Imagine receiving a letter in the mail asking you to change your will to include a donation to your favorite sports club. Sounds like something out of a controversial fundraising playbook, right? Well, that’s exactly what happened when Collingwood, an AFL club, sent out letters to 8,000 members over the age of 50, guiding them on how to amend their wills to benefit the club. The move, part of their new Side by Side Forever campaign, has sparked a firestorm of criticism, leaving many fans and observers questioning the ethics of such an approach.
But here's where it gets controversial... While bequest programs—where members are encouraged to leave a gift in their will—are not uncommon among sports clubs and charities, the targeted nature of Collingwood’s campaign has rubbed many the wrong way. All AFL clubs, and even some NRL clubs like the Brisbane Broncos, have similar initiatives. The funds typically support club infrastructure, development, or community programs. Yet, Collingwood’s decision to single out its oldest fans has been labeled as insensitive and opportunistic.
Social media erupted with outrage, with fans like Wes sharing their disbelief: 'My mum got this today. Are they serious? How much money do they need?' Another supporter, PennyK, called it 'a gross money grab,' while Hrvatski questioned the outdated approach: 'A 1970’s style mail out??? Really?' The backlash was swift, with many feeling the club had overstepped boundaries, especially given the vulnerability of some elderly recipients.
And this is the part most people miss... Despite the uproar, Collingwood CEO Craig Kelly issued an apology, emphasizing that the intention was to offer a legacy option, not to pressure anyone. 'We sincerely apologise to anyone who felt upset or uncomfortable,' Kelly stated, acknowledging the misstep. The letter itself framed the request as an opportunity to 'leave a lasting mark on the Club you love,' but the execution clearly missed the mark for many.
National Seniors Australia CEO Chris Grice weighed in, calling the approach 'disrespectful and audacious.' He argued that while bequest requests are common, targeting only older members was inappropriate. 'It should have been handled with more tact and inclusivity,' Grice noted, suggesting a broader, more sensitive strategy.
Here’s the twist: Amid the criticism, some members have actually responded positively to the campaign. This raises a thought-provoking question: Is the issue the idea itself, or the way it was executed? And where do you draw the line between ethical fundraising and exploitation?
What do you think? Was Collingwood’s approach a legitimate fundraising strategy or a tasteless overreach? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is one debate that’s far from over.
