society than just filling the Olympic coffers...sounds like money well spent.

Mike Bartlett
Oakville Hospital Foundation

[toronto exec]

not surprising at all - the athletes all support the cause, it moves them deeply, and motivates them to achieve - but the sponsors don't realize what motivates the audience to connect an athlete's character with a brand - and that tying the two together - for what could probably be a nominal amount of money compared to what they paid for the olympic sponsorship - would give them a far greater bang for their buck. am i motivated to buy gas from petrocan because they sponsored the olympics? no. would I be motivated if my gas purchase made a difference in the world, and I learned about how it does from a star athlete? definitely. whoever is making these ridiculously short sighted marketing decisions should be fired.