Well, I do take some of your points Phillip, but unfortunately you can’t change the entire world around you! You can only really change how you perceive it and the choices you make. I suspect that the link between charity fundraising and running is here to stay, so we have to make choices about how to deal with it.

If I ask friends and family for sponsorship, it is entirely their choice about whether to support or not. Nobody is forcing them.

In the same way, it is your choice whether to sponsor your colleague for their Kilimanjaro climb. I can see why you might feel some social pressure, but it’s still your choice.

And it is your choice whether to take part in large races, knowing that the charity element might annoy you – or stick with smaller races which are more focused purely on athletics.

I'm afraid I don't buy your Glastonbury analogy, entertaining though it is! The challenges faced are entirely different - and I've been to a lot of Glastonburys!

Having said that, I do take your point around how requests for sponsorship might be perceived. Personally I’ve always addressed this by building in an element of self-sponsorship - I let potential sponsors know that I’ll make a personal contribution of 20% of whatever they donate. So if people donate a total of £500, I’ll put a further £100 into the pot. Again, it doesn’t force anyone to contribute, but it shows that I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is, and hopefully makes them feel they’re getting an element of ‘value for money’.

I’m also toying with the idea of asking sponsors to bet on my fastest mile over a marathon, with the ‘winner’ getting double their money back, but I’m still working on the exact logistics of how it'll work… :-)

But that’s just me. I appreciate where you’re coming from, I just feel that it’s something you may need to accept and make the best of.

Thanks everyone for their replies to my original post. I've thought about this some more, and if anything, your replies have slightly "hardened" my attitude. I have a couple of additional comments, which might sound caustic, but they are really only to provoke discussion so please dont feel offended.

1) Derek said; ".. organisers who probably require a wedge of the proceeds to enable the race to be run and goody bags handed out on the day.". Thats what I pay my race entry fee for; if charities are being asked to contribute to the running costs of the race, then where is that money coming from - from the donators (not the runners). So ultimately a (very small) proportion of the donators money is going to help organise and run the race. I bet they dont know that.

2) Burtie said "... run for a charity in order to get a place in a race?". Because it makes, by definition, the "race" into a charity event, not an atheletics race. If an organiser wants to give part of my entry fee to a charity of their choice then fine; but the expectation is that the athelete will raise monies for the charity in order to enter a race, which they would be quite happy to pay to enter on their own merits. Its this expectation of sponsorship, not charitable giving on behalf of the athletet, which bugs me.

3) Kate said "and I was so glad to get a place as ballot places are so hard to come by.". Why would that be I wonder - possibly because so many are reserved for people who agree to get sponsorship for a particular charity in order to get a race number ? Its "charity mugging" - you as the athelete cannot get a place; but people who beg their friends and family for money can. Wheres the merit ?

4) Marge; we all get into running from a different route; I too did the BBC Sport Relief charity mile as my first ever "event". I just paid some money and did it. I didn't attempt to beg others to pay for me to attempt it. I have absolutely no problem with Charity Races at all; its the invasion of charities, especially "sponsored" charitable entries which annoys me - these are primarily atheletics events not charity events. I love the idea of people betting on my eventual finish time - my club does a charity event each year called the "No Watch Guestimate" for charity which uses the same principle; but there is no sponsorship - the race entry fee goes to charity; the winner is the one who hits their guessed finish time (and no watches allowed !)

Marge - you also said something very interesting in your other post "and boy, did I apprecicate the post-race massage and massive feed-up courtesy of Breast Cancer Care". Was it really "courtesy of Breast Cancer Care" or "courtesy of your donators" ?

5) Helen said "I would feel very uncomfortable asking people to sponsor me if my motivation for supporting that charity was just to get a place in a race rather than my motivation for running the race being to support that charity. (Does that make sense?)". I totally agree  with you Helen, its the forced "sponsorship" element that is the killer for me - after all, if there was "Virgin London Marathon in aid of Cancer Research UK" I would have no issue at all with that. Like Glastonbury and Greenpeace - some of your entry fee goes to the charity. But imagine if I asked someone for sponsorship so I could get a ticket to Glastonbury - thats how the charity domination feels to me.

