Re: Clijsters out of Olympics

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yahoo! is running a story citing a statement on Clijsters' Web site
that
> because the Belgian Olympic Committee won't budge on its requirement
that
> all athletes wear clothing made by its sponsor, Adidas, she won't be
> playing. Clijsters, as we know, has a contract with Fila.
>
> I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think Clijsters
is
> right to honor her contractual commitments (I don't really think she
has
> much choice); I *also* thinik the fact that xOCs are signing such
> immovable sponsorship deals indicates what utter crap the claim is
that
> the Olympics represent some kind of pure, uncontaminated, amateur
sporting
> ideal. In practical terms, it's also just stupid: surely the BOC
knows
> there are sports in which the athletes are often signed to exclusive
> contracts (though for the vast majority of athletes who represent
Belgium
> in the Olympics I'm sure it's not an issue).
>
> Still, you'd think Clijsters could have negotiated an exemption for
the
> Olympics. Surely it's in all her sponsors' best interests for her to
play,
> no matter what she's wearing.
>
> All quite bizarre. Butis likely to make Navratilova/Raymond even
more of a
> favorite.
>

I'm afraid the Yahoo story doesn't present the entire picture.
As far as I can tell, and knowing the actors involved, and having read
the various articles in the local press, and having heard interviews
with all of those 'in the know" I conclude that 95 % of the blame
should be laid at daddy Clijsters's door. The story has been brewing
for at least two months now (as a matter of fact I wrote about it here
a few weeks ago) so there has been time to work out compromises of all
sorts. The fact that it didn't happen points to serious stubbornness
of at least one of the parties.

I add a (personal) translation of an editorial on the matter in one of
our "serious" newspapers.

[Quote]

What is the highest a sportsman or woman can achieve? A gold medal at
the Olympics, isn't it? We must start doubting that, because Kim
Clijsters has just decided not to go to Athens. Why? Sponsor problems.
Is money more important than sporting honour after all?
The Clijsters website is a great source of information. In "Kim's
diary" we read that "Belgium's finest" went to the beauty parlour,
will visit a sauna with Caroline Maes next week and do some Christmas
shopping at the same time. And in amongst these titbits of news she
also tells that she'll skip the Olympics next year. Shoot, there goes
an almost certain medal. But a lot worse is the reason why. There
appears to be an unbridgeable gap between her clothing sponsor and the
Belgian Olympic Committee (BOIC). Must we be surprised that the
parties can't seem to agree? Yes and no.
The facts first. It had been obvious for some time that Clijsters'
participation at the Athens Olympics was never going to be automatic.
For about 18 months now the WTA #2 has been clothed and sponsored by
Fila while the BOIC has a deal with Adidas as a general Olympic
sponsor. Father Clijsters had already made it quite clear that he
definitely didn't see his daughter play in an Adidas outfit. Yet, Kim
wanted to go to the games. She said so, and repeated it until last
week.
To get out of the stalemate, a few weeks of intense negotiations took
place between father Clijsters, Fila and the BOIC. Let it be clear:
These were not easy talks. And the fact that Fila was taken over some
time ago by American Sports Brands International didn't make them any
easier.
Last well the paper "Le Soir" disclosed some hints about compromise
proposals that could have satisfied both parties. At first there was
the proposal to let Clijsters play in neutral attire (i.e. without
logos) and Adidas even agreed to let her keep her Fila shoes. Then
another concession was made. Clijsters could play in Fila clothing but
in case she won a medal she would have to appear in Adidas gear on the
podium. This was quite a concession by the BOIC. Its charter
stipulates clearly that the Committee has the right to chose the
outfit of the athletes. The athletes keep the right to choose and use
their own technical equipment (in this case the racquets). "Le Soir"
reported that there wasn't a breakthrough yet; a definitive decision
would be made after the Australian Open.
That's why the Clijsters' statement is so unexpected. "But," she says,
"I want to remain loyal to the people with whom I signed a contract.
Fila were the only ones who wanted to support me two years ago. Now,
others will now try to make me look bad, but I just want to be
correct."
The "others" above is the Belgian media, that keeps writing lies in
her opinion. Just like they are doing again these days about her
relation with doubles partner Sugiyama. It's certainly true that the
Belgian media will criticise and condemn her about her decision not to
go to Athens. But the journalists won't look for the guilty party in
the sponsors circle but within the Clijsters clan.
And it's father Leo who will be first in the firing line again. It's
well known that the former football star is a very tough negotiator
when it comes to money. Has he played the game too hard again? It's
interesting to not that Adidas is involved, a brand with whom he has
difficult relations. Two years ago - while his daughter was looking
for a new contract - they preferred Justine Hénin above Kim. A slight
with far reaching consequences it seems.
The Clijsters now talk loftily about "loyalty to a faithful partner".
It sounds good, but is it credible? Are they really afraid to be
kicked out by Fila. Let's be serious: no intelligent sponsor is going
to let go of its golden goose.
Kim Clijsters would be no means be the first - nor the most famous -
athlete to have to make concessions to sponsor rights for the
Olympics. During the 1992 games Michael 'Air" Jordan - the Nike icon
if ever there was one - played with a Reebok logo on his vest,
although he sort of clumsily hid it from view during the medal
ceremony with an American flag draped over his shoulder. Venus
Williams played with Reebok clothing in Sydney (her personal sponsor)
but went to pick up her medal in the official USA-adidas uniform.
One thing is certain. Clijsters doesn't have to participate for the
money. She earned over $4 mio in prize money this year. Also tennis
players value the successes at Grand Slam tournaments higher.
Clijsters herself has described tennis as "a lesser Olympic sport".
But that's not what the average sports fan in this country thinks. The
sports fan wants the best possible representation at the games. And
for Belgium that includes Kim Clijsters. It must be feared that the
dissatisfaction will spread far beyond the media. Even the
"unpatriotic" and "unchauvinistic" Belgians want their athletes to win
as many medals as possible. There is a very real chance that the
affair will leave "popular" Kim more than a little bruised.

[unquote]

Comments anyone?