December 10, 2009 | Read Time: 1 minute
Are professional athletes “obligated” to give back?
The Nascar driver Jeff Gordon, football quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, and other sports stars are debating this question on the blog of Athletes for Hope, a charity that helps athletes with their giving.
To be sure, the debate isn’t a lot of sharp elbows and heavy hits. The sports figures agree with each other about the importance of philanthropy, but they do differ on their motivations. They wonder whether they ought to be charitable because they owe society or because they have a personal passion for it.
“Whatever choice you make and however you decide to give back, I believe that we all have an obligation to help those less fortunate than us, whether we are professional athletes or not,” writes soccer player Mia Hamm.
Football star Warrick Dunn counters that he needed a personal connection to spark his philanthropic drive instead of a vague concept of being expected to help others.
“Anyone can give money or even ask for money, but if there’s no personal connection and passion behind the act, it’s pointless,” he writes. “That’s just my opinion.”
Both sports figures do share something in common; their philanthropy stems from family hardships.
Ms. Hamm started raising money for medical research after her brother died of aplastic anemia, a bone-marrow disease. Mr. Dunn established his charity to assist single parents to honor his mother, who raised him by herself.
Read The Chronicle’s article about the start of Athletes for Hope. (A paid subscription or temporary pass is required to view this article.)
What do you think? Are athletes obligated to be philanthropic? Click on the comment button below to share your views.
