American Tiger Woods, among the world’s most dominant golfers the last several years now, is the leading money making sportsman. The report that he has earned a billion dollars from his huge tournament successes and from commercial endorsements is mind-boggling. Corporations, guided by the notion that whatever product he introduces into the market sells, raise against one another to feature him in their advertisements and sales pitches. The portfolio is, of course, huge.
Recently however, a case has canalized his fame into a more sensational frame. Woods has been thrust into a different ball game. He does not swing or putt his ball into an eagle. To be more accurate about it, he is trying to wiggle out from a probable boogie imposed by society. In America, their moral norms, judging on the basis of the diverse reactions to an incident in the life of Woods, differ appreciably from our standards. That is a different society, indeed.
Woods’ case started out as an innocuous vehicular accident in a plush subdivision, gated, they say, an enclave of the super rich, in Florida. Reports were sketchy, to say the least, understandably because of a seemingly concerted effort to keep it from the public. Eventually, after details of the incident and other similar stories started to seep in, the twists and turns of the case led to the discovery of many escapades unflattering to the golfer and derogatory to his otherwise clean billing.
It appears to me that the spate of reported dalliances, true or not, damaged his reputation. The hero-worshipping he has had from millions of adoring fans grounded to a halt. He had to withdraw from public eye and let the storm pass. The more effective damage control was for him to be seen less often even if it also meant fewer participation in lucrative tournaments.
Large American corporations have begun to rethink their relations with Woods. For him, when it rains, it really pours. An endorser who hugs the headlines negatively cannot sell their product for he becomes a liability. These companies spend a lot to protect their names and they do whatever they can to keep their integrity immaculate and so now that their endorser is getting adverse public opinion, they back off. Protective of their wholesome image, corporate moguls would not want their endorser associated with events that are of stained morality.
To demonstrate their efforts to keep their integrity unsullied, they have started to keep a space between them and their product endorser. Millions of dollars are involved here. As a counter to an impending adverse sales impact, these American companies have thawed their contractual relations with the golfer. They would not want to have to do with anybody with impaired credibility.
The American society is really different. Americans are sensitive to issues we take for granted. They keep their scruples intact by upholding the basic fibers that bind their families together while we tend to play with them. For instance, in our own land, such an unwholesome character as a marriage infidel flaunts his vice when his American counterpart does everything to keep it as his darkest secret. Here, we do not anymore think that if a person is capable of cheating on his wife, he can very well cheat the public he is sworn to serve. In fact, a womanizer gets elected to the presidency.
It is possibly one good issue, among several, to look at this coming 2010 election. Character shall and must rank high among the unwritten qualifications of persons seeking public positions.
We should be very careful to empower only those who have the strength to stand by the vows they have made in marriage. More often than not, our marriages here are done in churches. Commitments are made before God. Just imagine that if such vows are broken, what can prevent officials from breaking the promises they have given to the voters.
Is it possible to assimilate the teaching of the Woods caper and apply the high moral ground it carries into our choices come May 2010?