Pink Test: Mixed reaction to claims about McGrath Foundation spending
It’s one of the most well-known sporting charity fundraisers of the year, but not everybody is buying into it and it’s caused a strong debate.
Claims about how the McGrath Foundation spends money has caused a stir online as cricket players and fans turn Sydney Cricket Ground pink for the annual Jane McGrath Day
Cricket great Glenn McGrath and his family took to the field in pink for the third cricket test match between Australia and Pakistan on Friday.
Jane McGrath Day, named after McGrath’s late wife, is a major fundraising initiative for the McGrath Foundation, which funds nurses who support individuals and their families experiencing breast cancer.
However, journalist Stephen Long took to social media on Friday morning to reveal why he “won’t be wearing pink” to the match.
“From its donated money, McGrath Foundation spends more on fundraising and marketing than breast care nurses,” he wrote on X.
Why I won’t be wearing pink to the Sydney test. From its donated money, MCGrath Foundation spends more on fundraising and marketing than breast care nurses. https://t.co/5VQ57RGQeL
— Stephen Long (@StephenLongAus) January 4, 2024
The post was accompanied by an article written Mr Long for The New Daily, where he questioned whether the Pink Test helps “where it’s really needed”.
In the article, he noted the foundation spent about $8.8 million on “foundation-funded breast care nurses” last year, as detailed in McGrath Foundation 2023 financial report.
However, more than $9.1 million went towards fundraising and marketing, and a further $2.2 million was spent on administration.
“All up, the McGrath Foundation seems like an expensive way to fund an essential public service,” he wrote.
He went on to claim that while the foundation states “68 cents in every dollar spent went directly to our nursing program”, government grants account for “nearly 40 cents of every dollar the charity receives” – which must be spent on breast cancer nurses.
Comparing government spending, he claimed “governments spent almost twice as much money on ‘McGrath Foundation’ breast care nurses as the charity outlaid from its own fundraising efforts” last year.
“In effect, the McGrath Foundation is an outsourced government service provider, linked to an expensive charity arm with large overheads,” he claimed.
The article received a mix response online, with many blasting his understanding of how charities operate.
“Terrible article that demonstrates zero understanding of charity sector. Charities need to market and self promote, otherwise they quickly fall off radar, donations drop to bugger all and they effectively die,” one person wrote.
“If charities like the McGrath foundation didn’t exist, there would be significantly less breast care nurses. In [an] ideal world people would donate directly to a nurse and there would be no overheads, but we don’t live in an ideal world,” another wrote.
Another social media user pointed out the “amazing” efforts of breast care nurses, having been diagnosed themself.
“Whilst I totally admire your stance on this, having recently being diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, the breast nurse allocated to me has been absolutely amazing. Follow up on ANY questions I have occur generally in a day or two. This reduced my anxiety enormously,” they said.
Another came to the defence of the foundation suggesting that “as it’s required to spend 100 per cent of [government] funds on nurses, it must find other sources of revenue to administer the [government] funds and win the grants.”
However, Mr Long rebuttled the claim, suggesting the government “could provide the nurses directly and cut out the middle man”.
Others agreed with his stance, calling out the amount spent on marketing.
“I’m with you Stephen. This is my issue with some charities who are not really charities but marketing machines,” said one person.
“Having been a regular donor to McGrath Foundation on the understanding the bulk [of] money went to employing nurses, I am not happy to find out it spends much more on marketing and highly paid media and PR staff than it does on nurses. No more from me,” added another.
This year's’s Pink Test aims to set a new benchmark and raise $6.44 million, selling 322,000 Virtual Pink Seats.
So far, over $3.6 million has been raised with more than 180,000 virtual tickets sold,according toSky News.
News.com.au has contacted the McGrath Foundation for comment.
More Coverage
Originally published as Pink Test: Mixed reaction to claims about McGrath Foundation spending
