Tuesdays With Hildy: The Real Charity Point

by hildymac on Feb 2, 2010 3:43 PM CST

Brad's awesome feature on the leisure suit and afro sportin' Blues below got me thinking about something. No, not the heyday of bad music and even worse sports uniforms. I was thinking about charity. Casino night is an annual success for the Blues and the 14 Fund. The wacky themes and the chance to rub elbows with the guys on the ice is always an alluring option for a Sunday evening, especially for chicks who are seriously trying to impress the Teej or Berglund.

All snide comments aside, though, it's a good night for a good cause. But is it, or should it be, mandatory? Not just for the guys to show up, but for teams to host charity events like this across the league? Yes, they're excellent PR for the teams, but do athletes have a responsibility to the community in which they play to lend a helping hand?

Their paycheck's made out to them.

No doubt these guys get paid substantially less than people who play other sports, which is unfortunate because of the amount of punishment they take on a nightly basis. Some guys make only $500,000 a year. Yes, I know I just said "only $500,000," but af ter escrow, taxes, and mandatory contributions to the players' retirement fund and NHLPA dues, their income's significantly diminished. It's more than any of us'll see for a year's work, yes. But they're no more morally obligated to fork over money than we are, unless they want to. If you make people have to do something, it won't be genuine anyway. They don't have to give a percentage of jack or squat if they don't want to - there's no tithing in hockey.

Sometimes it's actually nice to do good for good's sake.

Players have a lot of causes that are close to their hearts; personal causes that their position and money put them in a better position to help with. Backes and his love for puppies comes to mind. Players do work with childrens' hospitals all over the metro area - it's good PR for the team and for them as an individual, yes, but you can tell that the guys love going down there and making some little kid's day, all the time raising awareness and money for something they believe in. You and I might send a check off to the local ASPCA, or St. Jude's, or whatever your charity is, and it gives us the warm and fuzzies (it's a psychological phenomena that I'm too lazy to look up right now). These guys should be able to get so many warm and fuzzies they could put Snuggie out of business.

Poll

Is there an obligation for folks in positions of celebrity to do charitable works?

Yes - who better to bring attention to a worthy cause than a bunch of men who beat each other on a nightly basis.

42 votes

No - no one has to do anything they don't want to do.

39 votes

Yes - and they can start by donating goals to the "Starving Blues Fans" fund.

48 votes

129 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I know I'm missing the point ...

But I just have to disagree with this statement:

No doubt these guys get paid substantially less than people who play other sports, which is unfortunate because of the amount of punishment they take on a nightly basis.

The NHL’s average salary is somewhere around $2 million a year and rising.
The minimum NHL salary is nearly $500,000 — that’s the minimum.

In the NFL, which is arguably more violent, players have shorter careers on average and the league minimum salary is $285,000 and the league collective makes an average of $1.1 million.

The point is, NHL players are not going to be panhandling for money any time soon.

by averagejoe on Feb 2, 2010 4:10 PM CST reply actions

Now that I didn't realize.

Point conceded.

Reporter: There`s a "stamp out the Beatles movement" underway in Detroit. What are you going to do about it?

Paul McCartney: We`re going to start a campaign to stamp out Detroit.

by hildymac on Feb 2, 2010 4:19 PM CST up reply actions

But to answer your question

And not look like a nit-picking dick: Abso-fucking-lutely should these guys be forced to be charitable. They are rich and famous and that can help a lot. Cancer research needs more money. Animal shelters need money. Sick kids need hope/a chance to feel good. All these guys have to do is show up, smile and not be total assbags like the infamous Portland Trailblazers.

