It is a dream for many children to have the opportunity to run onto the field as mascot for their favourite sports team. How should these children be chosen? Should it be based on ability to pay or should all interested children be considered?
'More than half the Premier League clubs have been accused of “excluding families from poorer backgrounds” after a Guardian study found that a few of them are charging as much as £450 for children to be mascots, with West Ham United’s most expensive package coming in at £600.
Eleven Premier League teams, most of whom have spent time in the Championship in the past 10 years, ask a fee for being a mascot on matchday. Queens Park Rangers and Swansea City both charge £450 plus VAT for their packages while West Ham’s prices range from £350-£600 depending on the fixture.
The packages vary between £250-400 at Tottenham, £300-400 at Leicester City, £150-425 at Crystal Palace and £330-390 at Stoke. Burnley, West Bromwich Albion and Hull City also charge, while Newcastle United’s corporate hospitality packages of £3,000-4,000 include mascot places.
Some clubs, including Spurs, QPR and Newcastle, do, however, offer a number of free mascot places through competitions and charities. Others do not charge at all: Arsenal, Aston Villa, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Southampton and Sunderland.
Clive Efford, the shadow minister for sport who is campaigning for fans to be represented on club boards, said: “I find it extraordinary that clubs which are getting so much money from TV rights then exclude kids from poorer backgrounds by imposing a fee.
“It means that a certain class of kids will never be able to be a team’s mascot, and that doesn’t seem fair when their clubs are earning so much money. It seems ridiculous that some will be excluded because their parents can’t afford to put them on a waiting list.”
Advertisement
The majority of the mascot packages include hospitality places at the designated match, a free kit, signed footballs, photos of the day, match tickets and other benefits. Some clubs, including Swansea and Stoke, describe the deals as “great value for money” and say that there are long waiting lists, yet supporters have questioned the need for Premier League clubs, many with super-rich owners, to charge such prices.
A spokesman for the Swansea City Supporters’ Trust said: “The pricing of mascot packages is higher than we would like as a trust and we are pressing to get this price reduced.” Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust added: “There is a general feeling that it’s a poor show to charge for being a mascot.”
A spokesman for the QPR1st fans’ group said: “£450 to be a mascot … We think it would be much better if the club used mascot opportunities as a chance to get local schools involved more with the club. For a club like QPR, which really relies on community support, that is poor.” http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/18/premier-league-clubs-charge-600-children-mascots
Fan who wish to attend Premier League games must pay irrespective of their income so should this also apply to child team mascots? Or does the game and those governing it have an obligation to be more inclusive?
What do you think?
Image source
It is proposed that Premier League teams should be able to choose whether they charge money for children to be team mascots