Hope you dont all think I'm some horrible charity hating nazi ! My original post was prompted by a colleague "collecting" at my office for "sponsorship" for her to climb Kilimanjaro. For all sorts of reasons it just felt like such an imposition and a emotional blackmail - I then reflected on how VLM sponsorship might seem to non-runners, then my thoughts wandered onto where on earth the whole "sponsored charity running" thing came from and how I felt about it.

Phillip

I agree with what you say Helen, and here's another spin on it looking from the 'donators' point of view which is to run for a charitable event it must be challenging to the participient, to do something that is not seen as 'run of the mill' (excuse the pun). Now I have run 19 races last year from 5k up to half marathons, so the response in the office when I go round with the collection tin is "that's not very challenging for you, is it?".

So really I only do it maximum a couple of times a year, and maybe combine it with a sweepstake for my finishing time so it makes it interesting and attractive to those givers.

And regards to the big event namely the London Marathon, our club obtains a few tickets every year and names go into a hat for the draw which I might try for the 2012 event, could be seen as a bit unfair but that's one of the many perks of being affiliated to a club.

Interesting post!

I think if a race is well-organised so that slower runners (particularly those in costumes) start at the back, it doesn't affect runners who are 'racing'. The problem arises when runners in costumes start halfway up the pack, and that is frustrating and inconsiderate.

Helen, why do you feel it's a 'bit off' for people to run for a charity in order to get a place in a race? Personally I did exactly that - I ran the London Marathon in 2009, for a charity that I didn't previously know a lot about (Sense). They were tremendously supportive and made me feel incredibly glad and humble to have helped them in some small way. I learned more about the work they do, it gave me extra commitment to get round, and it helped them - we both benefitted. I was grateful for the opportunity to take part in such a fanstastic occasion, and knew that by doing so, I'd helped make a contribution to others. If I had got a place through the ballot (or not taken part at all!), I am certain the experience would not have been nearly as memorable!

Hi Phillip, I consider that if people want to run for charities then it is by choice and not on the insistance or pressure by the organisers who probably require a wedge of the proceeds to enable the race to be run and goody bags handed out on the day.

Out of the 19 races last year only one of those I decided to raise money for charity and personally I would not wish to put those I know under pressure to give on a regular basis.

With regards to collecting 'on the hoof' so to speak they should not be impeding runners and should be the other side of the barrier as it can be dangerous to the competitors as well as themselves.

Happy new year to all.

This is a subject that does bother me a little, so I thought I'd see what everyone else thinks :-)

Running for me is a personal and social activity in which I set myself goals and attempt to reach them, in a difficult discipline, whilst sharing my journey and enjoying the company of others on a similar journey. Sometimes those goals are as simple as "getting out and enjoying my run" and other times more competitive (beat my personal best). I have never, and will never come close to winning a race, and am content with that.

I sometimes get a "downer" on the "charity mugging" that seems to be associated with larger races. I run at regular club races, both open-entry and closed-entry and the smaller ones dont seem to suffer this corrosion of the atheletic spirit of the event. Don't get me wrong -there are many excellent reasons one might have for running an endurance race, including a personal wish to have friends and family contribute towards a charity of your choice; but the overwhelming allocation of places (for instance in the VLM) to charity runners means its no longer a race but a charity event. Bear in mind that I deem a "race" to be held within race rules, and not neccessarily any reflection on the standard of competition within it. If a charity runner in a "amusing" costume stops in front of you to gather coins from the crowd, they (in my opinion) are not competing in a race; how does the (slower) but dedicated athlete behind them feel when then need to break stride, swerve or avoid this behaviour ?

Is mass charity participation good for running ? Would you support a concept that there should be two seperate London Marathons for instance, one a charity fun run, and one an atheletic event ? Am I being mean ? How does this work in (for instance) the New York Marathon - is this a more "competitve race" or a "charity event" ?