Tiger Woods won his eighth PGA Tour player of the year award yesterday. Woods, who took a two-month break from the tour this season to mourn the death of his father, won eight events. No other player has won the PGA Tour player of the year award, created in 1990 and also known as the Jack Nicklaus Trophy, more than twice …
In other Tiger Woods news, the golfer reportedly signed a third multi-year endorsement deal with Nike. Neither side has released details of the deal, news of which ESPN first reported. Woods’ original Nike contract in 1996 was reportedly worth $40 million for five years …
The 2006 European Tour Golfer of the Year award went to Paul Casey of Britain yesterday. Casey, 29, won three times and was a key factor in Europe’s romping of the United States in the Ryder Cup Matches.
| « Tiger hosts Target World Challenge; Arizona police seize stolen golf clubs | U.S. Open the best golf event of 2006; Connecticut PGA Tour stop offers new $6 million purse » |
Comment feed for this post
Tiger's all about the money! Only the media believes he doesn't care about his wallet. He gets paid at other people's expense IMO.
I wholeheartedly agree with you in that companies are wasting much money on various players/celebrities rather than investing it in their own workforce or helping drive their profits for the gain of their stockholders. However, I don't know of any golf player out there that would turn down millions for endorsing their product? Would you turn down millions for endorsing a product? Let's not judge him because he accepted money. If he was really being paid at the expense of other people then that would fall on the shoulders of the management team that made that decision.
Not every golfer endorses products. For some years Tom Watson did not even have a equipment sponsor. Some of the European golfer don't have many either. Still you make a good point. Most golfers would sell their name for the millions. It's the companies that buy into this celebrity obsession.
I have such issue with Tiger's GM endorsement because I don't think it's helped the company. I have some GM in mutual funds. GM talks about how Tiger helped one of their new cars sell more than expected as if it justifies his contract. First I don't even know how they can even measure that. My neighbour was laid off by GM and the company insists on paying Tiger $8-10 million to have Buick on his bag. I have no problem with it if it helps the company. Since I don't think it has, stockholders and workers have paid his bill.
Tiger Woods may be receiving endorsement money that far exceeds his worth to General Motors, but that eight or ten million dollars wouldn't help GM if Woods returned it along with a gift ten times as large.
GM, as well as its competitor Ford, has many monumental problems, not the least of which is the contract GM signed with the United Auto Workers to pay the healthcare costs for GM retirees, many of whom retire in their early fifties, until they qualify for Medicare at age sixty-five.
GM is spending a sizable portion of its revenue on something that has nothing to do with the manufacture of cars and trucks, the marketing and selling of cars and trucks, or the people working in its plants to build cars and trucks.
It was the height of folly for GM to ever agree to such a contract. It amounts to nothing more than welfare for retirees and is unsustainable, no matter how altruistic its original intention