Shark Shootout Noted For "Vastly Inefficient" Charitable Giving

Paula Lavigne writes this ESPN.com companion piece to an ESPN Outside the Lines story on waste in charitable sports organizations.

Greg Norman's Shark Shootout the lone golf-related entity earning acclaim for billing itself as a charitable enterprise but in reality spent just a third of its income on charitable recipients.

President Bart Collins said the shootout follows the same model as other PGA Tour events, where the biggest expenses are prize money and the cost to get the event on television, which are necessary to attract players, sponsors and fans. "Whether you save 15 or 20 percent on catering or scaffolding or parking or the other operational expenses," won't matter much, he said, when those two big expenses are often "cast in stone."

And...

"It's a hard business, and our heart's in it," Collins said. "I understand, with 115 athletes, you'll have some abuses with charities, but this really isn't one of them."

Despite that argument and the bottom line, Berger, from Charity Navigator, stands firm, saying the shootout was, "so vastly inefficient that it just sort of trumps everything else."

The report:

Comments

[HMMM]

Before the inevitable piling on begins, I know there are frequent posters in here
who may answer this.
What percentage of fundraising, is LEGALLY required to be "donated"
from 501(c)3 charities?

1/3 is low for my values, but is also likely a little misleading.
What $% goes to the "purse"? And how much of the earnings of the players,
ends up being donated to charities of their choice? Might level the numbers, at least a little

[Bobby D]

ha, ha...no April Fool here...the only fools are those who believe anything Norman says or does...an adulterer and back-stabber of "friends"...

[freshfrankie]

On the other hand, most of the PGA Tour charities, dedicated to making a difference by empathetic initiatives in a similar vein to buying waterproof cardboard boxes to improve living conditions among the homeless, are deemed mostly effective.

[smails]

By this buffoon's standard, selling Girl Scout cookies is "inefficient".

[elf]

To be to both parties, they're both right. The shoot-out operates in the same way as every other pga tour type event, and they're all massively inefficient as charitable fundraisers.

On the other hand, I'm not sure anyone buys a ticket to these things thinking they are contributing to charity, anymore than they would for any other sporting event. As opposed to when you make a donation to a charity.

[MattS]

In Michigan there are 'Charity Poker Rooms.' Usually Hold 'Em cash games and tournaments. They are quite well attended. More than once I have offered $20 to anyone at the table that could name that night's charity, and haven't had to pay yet.

Charity for charity's sake is one thing (read church, American Red Cross as examples), but charity as a side benefit for something else is completely different (golf outings, team in training marathons, poker rooms).

[DTF]

Bay HIll is a PGA Tour event. Just see if you can find any sort of track record of the charitable give for this event.

[Bobby D]

Did the First Tee make the list?. Joe Louis Barrow's take alone should rank as one of the all-time biggest wastes.

[Ghillie]

The PGA Tour is not in and of itself a "donor" to charity -- they are more of a fundraiser. What the charities get is dependent upon the take. They do state on their website that they exercise the maximum tax deductions allowed in every state. They are also defined as a non-profit company (hah!), not a charity per se. I don't know the US numbers but, as in Canada, there is probably a difference in percentage requirements.

Given the last reported total charitable contribution I could find ($108 million, 2009), I would imagine the charities are something like the guy who made the cut and came DFL.

[HMMM]

I was under the impression, that there is a portion
of PGA TOUR business under their non profit umbrella,
and a portion under a for profit structure (The TPC Network at one time)
That understanding was a few years ago.

[smails]

this is stupid.

there are charities that raise funds to be spent on good works--give a $1000, go to a rubber chicken dinner, meet the kids, head home.

these are charities for which "effiiciency" has some merit. A-rod and tiger's foundations seem to fit in this catagory.

then there is a junior league thrift shop--its a business, the profits of which go to good works. this is "inefficient" as it has expenses that must be covered before a profit is generated. But nobody shops there because they want to "give" to somebody. they are looking for clothes. No business has 66% margins, at least not for long.

[peter]

Geoff,

We get it. You don't like Greg Norman. But instead of cutting and pasting someone else's text why not do some research and let your readers know how it compares to other golf-related charities?

[Bobby D]

"We get it. You don't like Greg Norman."


guess what?...a lot of people despise the guy...and for good reason...he's one of the worst.

[peter]

Bobby D,

From what I've read, Norman is no better or worse than the world's no. 1 golfer, but I don't see Geoff S. trolling the Internet for negative stories about Woods to repost. The website http://together.pgatour.com/ is an interesting read for those interested in tour players and the charities they support.

[elf]

@smails how on earth are you linking A-Rods charity (which has given no money to anyone) to Tiger's charity (which runs multiple campuses, a learning center, and a scholarship program)?

(note TW's foundation also runs 3 pro tournaments - 2 pga tour events & the world challenge, plus the Tiger Jam in Vegas, and Pebble Beach Invitational)

[UnderTheChin]

"he's one of the worst"

He's also achieved more than you could ever dream of Bobby D. Bad luck buddy

[Mike Stevens]

Putting on an event to raise funds for charity costs money. Ther's infrasructure, assembly, administration and payrolls to meet. Those things also provide something we need more of - jobs. Any money provided to a charity as a result is also a good thing As long as a sponsored event is willing to disclose how it receives and distributes funds there should be little criticism of the operation. If not then they should be investigated.

[Bobby D]

"He's also achieved more than you could ever dream of Bobby D. "

Yeah...he's "achieved" three wives, committed adultery and back-stabbed his best friend...quite an "achiever"

[Press Agent]

@ Bobby,

You completely miss the point. Whether you care for Greg Norman, or you despise him, it would still be very interesting to see how the books for his event stack up against the books for other golf events in the 'efficiency' of the donations to charity. You could continue to go on with your hatred of Greg Norman, but you could do it with more knowledge about the 'efficiency' of the charitable giving in pro golf events.