Global Icons
The Dimond geezer is back again, this talking about Tiger Woods and David Beckham.
In what must have been a fairly slow news day for members of the press at the USPGA the other day, headlines were made when Tiger Woods proclaimed that David Beckham probably had a higher global profile than he did.
"As far as world athletes, I don't see how Beckham didn't beat me. As far as global figures, he's probably more global than me.”
This whole debate arose from a programme the US broadcaster ESPN ran, called ‘Who’s Now’, in which 32 high profile athletes squared off in a series of knockout bouts to find the public’s most popular sports star. Tiger emerged with a comfortable final victory (winning 65.1% of the vote against Cleveland Brown’s basketball star LeBron James). David Beckham, meanwhile, had to put up with a narrow defeat to world renowned LaDainian Tomlinson (the San Diego Chargers Running Back, and 2006 NFL MVP).
Now, while the fact I felt the need to explain who Tomlinson actually is effectively demonstrates the narrow-mindedness of the poll (I mean, Austin Healey would probably beat him in a popularity AND most stupid name contest this side of the pond) it does raise an interesting debate. Tiger has consistently been voted the most high profile sportsman by the US media – and to do that in a predominantly US-sports market (i.e. baseball, basketball, American football…..WWE) is no mean feat. Yet, unless he is playing a clever media game, he does not believe that hype. As he puts it:
“You know, golf is not truly played all around the world. It is played in most places but not like soccer or football is”
He’s not wrong. Golf is not truly played around the world – hell, half the people I play with cheat! And while football might not be universally popular - it is after all the 27th most popular sport in America (narrowly behind dodgeball and hotdog-eating) - it does have a huge following pretty much everywhere else. It seems to me (as nothing more than a GP workie) that the best yardstick probably comes from their earnings. Becks has a far bigger take home pay (wages of $25m compared to Tigers $10m depending on season results) but it is sponsorship where the big bucks lie. Becks doubles up through sponsorship, but Tiger rakes in over $70m to emerge rich-torious. I would use this as conclusive evidence, but then again David Beckham did play at the FIFA World Cup (the world’s most watched sporting event) whereas Tiger gets a fraction of that audience for his annual Augusta jaunt. So, at the end of all that, I am going to bottle it, call it a draw and quickly hurry onto another topic…….
Away from the Billy Big-Timers arguing over who is more popular, there is an intriguing quandary gripping the working classes of golf. With the FedEx Cup heading towards the final stages (well, qualification for the last 144 players ends after the USPGA) attention is beginning to turn towards the hunt for overall victory – and the $10million prize that goes with it. Such a prize is unheard of in golf, and arguably still is as the sum will actually be paid as a supplement to the lucky players PGA pension (rather than the standard oversized cheque - though no doubt one will make an appearance). For the players this is no big deal, for the caddies it creates a delicate situation. With caddies generally earning 10% of all winnings, the lucky bagman will be in line for a $1m windfall. With no PGA pension, said person will be expecting to see that money, in full, soon after that drunken victory party has ended. But with the victorious player not seeing that money for between 20 and 50 years (depending on whether he is Vijay Singh or Tadd Fujikawa) it is unlikely they will be too keen to stump up $1m they don’t actually have. How will they resolve this problem? Who knows, but everyone will be watching with a great deal of interest (well, at least when they get their money they will, arf arf) Whatever the case, the champion golfer will have some issues to deal with, which rather reminds me of Puff Daddy, who infamously (and wisely) sang about ‘Mo Money, Mo Problems’. How true these words could be, and in the video it was at a golf tournament this fact was illustrated!!
Tournament Questioner: I guess this means more money, more problems for you?
Winning Golfer (Puff): Yeah, [sighs], yeah. Mo money, mo problems……
A modern day Nostradamus I tell you!
To read about ESPN’s ‘Who’s Now’ click here
For all you need to know about the FedEx Cup, click here
To watch Puff Daddy’s video for ‘Mo Money, Mo Problems’ click here
dasBlog | For when golf isn't enough | Golf Punks
8/9/2007 4:12:54 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00) 
|
|