Don’t You Dare Touch the Animals, but Women Are Fair Game: Why Does Nike Continue to Do Business with Ben Roethlisberger and Other Athletes Who Have Abused Women?

What do Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods, and Ben Roethlisberger have in common?  Well, perhaps three things stand out.  All are highly regarded professional athletes, all have very lucrative endorsement deals with Nike, and all seem to treat women with only the most utmost disdain.  Let’s take a look at a few cases in point.

If you recall, in 2003 a female employee of a hotel in which he was a guest accused Bryant of sexual assault.  After some coercion, Bryant admitted sleeping with the young lady, but denied that it was assault. 

After some sloppy and irresponsible police work that allowed the victim’s name and other very personal information to be leaked to the press, the victim was understandably reluctant to testify, and charges were later dropped.  But Bryant did settle the civil suit brought against him by the victim out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Though Bryant did make a written apology, he never took full responsibility for his actions.  Nike did not suspend him, but scaled back their marketing efforts utilizing Bryant momentarily, but as soon as the dust settled and the incident dropped from the very short public memory, they went right back to him.

And let’s not forget the recent case of Tiger Woods.  No, Woods did not sexually assault anyone, but after an incident at his home in which his wife allegedly assaulted him after learning of an adulterous affair, restaurant hostesses, waitresses, strippers, and porn stars all came out of the woodwork claiming to have had sex with him.  Not only that, they had the bawdy text messages to prove it.

Though most of Wood’s other major sponsors dropped him, Nike remained loyal though they scaled back using his image, and when he returned to golf after about a six month hiatus getting his personal life straight, Nike marked that return with perhaps the most ingenious marketing scheme ever featuring a stoic, silent Tiger Woods staring into the camera as a voice over of his deceased father questioned his motives and mindset.

Now we can get to the case of one Mr. Ben Roethlisberger.  Now, again because of shoddy, inept police work, the details are kind of cloudy in the two allegations brought against, but one thing is certain;  Mr. Roethlisberger likes to drink to excess, and he is very proud of his penis.

In each of the two allegations, the young ladies report a drunken Roethlisberger first exposing himself to them.  And I have never seen Roethlisberger’s penis;  perhaps it is a majestic, chubby little fellow, and he has every right to be proud of it and show it off.  However, this behavior is wholly unacceptable.   

Additionally, the young lady making the second allegation reports that Roethlisberger forced intercourse on her even after she told him that it was not okay while two off duty police officers acting as his bodyguards ran interference to keep her friends from coming to her aid.

It seems to me that anytime you pair up professional athletes and policemen, you have to lock up the women folk because absolutely anything is bound to happen. 

In all these cases professional athletes took advantage of women in some way.  And in all these cases Nike did not terminate their lucrative endorsement deals.  But do you remember NFL quarterback Michael Vick?  Soon after charges were filled by officials in Vick’s 2007 dog fighting case, Nike summarily terminated his endorsement deal citing the morality and personal conduct clause in his contract.

You might argue that Vick was actually convicted of a crime while the others have not been, but keep in mind, Nike terminated Vick’s contract after he was charged, not convicted.  And not only that, a little money spread around and Keystone Cop like investigations by the local police departments caused the charges to go away. 

And even if the other athletes in question were not convicted, enough evidence exists of their misconduct and blatant mistreatment and disregard for women to seemingly activate the morality and personal conduct clauses in their contracts because their behavior has cetainly been, at the least, morally reprehensible. 

Even NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Roethlisberger six games after reading the police report and the 572 page report issued by the Georgia Bureau of Investigations detailing Roethlisberger’s actions in this last incident.

But this is the upshot of it all.  Nike is perhaps the most powerful sportswear corporation in the world;  they dominate the market.  And though Nike has done some wonderful things toward the progress of women athletes and women’s athletic programs throughout the control, they have dropped the ball when it comes to policing the conduct of the athletes of their payroll in regards to women.

And because of Nike’s worldwide presence and influence, its inaction reveals the seemingly diminished value it places on the lives and well-being of women and girls.  You could make the argument in the case of Tiger Woods that in his discretion, the only people hurt were his wife and family, but in the same instance, his case tacitly makes the statement that money and power gives one license to treat women as they choose.

