Emmys’ charity stunt slammed as ‘vile’ by outraged viewers

Host Nate Bargatze’s charity gimmick at the Emmys struck a wrong chord with many viewers (Picture: Sonja Flemming/CBS via Getty Images)

Emmys 2025 host Nate Bargatze is facing a brutal wave of criticism after his charity stunt at last night’s ceremony appalled viewers.

At the top of the show, the comedian announced that he would donate $100,000 (£73,626) to the Boys & Girls Club of America.

But there was a catch: every winner had 45 seconds for their acceptance speech, with $1,000 (£736)  added for every second under the limit, and $1,000 deducted for every second over.

The premise might have sounded clever in the writers’ room, but in practice it was a tone-deaf misfire that turned philanthropy into a kind of live-television punishment game. 

As speeches rolled on, the on-screen tally ticked downward, transforming heartfelt moments of gratitude or political statements into moral dilemmas for the audience and the winners themselves. 

When Hannah Einbinder became aware that her speech was running over, she interrupted herself to say, ‘Oh, I’ll pay the difference, sorry.’

At another point, the director of Adolescence apologized before he thanked his dead relatives for how they inspired him, because he knew he was running over.

Those apologies shouldn’t have been necessary, and it underscored a huge part of the problem: winners were being shamed for savouring a once-in-a-lifetime moment.

Even worse, as the running bit drew laughs from the audience, it created the sense that helping the less fortunate is just a joke for the Hollywood elite.

Critics online wasted no time in voicing their discomfort. 

@TomiLaffly called it ‘beyond tacky & vile,’ adding: ‘Whoever thought of this should be put in awards show jail to never touch one again. And IDC if they end up giving the full 100K—the optics are still bad.’ 

@Mara_Webster agreed, writing: ‘the boys and girls club donation amount flashing on screen getting lower in real time as someone gives their speech for winning a once in a lifetime award actually already feels kind of evil.’

That feeling of queasy spectacle – like philanthropy reframed as a cruel game show – was a recurring theme in the backlash. 

Hannah Einbinder said ‘Oh, I’ll pay the difference, sorry.’ as her speech ran over (Picture: Sonja Flemming/CBS via Getty Images)

@RealJardChatty summed it up: ‘This whole taking money away from charity for going over in speeches is so weird and distasteful even if it’s fake and supposed to be a joke.’ 

@deeply_cursed put it more bluntly: The emmys penalizing WINNERS for actually talking in your speech for WINNING AN EMMY by taking away ACTUAL MONEY from a donation to BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF AMERICA is so f****** evil. oh you want to use your platform on national tv to do good??? damn you must HATE CHILDREN.’

The supposed logic – that shorter speeches make a tighter, faster-moving show – rang hollow, especially when winners are pressured to either speak quickly or risk being framed as the reason children are losing funding. 

As @OscarFilmFC put it: ‘This is a huge moment for these artists and it’s bad enough to make them feel rushed and then add a moral quandary to it. The speeches are the highlight of the night, but not if they’re all cut short.’

Bargatze explained his reasoning: ‘It is very serious. The amount of money I give to the Boys and Girls Club is totally up to all of Hollywood.’ (Picture: Kevin Winter/Getty Images) The number getting smaller on the screen behind the host added a queasy aspect to what was supposed to be funny (Picture: Invision/AP)

Others compared it to something out of dystopian entertainment. @inniezzz called it a ‘late stage capitalist hellscape mr beast esque squid games moment,’ while @oliviasattan noted, ‘the emmys guilting people getting the biggest award of their lives to cut their speeches short or they take money away from a charity feels so evil. especially because the only reason they’re doing it is to run more ads and get money for the producers.’

The longer the night went on, the uglier it got. Stephen Colbert and Stephen Graham both delivered extended speeches that sent the donation pot spiraling into the red – by the end of the ceremony, the total had dropped to an almost comically grim negative $60,000 (£44,175). 

Watching the number slide down in real time as winners expressed gratitude or advocated for causes was, as @gusfw put it, ‘diabolical.’

Stephan Graham’s emotional speech was a highlight of the evening, and yet it came with the uncomfortable knowledge that any extra time he took was taking money away from children(Picture: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)

Bargatze eventually tried to soften the damage by revealing that CBS would contribute $100,000 and he himself would donate $250,000 (£184,065), bringing the total to $350,000 (£257,692). 

That final reveal salvaged the stunt from outright disaster – but it didn’t erase the bad taste left behind. Bargatze even joked near the end of the night, ‘Honestly, I think I’ve made money.’

No one is arguing against the value of donating to the Boys & Girls Club. But charity shouldn’t come wrapped in humiliation or gimmicks that make winners feel guilty for speaking sincerely. 

If awards shows want to incorporate philanthropy, they should do so proudly and transparently, not by dangling kids’ futures as collateral in a comedy bit or cutting short the winner’s speeches, which are far and away the best part of the night.

What was meant as a quirky twist ended up exposing exactly the wrong message: that to Hollywood, charity is a stage prop and gratitude is a nuisance.

Got a story?

If you’ve got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us [email protected], calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we’d love to hear from you.

Comments