[bitontheslide]

Footballer Marcus Rashford has defended his off-field partnerships amid claims he has profited by campaigning.

The Manchester United and England forward tweeted he had heard political magazine The Spectator was due to publish a story about him getting an income from the partnerships.

The 23-year-old has backed child food poverty incentives and raised £20m for groups tackling the issue.

He questioned why footballers "can't just do the right thing" for charity.

The article has not yet been published.

The England player has also forced a series of government U-turns over free school meals during the coronavirus pandemic.

He tweeted a thread on Tuesday saying accusing him of benefitting financially from these charity partnerships was "just a non-starter".

Rashford's Burberry partnership saw the fashion company make a number of donations to youth charities and youth clubs, including London Youth and Norbrook Youth Club in Manchester, which he went to as a child.

Before that he started a petition urging ministers to extend free school meals through half-term and the Christmas holidays, eventually pressuring ministers into providing £170m of extra funding.

Rashford wrote on Tuesday: "Just heard Spectator are planning to run a story on me tomorrow about how I have benefitted commercially in the last 18 months.

"To clarify, I don't need to partner with brands. I partner because I want to progress the work I do off the pitch and most of any fee I would receive contributes to that.

"Last summer, 1.3M children had access to food support, through my relationship with Burberry children have a safe place to be after school where they will be fed, following the November investment vulnerable children have safe places to go this summer holiday, and due to my relationship with Macmillan 80,000 children now have a book to call their own.

"Do I have a larger commercial appeal following the U-turns? I'm sure. But I'm also a Manchester United and England international footballer. Why has there always got to be a motive? Why can't we just do the right thing?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...ester-57912240

[Oliver_W]

Can't people keep their noses out? He probably wasn't grubbing as much money from the charities as the crooks who run them, and even if he was, how many advocates work for free?

[Ammi]

…Marcus…..

[Liam-]

Anything to try and tarnish a good black mans name

[Cherie]

Poor Marcus he doesn't deserve this

[bitontheslide]

what i found weird about this story is that he is defending himself before the details in the story have even been published. It's impossible to draw a conclusion until we know the details of that story

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

what i found weird about this story is that he is defending himself before the details in the story have even been published. It's impossible to draw a conclusion until we know the details of that story

…he said in his tweets that he’d heard the Spectator were going to be running a story/article about him benefitting commercially so hes spoken first …

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…he said in his tweets that he’d heard the Spectator were going to be running a story/article about him benefitting commercially so hes spoken first …

but benefiting personally can mean anything, it's the detail that matters

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

what i found weird about this story is that he is defending himself before the details in the story have even been published. It's impossible to draw a conclusion until we know the details of that story

It's an attempted smear by the spectator. Same magazine that is celebrating the dick measuring space race between Branson and Bezos, trying to pretend it's journalism to look at how much cash Rashford earns, purely because he's critical of politicians willing to starve kids.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Anything to try and tarnish a good black mans name

Tbh it's more to do with the fact that he dared to stand up to Boris, our Media hates the fact that Rashford won that fight.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Tbh it's more to do with the fact that he dared to stand up to Boris, our Media hates the fact that Rashford won that fight.

which media specifically?

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

which media specifically?

Stop seriously

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Stop seriously

stop what

saying "the media hate he stood up to Boris" is ludicrous

did Twitter - no, Insta - no, Facebook, nO, Reddit - no - TV - no, Radio - no, every newspaper in the UK - no

So i wish to know what media outlet did not like what Rashford did?

perhaps you can enlighten the thread?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

which media specifically?

BBC News, Sky News, Channel 5 News, Daily Mail, The Sun etc.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

BBC News, Sky News, Channel 5 News, Daily Mail, The Sun etc.

So you watched all them and saw they supported Boris and not Marcus?

Aye right

[joeysteele]

Incredible guy.
This is really unnecessary and sickening.

[thesheriff443]

There is no free lunch if you pardon the pun

[LeatherTrumpet]

The Spectator is an excellent publication so will be interesting

[LeatherTrumpet]

Sales figures for UK magazines are published today and The Spectator is delighted to
announce the biggest increase in its 192-year history. The bet we made returning the
furlough money last summer has paid off.

When we packed up for lockdown last year, we feared the worst and furloughed staff.
But we found the demand for our journalism had only increased. We were badly hit
(newsagent sales and events especially) but saw we had a way out. In 2019, we sold an average 80,455 copies globally. We set a goal of hitting 100,000 (which would mean
overtaking the weekday sales of two newspapers). We returned the furlough money to
the taxpayer, and asked people who liked our journalism to pay for it.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ctator-in-2020

the magazine is enjoying spectacular success

[thesheriff443]

Being seen has a charitable person is good for business
Unfortunately in most cases the person or company make more money than the charity and in fact it’s the charity that’s making them money

[LeatherTrumpet]

And Rashford is a reader of the magazine: "'I actually enjoy reading bits from The Spectator now and again" he said in the DM piece

[AnnieK]

Marcus Rashford is the UK's largest charitable donor after giving away 125% of his net worth

https://propermanchester.com/news/ma...qOGbl4uTY9KIQA

[Livia]

How do you give away 125% of anything?

I think Rashford is being singled out and frankly insulted, because he has done a great thing and some people are annoyed about it. I don't know whether anyone ever singled Bob Geldof out because his career benefitted greatly from Live Aid... but that wasn't the reason he did it, I'm sure. Same for Marcus Rashford. If his career benefits because he is a thoroughly decent bloke I don't have a problem with that. We need more people like him. I can only assume if he was a white player this would be playing out quite differently.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Livia

How do you give away 125% of anything?

I think Rashford is being singled out and frankly insulted, because he has done a great thing and some people are annoyed about it. I don't know whether anyone ever singled Bob Geldof out because his career benefitted greatly from Live Aid... but that wasn't the reason he did it, I'm sure. Same for Marcus Rashford. If his career benefits because he is a thoroughly decent bloke I don't have a problem with that. We need more people like him. I can only assume if he was a white player this would be playing out quite differently.

He has a personal wealth of £16 million but his charitable causes have raised £20 million which is where the 125% comes in I think.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

He has a personal wealth of £16 million but his charitable causes have raised £20 million which is where the 125% comes in I think.

If Bezos or Musky did that they could feed the entire world.

The alarming thing being that this isn't even an exaggeration.