Few philanthropic enterprises pique my attention as much as the so-called Giving Pledge. The Giving Pledge was dreamed up by Bill Gates in 2011. It gives billionaires an opportunity to give half of their fortunes to philanthropic organizations and causes after they pass away. It has become very chic to be a part of this extremely wealthy club of generosity, as Gates (and his wife) have been joined by Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg and Richard Branson over the last two years. The billionaires have mostly been excited to be a part of the Giving Club. As of May 2013, 82 billionaires from all over the world have promised to liquidate 50% (or more) of their fortunes once they die. They do so for a myriad of reasons, ranging from the obvious charitable aspect, to the desire to not “burden” their families with incredible wealth (cue eye roll), to even building their business profiles and businesses.
However, the Giving Pledge has not been universally celebrated, and both wealthy and non-wealthy individuals have expressed their varied criticisms. Economists and social theorists note that billionaires, themselves, have only been created through the incredible concentration of wealth at the very top to the social food chain, both domestically in various locales and internationally across a global spectrum. They worry that the money donated will just serve to create “mega-foundations”, which will simply compete with one another, and not actually concentrate on redistributing funds to the areas and individuals who need them the most. And the billionaires, themselves, question the role they and their wealth should play in the development of global economy and infrastructure. The most vocal opponent has been Peter Kramer, the German shipping tycoon and (current) philanthropist who runs a UNICEF program that builds schools in sub-Saharan Africa. He correctly asserts that because the United States relies more heavily on philanthropy to support social services than public funds, that wealthy individuals not only have a greater impact on services, but also a greater need. He does not feel that he needs to give away his personal money to fund services that the state should provide. “These guys have so much power through their wealth that they, instead of the government elected by the people, can decide what’s good and what should be promoted and subsidized,” Mr. Kramer was quoted as saying in a 2010 New York Times article. “That can be dangerous.”
With that in mind, we must re-examine the charitable deed done by Oklahoma City Thunder star forward Kevin Durant yesterday. In the wake of a destructive tornado that claimed 24 lives (including nine children), and caused many millions of dollars of damage, Durant donated $1 million to the American Red Cross, to be used for disaster relief and recovery. He issued no press release with his donation, and apparently did not see the need to explain his actions. The people needed help, and given that Kevin Durant earned $17,548,838 before taxes, this was an easy way for Durant to help. And so he did, by giving away 1/17 of his salary for the entire year to people whom he had (probably) never met, but lived in the same locality as him, and were affected by a disaster that afflicted the entire economy.
Now, player salaries are an uncomfortable topic of discussion. It is a common response from both fans and critics of professionalized sports to roll their eyes when it comes to matters of money, especially in terms of pay and other forms of revenue. We are often incredulous over the things athletes spend their money on, and even more flummoxed when the same athletes somehow manage to spend all of the money they’ve earned in their high-paying careers. The smallest (non prorated) salary in the NBA is still over $470,000 per year; hardly pocket change for the typical American or world citizen, and for most of us, more than enough money to sustain us and our families for years to come. Questions of demand aside, and issues of previous labor structures notwithstanding it does seem, at the minimum, a little bit ridiculous that individuals are paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to essentially play a game. Yes, the daily duties related to playing that game (as a job) are considerable and time-consuming. But still, these players are handsomely rewarded for their labor, and if they manage to hold on to their money, can support themselves and their loved ones for literally generations to come. In that regard, seeing that Kevin Durant sacrificed roughly 6% of his annual salary – still amounting to $1 million dollars — might make us feel better about the entire system.
But Durant’s charitable act does not erase the notion that his money, essentially, is being used to supplant money that should be coming from the state, not an individual with a big heart. The USA government’s disaster response reputation was deservedly damaged after deplorable performances in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the Gulf Coast after the BP oil spill in 2010. In an ideal world, no citizen would have to sacrifice their money to provide funds where the state should be running the show, logistically and financially. We spend money on the continuation of wars, the expansion of a police state, and the bailouts of big banks and a slagging American financial/revenue generating system (which does not properly tax individuals as wealthy as Kevin Durant). Do we not have enough to rebuild an Oklahoman community after a natural disaster? Must we rely on wealthy individuals like Durant to provide necessary funds, to provide blankets and medicine, food and clean water?
In the end, I applaud Kevin Durant for his charitable act, just like I applaud the billionaires who have pledged to distribute their assets to organization that could (presumably) use the money. I appreciate both gift horses and their mouths, and there is little doubt that his money will go to a good cause, and will help people who need assistance, desperately and immediately. In that regard, we are all lucky that Kevin Durant is paid so handsomely, and is so willing to spend his money in places where it can really go to a good use.
But the fact that Durant not only has the money to donate, but also the quiet expectation to donate? An income disparity of the highest order, and a system that cannot take care of its own citizens in the face of disaster, despite its relative strength and solvency in comparison to other welfare structures? This is a larger question that goes far beyond basketball, and definitely requires a bit more focused attention and analysis.
