London Marathon debate forum

Charity Times

September 2007

Back to Press coverage

Should the number of London Marathon places open to the largest charities be limited to encourage a broader range of organisations to raise funds through sponsored runners?

Joe Saxton
driver of ideas,
nfpSynergy

This is the wrong question asked about the wrong issue. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this debate, the solutions are not in the hands of charities, the sector, government or funders but the organisers of the London Marathon. The real question is can charities make more of fundraising from marathon events in London? The answer is ‘you bet’.

Imagine a new marathon run in the autumn along the banks of the Thames or one linking up all the parks in London. The potential is there – the current marathon is five times oversubscribed and in our research with fundraisers not one respondent said that they thought the market for running events was saturated. Indeed we shouldn’t be so London-centric.

It would be great if every charity could take part in some nationally-orchestrated, locally run marathon event to raise money for their cause. Running is good for health and fitness, good for building community spirit and a wonderful source of unrestricted income for charities. It’s hard to imagine many other activities which can produce so many ‘winners’ all from one event.

Kevin Curley
Chief executive
NAVCA

Yes. Local charities and community groups are being squeezed from many directions. Local councils in some areas are abandoning grants in favour of contracts which already favour big charities. As Primary Care Trusts have faced financial pressures, it is their grants to the local voluntary sector which have often been hit first. The Big Lottery Fund’s ‘Reaching Communities’ was oversubscribed by a factor of 12. Most local charities cannot afford to employ professional fundraisers. They do not have the capacity to organise large lotteries or celebrity events, or legacy fundraising schemes.

In this tough environment they should be given more places in the London Marathon and similar events in other parts of the country. The large national charities have a wide range of fundraising options open to them and the advantage of scale when it comes to winning public services contracts.

Leave the London marathon to the small charities and community groups which make a big difference to people’s lives with very little funding.

Daniel Baltzer
Assistant Director
Kids Company

If neither the London Marathon nor the big national charities are willing to share information about how many guaranteed London Marathon charity places are made available, then one wonders why it is that a large number of small charities do not have equal access to guaranteed places? In fact, the charitable nature of the whole event can be questioned.

Charitable organisations depending on other people’s donations should be completely transparent. Lack of transparency, and unfairly distributed access to charitable donations and exposure, are the key issues here. Let them be addressed.

This fantastic event ought to distribute its guaranteed charity runners’ places in a charitable way; fairly, through a ballot to which all charities interested can submit an entry. The lucky ones will then each receive exactly the same amount of places. The current system appears to be giving preference to some. Unfairness has nothing to do with being charitable.

Lindsay Boswell
Chief Executive
Institute of Fundraising

The current system of allocation of marathon places favours those who got in first, and many of the bigger charities were resourced and aware enough to get their bids in and secure very lucrative deals to raise large sums of money. Good on them.

Innovation and being quick to respond deserves reward doesn’t it? Many say the system is not fair to the mainly small charities which have been left behind in this process. I would like to see a system that encourages charities to make the very most of their places. If you only raise a small amount from a place then be prepared to give it up to a charity that is prepared, and able, to work harder and ‘sweat’ out a bit more benefit from its asset.

Then it becomes about efficiency, and amount raised, and not about the size of the charity. Let the lowest performing 30 per cent of places go to those in the waiting list each year.

Back to Press coverage