Tiger’s issues should be dealt with in the family
By S.C. Zuba
Sports Columnist
After watching and listening to a week of media coverage of the Tiger Woods saga, something occurred to me.
Athletes are people, too.
Woods may be a billionaire, the greatest golfer in the world and maybe even the greatest athlete in the world, but does that mean he should lose all privacy?
No one really knows what is going on in the Woods family, other than Tiger was in a car accident and that he apologized for his “transgression” on his Web site. And to be honest, that is all the general public should know.
Woods—love him or hate him—is a human being. As humans, we are entitled to a certain level of privacy, especially when it involves serious family issues.
Often, fans and the media feel they have a sense of entitlement to know the deepest, darkest secrets of their favorite athletes or the most popular athletes, but I would argue the opposite.
Some use the argument that since the fans of the sport pay the athlete’s salary, they deserve an explanation when the athlete is involved in controversy. But I fail to see the logic in that.
Other than the amount, how is a fan paying the salary of an athlete any different than citizens of a local community purchasing groceries from a local grocer resulting in paying the salary of the person who owns that grocery store?
If the owner of that grocery store were involved in some type of controversy, the citizens of that community would not feel entitled to an explanation simply because they purchase groceries from that person’s grocery store.
The same is true in professional sports.
Woods is a public figure, not a presidential candidate. If Tiger had some type of power over the American public, then citizens of this country would deserve an explanation. However, he is just a golfer.
Whether Tiger was right or wrong, it is really none of my business. It is a family matter that should be dealt with in the family. No one else.
Share your thoughts with S.C. Zuba via e-mail at samuelczuba@yahoo.com.
From the December 9-15, 2009 issue
Print This Article
One Comment
What a surprise – yet another man defending Tiger. Where was all this support when beauty contestants had previously taken nude photos and was eliminated from pageants because of it? By the way, nude photos don’t spread STDs, cause unwanted pregnancy, or ruin marriages.
Comparing a sports figure with a politician, in regards to what the public has a right to know is ridiculous. In both cases the question of integrity comes into play. Does it matter what Scott Peterson’s job was when his pregnant wife came up missing? On the other hand, even though Bernard Maddoff is neither a politician nor a sports figure, should his indiscretions be a private matter even though it hurt and effects others lives? Once upon a time there was a thing called “responsibility”.