Even now I am perplexed as to why women, women’s groups, and their supporters have not called for a boycott of Nike or besieged its corporate headquarters in an effort to determine why Nike would terminate its business relationship with an athlete for mistreating animals but not for mistreating women.  They seem to be looking on passively, waiting for the other shoe to drop.  

A High Price for the Nike Swoosh

Since Nike released its Tiger Woods’ ad featuring the voice of his deceased father, Earl Woods, a few days ago, there has been no shortage of commentary critiquing it. Whether you like or dislike the ad, whether you think it is absolutely vile or tremendously inspiring, you must admit that as a marketing tool, it was a stroke of absolute genius. Since its release, it has been watched and re-watched and analyzed from every possible angle almost ad infinitum.

This morning Dee Foster, former elite NCAA gymnast and founder of Perfect Ten Consulting, has agreed to grace this spot with her take on the matter.

Before you read my commentary, please view the following ad if you have not done so already:

Now before I get into this, I want to be undeniably clear about two things:

1. I am a shameless Christian woman, and I am now in the practice of referring everything I say and do to scripture. I am woman-enough to admit that I am not the best navigator of my life’s journey…I need guidance. The Bible is the best self-help book ever written.

2. As a Christian woman, I in no way condone or endorse infidelity (or any bad behavior, for that matter) on any level. I do however, as a Christian woman, pray for God’s grace and mercy to cover and heal those who commit infidelity and those who are victimized by it. I do judge infidelity – everyone does. But I judge it from the perspective of God’s word: The Bible says that, as His children, we are to confess our sins to each other, to hold each other accountable to all behavior that is in disobedience to how God has instructed us to live and to pray for each others’ healing. (James 5:16). The Word doesn’t say anything about forcing each other to pay public and/or private penance – indefinitely –after God has already forgiven (Psalm 103:12)

Moving on.

The Masters. Golf’s proverbial holy grail of superiority. Masters. Interesting word. As a noun, it has 23 definitions according to dictionary.com. Here’s the 10 I find particularly compelling (and contradicting):

–noun

1. a person with the ability or power to use, control, or dispose of something: a master of six languages; to be master of one's fate.

2. an owner of a slave, animal, etc.

3. an employer of workers or servants.

4. the male head of a household.

5. a person eminently skilled in something, as an occupation, art, or science: the great masters of the Impressionist period.

6. a victor or conqueror.

7. an officer of the court to whom some or all of the issues in a case may be referred for the purpose of taking testimony and making a report to the court.

8. a boy or young man (used chiefly as a term of address).

9. a device for controlling another device operating in a similar way. Compare slave

10. the Master, Jesus Christ.

The reality is, God has already forgiven and forgotten the marital indiscretion of one Eldrick “Tiger” Woods (…and I will remember their sin no more -Jeremiah 31:34). However, the god-of-the-rubber-sole-and-shock-pads – Nike, Inc. -- has forced its former sacred cow to humiliate himself and continue to be convicted in the court of public opinion on a million dollar ad in exchange for keeping his beloved contract. And, as an added bonus to the great swoosh, they pounced on an opportunity to play God (the real One, not the shoe one).

That, friends, is called a Deal with the Devil.

Elin: The Deeper the Excrement, the More Wifey Smells of Roses

Let me just get this point out of the way before I expound on the Nike ad.

Speaking of deals with the devil…

She knew who she was marrying before she married him.

Considering how these scenarios usually exist (and they're all the same) this is not likely the first time he has cheated on her -- it's likely the first time she got fed up with it and made it public knowledge. Listen, I won’t bore you with my resume, but I’ve been in the branding, marketing and PR game for nearly two decades, so let’s just suffice it to say I know of which I speak, shall we? As a PR pro, I know that by the time someone gets busted, they have gotten away with it a million times.

