A glance at the comments accompanied by The Guardian's article retweets suggest that some people in the Twittersphere think they know why the company is playing a major role in the Olympics, with the above comment in particular mentioning a line amounting to 'money being unable to buy everything'.
He's right of course, it can't. But BP made $25.70 billion in 2011. If BP have agreed to sponsor the Olympics to the tune of even 1% of that, which is unlikely, then all of a sudden, from a business perspective, with events to organise and costs to pay, the deal looks incredibly attractive, especially in a capitalist world where budgets have to be met and profits will always be the number one priority.
When the Games begin, and millions are watching from around the world, and the British flag is being waved in anticipation of medal success, the cheers will be for putting on a Games that will make Britons proud. Those cheers won't suddenly turn to jeers come the closing ceremony, because we won't suddenly start thinking about the gulf of Mexico again, or even BP...
It's true to say that BP has attracted a fair bit of negative attention, and in truth, the ethical and financial whirlwind that is Olympic sponsorship can't truthfully claim to be squeaky clean either.
For the latest evidence of that, some might say unnecessarily, bold claim, you only need to go back 3 days to the above article.
The 34 signatories featured in the letter mentioned in the article above all, some would say rightly, take exception to the fact that the company formerly known as British Petroleum is officially listed as the major 'environmental' Partner for the Games.
The question on everyone's lips is a simple one... How on Earth can a company that was named as the 'responsible party' by the US Government who, just 22 months ago, filled the sea with an estimated 300 million barrels of oil, be suitable for an Olympic environmental sponsorship/partnership?
It's an uncomfortable one for BP, sure, but given the millions of people who will be watching the Games in the summer, it is an understandable deal from their viewpoint.
But for the IOC and the London organising committee, the 'understandable' section of that above statement can be removed, and they are just left with 'uncomfortable'.
Interesting attempt at an opinion piece (you need to label it as 'Opinion:' in the headline, and sum that opinion up more specifically there).
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not sure what it adds to your investigation? Some other points:
- If you quote someone, name them.
- Link to your sources: where did you get BP's revenue figures from? Where is the negative attention? Where were they named as 'responsible party'?
- Avoid speaking for "we, the public". You are not the Queen! And you will never represent everyone. You can only speak for yourself - trying to do more smacks of megalomania.