Pro bono ad banned for "attacking football"

Wow, footie fever has reached new heights and clearly broiled the brains of the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre watchdog who just banned an ad for "attacking football."

The banned advert from World Vision was encouraging viewers to sponsor a child in the Third World, it showed a young African boy playing football with a ball made out of maize, bags and string. The VO then said: "England's team are sponsored for £49million. Masidi is sponsored for 60p a day."

The BACC said that the advert "suggested money spent in the development and sponsorship of football was wasted" - meanwhile the World Vision boss Rudo Kwaramba was "extremely surprised by this ruling."

Rudo Kwaramba, Director of Advocacy, Communications and Education at World Vision, said: “In our eyes, the advert is in no way anti-World Cup or anti-football. It simply uses the common language of football to point out the difference between western world affluence and developing world resourcefulness through the eyes of a sponsored child.

“The comparison between football sponsorship and child sponsorship is used simply to reflect the use of the same word with very different meanings, both in scope and in financial terms in the two contexts.”

The BACC told World Vision that they felt the adverts “suggested that money spent in the development and sponsorship of football was wasted and they could see no good reason for singling out football in this way particularly given that footballers do a lot for charity.”

Adland® is supported by your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi coffee.
Anonymous Adgrunt's picture
comment_node_story
Files must be less than 1 MB.
Allowed file types: jpg jpeg gif png wav avi mpeg mpg mov rm flv wmv 3gp mp4 m4v.
LPikon's picture

Fuck, this has pissed me off !!(Dabitch, can I say fuck or pissed in adland?)
Seriously though, even as a lover of 'the beautiful game', where the hell does the BACC get off on banning the World Vision ad????
People need to lighten up, and bloody quickly, before the 'nanny state' mentality takes over the world.
Of course the comparison seems obscene - that's the whole point. It's designed to make people think, think about their own values and ultimately what's important.
Is it actually an attack on the England soccer team?
I'd say not, however it does provides the wider public with a reality check as to the the value of human life.
To be honest, it's not an original idea, but it is powerful.
Does it seriously attempt to make consumers turn on the England soccer team due to their largesse, while there are children starving in other parts of the world?
I think not, but it just draws some sobering comparisons about what's important, and perhaps by raising awareness through this comparison, more consumers will put their hands in their pockets to help out those many starving children out there.
If the BACC want to attempt to ban something that denigrates UK soccer, and the image of wastefullness, perhaps they should have a crack at that ultimate example of bad publicity towards players, the TV series 'Footballers Wives'....... however, that won't happen because it's a huge commercial success all over the world even though it probably portrays UK soccer players and managers in the worst possible light!
Hmmmm, OK, I'm alright now - and thanks for letting me have my wee rant!

MaryWills's picture

Ok, the world has officially gone crazy...

silver3's picture

Soccer's not a sport.

kurtberengeiger's picture

And Orwell takes a saunter in his grave...

Dabitch's picture

You toook the words right out of my brain mate. And yes, you may say fuck and pissed here, you can even be pissed here (the beer way as well as the annoyed beyond words way) but fucking here is just gross. ;P