Elin Whatever-Her-Maiden-Name-Is Woods left all-things-Nanny behind and chose to marry one of the wealthiest, most-famous humans on planet Earth. And she chose to marry him when he was in the prime of his career and in the prime of his life. Not unlike the many wives of professional über-athletes, she very likely turned a blind eye to some undesirable behavior (or at least hints of its existence) in exchange for an extremely comfortable life. She ignored stuff. Again, not likely this is the first time he’s been bad. Just the first time we all found out about it.

Everybody has a price. That was very clearly hers.

The devil, in this case, with whom Mrs. Woods struck her deal is not Tiger – it’s the farce that is their covenant of marriage. Now, I realize that, among females, I’m in the minority with this opinion.

That doesn’t make me wrong, though.

Treading-Not-So-Carefully, Inc.

In the argument (again, in the court of public opinion) about what is and isn’t satisfactory due-paying, representing this particular case are Tiger Woods, Elin Woods, the Woods children, a few Gloria Allred-represented opportunistic, money-whoring groupies (who are also ‘fans’ – which is short for fanatic, lest we forget…) and, last but certainly not financially least, Tiger’s sponsors.

The lone big-hat brand who “stood by” Tiger is, of course, Nike. As you saw on the recently launched, Masters Tournament-timed ad, Nike (also known as Phil Knight and his coveted ad agency, Wieden + Kennedy) is publicizing its official statement on Woods-gate. Actually, Nike has publicized more of a final judgment than an official statement – they are, after all, allowed to judge given they are the one brand not to flee.

Right?

Here’s the thing. Nike conceived this ad to reinvent Tiger Woods. Nike and Wieden + Kennedy – in their infinite marketing wisdom – have taken it upon themselves to re-create, re-brand, re-establish and re-build a broken man. Not a broken brand – a broken man. And again, this is perhaps their not-all-too-obvious way of letting The Tigster know he'd better thank his master (there’s that word again – which definition do you think is applicable?) for his one remaining endorsement contract…and that he's gonna have to crawl for it.

After seeing this ad, it is clearly in the minds of the shoe guru and its relevant partners that they are solely responsible for fixing what is broken, and if they have to dig up the rotting bones and the silenced voice of bad boy’s papa, then that’s exactly what they’ll do. I mean, if anyone can raise the dead, it’s Nike, right?

By the way, I wonder if the name of the marketing exec on this particular campaign is Creepy McCreepington. What delusional egocentric approved this thing? Don’t wanna be around that person when the rapture happens. Sheesh…

If you’re not picking up on my very acerbic sarcasm, hang in there – you’ll catch on by the time the piece is finished.

Part of the great swoosh’s reinvention strategy, by the way, is muzzling and muting Tiger (which is interesting, considering many brands are in desperate search for “articulate” athletes to endorse…but that’s another blog post altogether). Look at the ad. He says nothing. Subliminal messaging is among the most powerful to all the drones watching and waiting to be told what to think. And, in the end, Tiger's real god (Nike, not Buddah) will want to take credit for reinventing – and fixing – the broken man behind the brand.

Playing God. Deal with the Devil. Playing God. Deal with the Devil.

Oh, and if you asked me (which you didn’t, but I’m saying it anyway), Nike’s sanctimonious arrogance is so much worse than all the other brands who dropped him faster than Tiger told Groupie-Whore #1 to erase all those text messages. At least the brands who bailed revealed their sinister judgment overtly.

Oh, and I know that jab at one of Gloria Allred’s clients wasn’t very Christian of me. What can I say? God is no more finished with me than He is with Tiger…

This ad is clearly Nike’s insistence that Tiger continue to atone and, really, beg for the court of public opinion’s forgiveness. But alas, Earl’s son is only required to atone to God, his wife (although she's not blameless) and his children -- not humans. Especially not humans who have nothing to do -- at all -- with his situation. I also don't think there's anything genius about Nike faux-resurrection of a voice from the grave. I have traditionally been a great admirer (notice I didn’t say ‘fan’) of Nike ads - almost all of them are brilliant. But to me, this one is a perfect example of Nike (and its ad agency) believing its own hype and taking its advertising 'genius' over the line into a frighteningly blasphemous area.

