Tiger Woods: a selfish, money grubbing prima donna?
This is S. Scott Rosenberg’s recent remarks about golf’s beloved Tiger Woods. He further goes on to tell us that Woods should be the one man that America should love to hate. Could it be that Rosenberg is just a tad bit jealous knowing that he will never achieve the popularity nor the charitable greatness shown by the number-one golfer in the world?
Although he is considered golf’s first “billion-dollar man“, Woods also gives millions to charities (Tigerjam and the Target World Challange in which Woods donates his winnings every year) and helps the youth of America through the Tiger Woods Foundation, quelling the naysayers who fear that Tiger Woods is solely out for himself.
It seems only fair that the number-one golfer in the world should have his choice of endorsements. It is also appropriate that he should top this year’s list of most influential sports endorsers which, since last year, has been led by former Chicago Bulls basketball player Michael Jordan. Woods is the only person in the top-five who is currently active in his field.
Corporations who took a chance on Tiger early on in his career are now clicking their heels. When Woods signed with Nike in 1996, they didn’t even have a golf division. Just ten years later, Nike Golf is one of the top-five golf equipment retailers. Although CNBC queries that their profits are falling and that Nike is spending too much too keep Woods, where would they be without him?
Buick’s waning image as the “poor man’s Cadillac” has recovered and the average age of it’s buyers has dropped ten years thanks to Woods!
Forbes has reported that Tiger Woods made a total of $87 million in endorsements last year. But tell me, does he deserve to have all of this money thrown at him?
Tiger Woods is only guilty of one thing: changing the face of golf and bringing the sport, once watched by a few fanatics when televised on the Wide World of Sports, to the masses who would have never known a birdie from a bogey. With that fame Tiger has also increased sales for several companies who were in desperate need of a “facelift". He is also a genuinely good person without skeletons in his closet so advertisers do not have to be afraid of the possibility of their endorsement deal going sour.
As for The Tribune’s unsubstantiated jibberish, I know if I lived in the midwest I wouldn’t use the paper to line a birdcage.
|« Annika Sorenstam "skins" Lorena Ochoa in Mexico then guests on The Tonight Show||Podcast: What would make Tiger Woods quit golf, how to handle unplayable lies and confidence-building tips from Dr. Bob Rotella »|
not Phil Mickelson-esque or Tom Brady (read into that what you will), he wins a lot & thats tough for them to understand & too much of, etc.
However, that writer was so simplistic in his rationalization that the story lost
any potential bite it could have had. Seriously..he's selfish because he ONLY
won 3 of 5 matches. Does that mean Phil was downright egotistical?
And is he really insinuating that Woods played less than he could ON PURPOSE?
He lost purposefully, because he did want to exert too much energy??
The RC is the only monkey he currently has on his back, and we all know the
atention it garnered, we all know the he would probably like to flick Sergio's
sneer right off his face with a big "W", so that theory just doesnt even come close to making sense.
Comments are closed for this post.