Question:

Another Sponsor Jumps the "Tiger Woods" Ship

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

As if losing one sponsor wasn’t enough, Tiger Woods has now managed to lose another. This officially means that the score stands at two sponsors in under a week. First to go was the Procter & Gamble brand, Gillette, and now it seems that Woods has lost the
blessings of the Australian Government as well.
The latest development in the golfing world has been the rescheduling of the 2011 Australian Open. The Australian PGA has now moved the dates of the Open to the same week as the Chevron Challenge. I’m sure everyone can well imagine the dilemma this spells
for Tiger Woods, who is the host of the Chevron Challenge. It also doesn’t help matters much that he will most likely not be able to collect the $3 million he usually does for just showing up in the Down Under.
Throughout this year we have seen Tiger Woods' monarchy falling to pieces. This year has been the first year in his career when he has remained without a victory all season. He has finally been deposed from the World Number One Spot, his 121 affairs have
destroyed his image and he has been divorced by his wife. Now it seems that Woods and his management team, IMG, have lost all influence over the Aussie PGA too. Oh how the mighty have fallen!
This decision by the Australian PGA must have been quite a blow to Tiger’s already battered ego, especially since he and his team had made it very clear that they want the Chevron Challenge to be held a week before the President's Cup. Despite this, the
Australian PGA has scheduled the same dates for the Aussie Open.
Chief Executive, Mark Garske of the government had the following to say: "As for the timings of the Masters event, the Australian PGA's decision was in the best interest of both Australian golf and the PGA Tour of Australasia."
And so it happens that Tiger Woods stands the chance to lose a neat amount of money if he decides to stay back for his event. However, rumour has it that even if Tiger was going to Australia, he would have been able to bag just half the amount he did last
year. The reason being that some people in the government weren’t too happy that the player was being given such a hefty amount. Not a very comfortable position for the government to be in election-year at all.

 Tags:

   Report
SIMILAR QUESTIONS
CAN YOU ANSWER?

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 0 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.