When the last chapter of this tale is told, Tiger Woods will have won again, reigned as king of the golf world again and seen redemption in the form of new endorsement deals. He’ll have made more money than he ever dreamed possible, and he’ll sit alongside Marv Albert, Frank Gifford, Bill Clinton and countless other men on the Throne of Professional Resilience.

The real question is, how resilient is his soul?

What’s your opinion?

Is there a different standard of conduct for elite African American athletes and successful people of color in general?

No, this is not another Tiger Woods post. I’m too through with Tiger and his foolishness. However, this post does deal with elite African American athletes and their treatment in the media and by American culture in particular, and in the end, I extend the argument to include successful people of color.

This conversation grows out of one I began several days ago with Symphony of the blog Essential Presence about the Billy Corben directed documentary The U (a promotional clip is embedded above) which chronicles the rise and fall of the University of Miami football program during the 1980’s and early 1990’s.

According to the documentary, prior to the 1980’s the University of Miami was a lily white campus in the sleepy, lily white Miami suburb of Coral Gables with a failing football program. However, this all changed with the acquisition of Coach Howard Schnellenberger who was given the charge of rebuilding the program.

Coach Schnellenberger had the genius idea of rebuilding the program by going into the inner-city and ethnic neighborhoods of Miami and stocking the Miami football program with the best players, the vast majority of whom were black, which resulted in the University of Miami football team absolutely dominating college football for more than a decade.

And this domination was thorough and complete. However, they became more notorious for their on-field antics and off-field exploits than their football prowess. On the field, they danced, they clowned, they acted a complete and utter fool even as they were completely obliterating opponents. For this the team was labeled pompously arrogant.

Off the field they conducted themselves in an even more egregious manner; over the years, several players were arrested on charges ranging for assault to dealing drugs. For this the team got the reputation of a roster of criminals funded by rapper Luke Campbell.

But for all their on- and off-field exploits, during this period, the football team not only made a ton of money for the university, but they brought the university unprecedented exposure and prestige. Every game was a sellout, not to mention the millions for bowl appearances, and because of the success of the football program, the student body population grew by leaps and bounds.

Perhaps it would not be an overstatement to say that the University of Miami is what it is today because of the success of its football program. However, the football team’s reputation as a gang of lawless, arrogant thugs prevails.

This is my question to you, and I really hate to deal in hypotheticals, but I can only wonder how America would have treated, would have labeled, the University of Miami football team if that dominant team had been anything other than a group of predominately inner-city black kids? Would the terms have been different for Notre Dame? This brings us to our favorite foil as of late, Tiger Woods.

Every since he turned pro, Tiger Woods has absolutely dominated the sport of golf. And not only has he dominated the game; he has transformed the game as no golfer has before him. But even as he cut a wide swath through his competition, he has always been seen and labeled as arrogant.

And with this latest faux pas, the media and the golf establishment appeared only too eager to pounce. The golf establishment even characterized his actions as somehow outside some unwritten moral code of the pro golfing community. But I’m willing to bet my dollar to your dime that if there was some golf groupie sex to be had, Tiger was not the only one having it.

The common dominator here is money; money has the capacity to buy access to people and pleasures not available to those without it. And I am sure that for those who have it, those people and pleasures are hard to say no to.

Furthermore, what about the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena? This is another example of athletes who have absolutely dominated their sport, yet in seemingly every move they make, in every utterance, they been defined as ungraciously arrogant.

But I have not noted any such arrogance. Instead, I see their on the court posture as extremely competitive, extremely passionate, perhaps to a fault, but not arrogant. Most competitors, most people who reach the very pinnacle of their field seem to display many of the same behaviors. So why must they downplay their ability and accomplishments for their conduct to be deemed acceptable by some undefined, ever-changing standard?

And we can extend this argument far beyond the milieu of sports. I may be wrong; sometimes I feel that perhaps I am wrong more than I am right. From the limited purview of my subject position, I may simply be inserting inequities and inconsistencies where none exist. But it seems to me that standards of conduct differ for successful people of color.

While others may be given the latitude to celebrate their victories, to indulge in the excess allowed by the access that money and power provide, people of color are required to be humble, almost obsequious, in their success perhaps so as to be as non-threatening as possible.

