Real Madrid

comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by Michael The Morb Morbius (U10026)
posted 9 minutes ago
But nobody is saying he wasn’t the best. They are saying that the marketing around Woods was hugely around him being the first great black golfer. It’s genuinely retaaaarded that you are even trying to argue he wasn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Utterly bizarre he is trying to argue this tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argued he wasn’t the first great ‘black’ golfer. I argued against ‘half of his marketing was down to his skin colour’. He wasn’t marketed because he was black, he was marketed because he was a phenomenon, he also happened to be black.

Your use of the word retar*** is further evidence that I’m wasting my energy talking to a couple of morons. Have a nice life being ‘controversial’ white children

comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 9 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Thisishardcore (U9121)
posted 15 minutes ago
Arnold Palmer is worth $700m. 7 majors.

Tiger Woods is worth $800m. 15 majors.

Is Tiger Woods undervalued because he is black? Or were they both able to maximize their brands due to sporting success better than anyone else in Golf?

Tiger Woods was a once in a lifetime talent who didn’t miss a cut for 142 straight tournaments over 7 years. Of course he was going to end up the richest you facking white bigots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tigers accumulation of earnings over his career is 1.7 billion and yes his race massively factored in nike's marketing. Of course it did. Its not a negative. Companies appeal to a wide range of people.

What that guy said was not remotely controversial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly, he is the most succesful golfer of all time, he is the glfer with the highest earning of all time.

He was constantly billed as the first black winning golf player to be no1, win the masters etc, whatever achievement it was he accomplished.

His very first Nike advert was a total diversity advert, be niave and think these things were just a co-incidence.

yes he would have been huge still, he would have been the greatest still if he was marketed that way but he was and fair play to them, it was very sensible.

this guys problem is that he thinks just cos we think that was how he was marketed that we re haters?!

he will genuinely think we re the ones that are narrow minded. how much of his marketing was based on that I have no idea, but to deny it was factor is complete naivety

He is one of the most inspirational sportsmen of all time even with his controversial ending of his career.

comment by Thisishardcore (U9121)
posted 7 hours, 29 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by Michael The Morb Morbius (U10026)
posted 9 minutes ago
But nobody is saying he wasn’t the best. They are saying that the marketing around Woods was hugely around him being the first great black golfer. It’s genuinely retaaaarded that you are even trying to argue he wasn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Utterly bizarre he is trying to argue this tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argued he wasn’t the first great ‘black’ golfer. I argued against ‘half of his marketing was down to his skin colour’. He wasn’t marketed because he was black, he was marketed because he was a phenomenon, he also happened to be black.

Your use of the word retar*** is further evidence that I’m wasting my energy talking to a couple of morons. Have a nice life being ‘controversial’ white children
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was the most appropriate word to use to describe your argument.

woods is cablasian

he's about as mixed as you can get

got east asian/black african/white/native american ancestry

he actually has a v east asian looking face and features imo

comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 11 minutes ago
woods is cablasian

he's about as mixed as you can get

got east asian/black african/white/native american ancestry

he actually has a v east asian looking face and features imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
which further enhances the point being made that there was a decent bit of marketing around him being black..... he is multi ethnic but the main focus did seem to be him being black rather than the other races.

its not controversial to say that, its factual, they did the right thing. And to be fair he did do wonders for diversity within sport

comment by Thisishardcore (U9121)
posted 9 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by Rude Van Nist (U22799)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by Michael The Morb Morbius (U10026)
posted 9 minutes ago
But nobody is saying he wasn’t the best. They are saying that the marketing around Woods was hugely around him being the first great black golfer. It’s genuinely retaaaarded that you are even trying to argue he wasn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Utterly bizarre he is trying to argue this tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argued he wasn’t the first great ‘black’ golfer. I argued against ‘half of his marketing was down to his skin colour’. He wasn’t marketed because he was black, he was marketed because he was a phenomenon, he also happened to be black.

Your use of the word retar*** is further evidence that I’m wasting my energy talking to a couple of morons. Have a nice life being ‘controversial’ white children
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You sound like an utter gimp, shut up, you are wrong, deal with it.

What the hell happened to this article?!

Ok as creator I feel I need to step in!

Tiger was the best in his field. Tiger is of mixed race which financially benefited him as Nike tried to push their diversity agenda and make more money.

I don't think anyone can argue with these two points. So I am wondering why are people getting wound up!

I think the other thing that helped him get global fame is the fact that he was so young and do good in a predominantly white sport at the time. Plus we saw him get mentioned in lyrics of songs, movies, etc.

Imho!

Sorry in advance if this causes offence to anyone!

comment by PersGsus (U16509)
posted 40 minutes ago
What the hell happened to this article?!

Ok as creator I feel I need to step in!

Tiger was the best in his field. Tiger is of mixed race which financially benefited him as Nike tried to push their diversity agenda and make more money.

I don't think anyone can argue with these two points. So I am wondering why are people getting wound up!

I think the other thing that helped him get global fame is the fact that he was so young and do good in a predominantly white sport at the time. Plus we saw him get mentioned in lyrics of songs, movies, etc.

Imho!

Sorry in advance if this causes offence to anyone!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
cos some people are saying his race has nothing to do with what he earned.

you do make an excellent point that he was of race doing it in predominantly white sport, so much was made of him being the "first black man to ....... fill the blank" , again it was smart to market him this way.

very similar in that respect to Lewis Hamilton

----------------------------------------------------------------------
cos some people are saying his race has nothing to do with what he earned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm no expert but I think Nike won't agree with that sentiment!

Maybe not professionally but it would seem that commercially he was exploited more than his peers and got handsomely paid for it.

Interestingly enough, the question that wasn't asked or raised here is whether he would have made more or less money if he'd been Caucasian.