They play a game 82 times a year. They have free time to be good human beings and share the wealth.

by averagejoe on Feb 2, 2010 4:33 PM CST up reply actions

if it is forced, it is not charitable

and though non-profits are not going to decline money from an athlete. . . knowing that they actually care, when they hand over the check, means a whole lot. Celebrities now are viewed as “spokesmen” for whatever charity they are publicly donating too. . . if they are doing it because they are obligated, their words will carry little value.

by breibird on Feb 2, 2010 5:01 PM CST up reply actions

the point of which sport is more violent

my votes on hockey, ice>grass and dirt on pain scale. ice doesnt give any, dirt and grass does, and for those that say turf hurts have you walked on turf? the turf at the edward jones dome sink about half an inch to an inch

Pujols takes out "I" in BIG and "A" in MAC, previously considered to be an unyielding, consonant threat

by DESTROYER on Feb 3, 2010 9:37 AM CST up reply actions

No one should have to do anything they don't want to...

Unless they are contractually obligated. I don’t know much about professional sports contracts; I don’t know if something like this could be construed as a required activity. This is a tough topic for someone like myself with strong libertarian sentiments. I recognize the value of this sort of activity, but it should always be voluntary. But if their contract specifies a certain number of team charity events, they volunteered when they signed up.

There is a flip side to this: if a player only comes to St. Louis to play hockey; if they are pure mercenary, they should expect to be treated as such. Used up for goals and thrown away. If they want to come and join the community, well sometimes that involves volunteering for things like this.

by PersonalJustice on Feb 2, 2010 4:17 PM CST reply actions

I think it should be everyone’s obligation to help out, not just celebrities.

I realize that not everyone has money to donate, but you could always give your time or donate items such as old clothing you don’t wear anymore. You never know when you might have to rely on charity to get through a hard time.

"I wanna be an achiever like Bad Horse.... I meant Ghandi" ~ Dr. Horrible

by Carnie on Feb 2, 2010 4:45 PM CST reply actions

I think that charity definitely loses its luster if players are "forced" to do it.

However, I think there is a moral obligation to help out, since celebrities and athletes are so celebrated in society now. The players who don’t make as much money can just poke their head into a hospital and do charity that way. Charity shouldn’t be made into writing a huge check. All it has to be is a simple, kind act for a stranger.

You do that... you go to the box, you know. Two minutes, by yourself, you know and..... you feel shame, you know. And then you get freed.

by medel19 on Feb 2, 2010 5:05 PM CST reply actions

NHL players are not the only ones

Anybody here work at a larger company during a United Way campaign? What about Red Cross Blood Drives? Most of us are pressured in one way or another to do charitable things through work, school, or other social groups. Should NHL players be “forced” to as well? Sure, why not? It’s often pretty easy to tell who wants to be there and who is just showing up.

by Mr. Particle on Feb 2, 2010 5:29 PM CST reply actions

The Starving Blues Fans fund is running low and needs a boost. Like, right fucking now!

Nah, in all seriousness . . . suggestions are OK, peer pressure is fun, but mandatory charity work is not charity work. I don’t want to hear about some guy who was all like “Oh, I wasn’t gonna go to this, but Coach told me I should and, well, hey, it was a blast!” with a painted-on smile when they talk to reporters afterward. That’s just damn silliness.

Sure, these guys make good bank . . . a lot of these guys probably make better scratch in one year than I’ll make in a decade. That doesn’t mean they have to be like Bono and donate every dime he doesn’t need to charity. It has to matter, first and foremost, to the person and the charity. Or else it’s just . . . blah.

"Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday." -- Don Marquis
The Blue Note Zone - BY Blues fans, FOR Blues fans!

by Donut King on Feb 2, 2010 7:48 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

speaking of charity

LINK

You do that... you go to the box, you know. Two minutes, by yourself, you know and..... you feel shame, you know. And then you get freed.

by medel19 on Feb 2, 2010 9:12 PM CST reply actions

I think there are two issues here..

1) Players donating their time and money to a charity outside the “team.”
2) Players donating their time to show up at “team” events FOR charity such as the casino night.

I believe the 1st is an individuals decision.
I believe the 2nd is mandatory. (should be anyway).

Just MHO. (Can’t believe I just now read this, I am so far behind my SLGT reading).

PC Load Letter? What the fuck does that mean?

by DanGNR on Feb 4, 2010 10:30 AM CST reply actions