But again, perhaps I may be wrong. What do you think?

An Imitation of An Imitation of Life: The Tiger Woods Fiasco and Racial Identity

[photo credit: cablinasian like me]

I am not one to deal in idle gossip, and I know you all are probably so done with the whole Tiger Woods saga, but even as the story appears to die out and the media seems to want to move on, new details emerge.

For instance, the total number of women with possible romantic ties to Tiger has grown to nine, possibly ten. And if that was not enough, two of the women stated that he did not like to use condoms, so he put not only himself but his wife and other partners in danger as well. Had enough yet? But there’s more.

It was also reported that one of the women involved is offering nude pictures taken from his cell phone for sale to the highest bidder, and additionally, the allegations that some of the trysts took place in his Florida home he shared with his wife and children have caused his wife to move out.

Admittedly, I have no idea how much of this is true and how much is simply rumor and innuendo, but I do know that if you repeat a lie often enough, it sometimes takes on the guise of truth.

And in speaking to others about Tiger’s future and according to experts, the general consensus was that this incident would have not bearing on his career or his many endorsement deals. However, that was before the other women started coming out of the woodwork, and the other potentially damaging information came to light. Now, Tiger’s character is really called into question, and his future seems up in the air.

But the question I have is, if things really begin to go downhill for him, if the whole situation begins to spiral completely out of control, as it appears it is doing, and he stands to lose everything—the support of his sponsors and the concomitant lucrative endorsement deals—what will his posture be toward his ethic background then?

If you remember, when Tiger won the Master’s Tournament at age twenty-one, he made the infamous comment to Oprah that he did not identify as Black but as Cablinasian, a combination of Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian. He went even further in stating that it troubled him to be identified as Black.

However, if you look at recent history, many who did not identify as Black, or who seemingly had cut their ties to the Black community, came rushing back when the chips were down.

Do you remember the case of one Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson? Before his 1995 trial for the death of his wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, Simpson seemed wholly disconnected from the African American community. However, following his acquittal by a practically all-Black jury, Simpson became ultra-Black. Suddenly, he was being photographed all up in Watts and Compton with Uncle Al Sharpton, eating soul food and offering praise and worship to Black Jesus in Black congregations.

It seems that facing a prison term of life without parole helps a man finally make up his mind in matters of race and religion.

And what about Michael Jackson? People were questioning both his commitment to the Black community as well as his desire to even remain Black when his legal troubles convinced him that “It Doesn’t Matter If You Are Black or White,” the long arm of the law will come after you. And then after his album “Invincible” tanked, he too sought out Uncle Al Sharpton to shepherd him back into Blackness.

The Black community welcomed both men back with open arms. Adoring crowds even greeted Simpson in Watts as if he were some kind of conquering hero. But both these men shared a pre-fame affinity with Black folks. O.J. grew up in a predominately Black, inner-city neighborhood and shared a similar narrative with Black folk. And though fame came to Michael Jackson when he was yet very young, most Black folk of a certain age still remembered a pre-plastic surgery Michael with the negroid nose and clung tenaciously to this image.

Additionally, both men engaged in an activity that Black folk readily identified with and participated in, football and music, whereas until Tiger came along, not many Black folk had anything to do with golf.

But Tiger does not have any of these advantages; though we have claimed him and embraced him, we have never really known him, and he has never expressed any pressing need to get to know us. I wonder if Uncle Al Sharpton would be available for a back to Black tour for him?

However, in the final analysis, this is how the ball bounces. Despite his malfeasance, I feel a sense of pity for him. Deviant behavior does not just occur out of nowhere; usually it can be traced back to some root cause.

And I do not claim to be some kind of psychologist, but I seem to sense in Tiger a lost, lonely child. Just like Michael Jackson, he has been a prodigy for most of his life. He has had people continually telling him how great he is, how wonderful he is, and stroking his ego. Until now, I do not ever recall him receiving any bad press.

Now, suddenly, he has been put right squarely on front street. Now all those women who he thought really loved him—because after all, he is Tiger Woods—are requiring a check for their silence.

