Re: Clijsters out of Olympics

Very interesting and serious article. Thanks.
I should say, this one - in addition to Kim's refusal to play Fed Cup -
brings some doubts about her readiness to pleay for Belgium .... perhaps she
looks n Australian direction ?

--
Regards, Yury

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

We can't necessarily rely on what the 'mass' of
 tennis fans think, since often the mass has stupid ideas.

(C) Steve Jaros
"gp calliauw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ???????/???????? ? ????????
?????????: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <[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?
>