Trad Talk Forums banner

1 - 20 of 164 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
548 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In anther thread, the question came up about whether or not manufactures that sponsor archers, or pay professional archers to shoot certain equipment is ethical.

This question is NOT about any particular archer or manufacturer. Please, do not mention any specific archers or equipment manufacturers, I simply wanted to have a real discussion about what most people here thought about the subject.

Is the unique talent and dedication involved in building great bows any different than the unique talent and dedication involved in shooting them when it come to getting paid for that talent?

In other words, is it just as ethical to get paid to build them as it is to get paid to shoot them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Why not? It is only unethical if you are misleading someone or lying to someone. If paying to have some one shoot your bow or vice versa is unethical, then I would argue that any consultant, of any type, is by definition unethical, as is every athlete, actor and spokesperson in the world.

Alan
 
  • Like
Reactions: sylvan

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,428 Posts
Unethical would be to have your shooters using tricked up gear but branded as the standard items, fooling the public that way. I have seen golf pros sponsored by one brand, staff bag with big logo on but another companies clubs in it. That to me is wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
805 Posts
In anther thread, the question came up about whether or not manufactures that sponsor archers, or pay professional archers to shoot certain equipment is ethical.

This question is NOT about any particular archer or manufacturer. Please, do not mention any specific archers or equipment manufacturers, I simply wanted to have a real discussion about what most people here thought about the subject.

Is the unique talent and dedication involved in building great bows any different than the unique talent and dedication involved in shooting them when it come to getting paid for that talent?

In other words, is it just as ethical to get paid to build them as it is to get paid to shoot them?
I fail to see why there would be any question about being sponsored to shoot someones equipment. It is the best form of advertising for these companies. The only reason I can see that the question would even come up is jealousy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,516 Posts
Nothing unethical about sponsorship it's how the game is played. As a fishing and hunting guide/outfitter I have received lots of "free" gear over the years. The companies that gave it to me more than made their money back through my clients seeing me wearing it or using it and buying the same stuff. I also make a point of giving feed back to the companies as to how it works and any improvements that could be made.

That being said I won't compromise on my gear if there is something out there that works better I will pay full retail for it rather than using free stuff. I also won't tell a client that something is the bomb digitty just because I have a relationship with the company.

I paid full retail for Sitka gear for years before I got a "deal" - it was the best then and still is the best.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,955 Posts
think of nascar! "americas sport"! everyone involved with that is taking corporate bucks in some fashion.
even politicians are on the take for their perceived influence.
it's a way of life.
sometimes, like in the compound world when that bow was getting more popular, results were skewed to the manufacturer who had the most people shooting in the tournament that were competent. after things settled down most companies quit spending the big bucks on those programs because their position in the marketplace was well established.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
548 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thank you for your opinions guys, but please, lets not mention any brand names.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
Hoyt in NZ sponsors a number of shooters "mainly well known hunters" through their main importer and have done for ever.
Shops stocking other brands whinger an bitch about it but none of them do the same thing.
Hoyt are the winners in NZ archery, so I'd of thought the other brands would get on the same page rather than put themselves down by complaining about something they could also do themselves.
Sometimes you don't need to see it to know who the losers are, all you need to do is listen.

John.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,581 Posts
here in europe its illegal to use finacial might to exclude competition from the market place.

so lets take a hypothetical situation.
the team is paid for by a company. the facilities are paid for and the coaches are paid for.
id be mighty peeved if the team didnt have all that manufacturers kit in it.

where as. if a fast food company paid for a team of baseball players. that doesnt stop them changing bat manufacturers.

telephone companies dont mess with nascar.

there are different forms of sponsership.
some good. some bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,581 Posts
so you guys dont think there is a conflict of interest if a manufacturer runs the world governing body?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
I think the question basically relates to the ethics of "conflicts of interest". In my view conflicts of interest are only unethical when they are either not disclosed, or if someone acts for their own good to the harm of others.

The full disclosure is critical so that others can judge the situation and act accordingly. The actions are critical because harming others for you own benefit is unethical even when it is done in full view.

Basically, if a person is honest and open about the situation and acts with good intentions, there is no breach of ethics. If someone acts with good intentions and accidentally causes harm in a conflict of interest situation, then it is not unethical, as long as the conflict of interest was known by all in involved.

These basic ideas can be applied to the question of sponsorship of athletes to use equipment. The athlete is endorsing the product for money which is a conflict of interest for the consumer, but the conflict is well known because we know they get paid to do it. So, there is no breach of ethical behavior unless the athlete knows the product is junk and says it is good anyway. It might be assumed that if the athlete is using the equipment, it must be good, but we all know that Tiger Woods does not use the same Nike golf clubs that I can buy at the store, so that is a dubious assumptions to make, but again this fact is disclosed typically, or assumed by common sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sylvan

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,581 Posts
Runs it or has an influence in it. Legally there is a difference.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
whats the difference in runs or has a influence in it.

I will withdraw my money from your program if you allow bananaman tyres on the team car. (reason is I co-own Spiderman tyre co. that you use at present)

so there goes 100% of your facilities, and half your staff...

or Im the presedent of the IOC, I propose we put in a vote to allow my patent pending ski design as an allowed technology.

or Im the main sponsor (I make non Slip gloves) of the volleyball team, and I propose the national team puts forward a request to clarify grippy gloves rules. If I put the request in, as a manufacturer id get booted out. but Ill use the team to ask on my behalf.

it all turns to grey when money is spoken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,581 Posts
This is just about sponsoring shooters. Being compensated for talent.
not that simple.

I said in my other post that if it interferes with the competition its wrong.
If it gets rules passed at organisational levels its wrong.

if there is polictical pressures within the national bodies its wrong
 
1 - 20 of 164 Posts
Top