Also, if his wife has really left him, and she has every reason to do so, I am sure he is feeling really alone right about now. He is perhaps bewildered and confused by this whole turn of events. Not too long ago, everyone seemed to be singing his praises; he was the golden boy, and his character went unquestioned. Today he is a punch line in an SNL spoof.

But how far will his descent go? Will things get so bad that he will feel the need to become Black?

Love Don't Love Nobody: Love, Respect, Marriage, and Tiger Woods

It takes a fool to learn

Yes sir

That love don’t love nobody

-- Love Don’t Love Nobody, The Spinners

Typically men are logical creatures and women are emotional. Love is an emotional word whereas respect deals with logic. -- @Luvologist

When the news of Tiger Woods’s automobile accident first broke, I thought that perhaps I would be writing about it soon. As bits and pieces of the story emerged, things just didn’t add up, and I began to have serious doubts about the official version of events. However, I held back writing my piece simply because I really disdain dealing in rumors. So, in writing this piece, though it seems our man Tiger may be in the wrong, I still reserve judgment until the complete truth emerges.

And, furthermore, I really don’t like to make essentialist claims like women do and think this way or men do and think this way; however, in discussing this issue with my wife and her very opinionated sisters as well as other women, I find that women and men differ in how they view this incident; for the most part, women seem genuinely shocked and outraged by his actions while men don’t find it all that shocking at all. And I think the difference can be explained by how men and women view relationships; it is a question of what is thought to be most important and valued—love or respect.

Allow me to attempt to explain by positing this analogy. There is a scene from one of Eddie Murphy’s old movies, Boomerang, in which the character played by Murphy arrives home early in the morning after spending the night with an old lover. He tries desperately to explain himself to his present live-in lover, who is played by Halle Berry, but she, of course, is livid and is hearing nothing he has to say.

Finally in desperation, Murphy’s character pitifully looks her in the eye and says, “But baby I love you.” And Berry’s character responds, “Then love should have brought you home last night.” *Cue Toni Braxton singing “Love Soulda Brought You Home”*

Usually at this point in the film, I skip around trying to find the scenes with Strangé; she makes my blood boil. But this is what I am trying to get across: I don’t think Berry’s character is completely wrong in her assessment. Yes, love should have brought him home, but love alone is not enough. Love means nothing if one party does not respect the other.

If I may, I will use my own experience as an example. Perhaps, I am wrong about this whole thing because my own experience stands in the way. But at this point, I have been married to my wife for almost eighteen years. And I dearly love my wife. In fact, I am absolutely crazy about her. Not a day goes by that I don’t have to stop and ask myself, what manner of root has this woman done put on me?

And in that almost eighteen years, I have not once been unfaithful to my wife. But that is not to say that I have not had the opportunity to engage in an extramarital affair or even been tempted because many times I have. Many times I have had to make the decision to either stay or go home, and the one factor driving my decision was never love, but respect.

I respect the person my wife is, and I respect her accomplishments so much so that I would never put her in a position to be ridiculed. I would never want to be the reason people are laughing and talking behind her back. I would never want to do anything to erode the respect others have for her.

Not only that, what about my self-respect? My grandfather said at one time that each time a man lies down with a woman, and vice versa, each gives up something in the exchange. And I believe that my wife and I have a mutual respect for one another. And furthermore and perhaps most importantly, I believe I enjoy the unquestioned respect of my children. What would happen to that respect if it were to be revealed that I had engaged in any number of sordid affairs which were documented by explicit text messages and voicemails? I don’t have the millions at stake like Tiger Woods; all I have is respect, and because I am a poor man, that respect is even that much more valuable.

So, if Tiger is guilty of what it is purported that he is guilty of, he probably only now realizes the depth of his folly. Perhaps, only now does he realize that not only does he stand to lose millions of dollars and his family, but he also stands to lose the respect he has worked so hard to cultivate. And perhaps over time, he will build his earning capacity back up. Perhaps, over time his wife and family will return. After all, everything seemed to work out for Kobe Bryant. But it will be a much longer stretch of time before he is able to win back the world’s respect.

Do you thing men and women view love and relationships differently? What do you believe is most important to a relationship—love or respect?