Re: Clijsters out of Olympics

The article gets off on the wrong foot when it claims that the 'highest'  a
tennis player can achieve is to win the olympic gold medal. That's silly.

It then shows obvious bias throughout by mentioning the BOIC making "big
concessions" of one kind or another.

I'm no Clijsters fan but the issue seems clear - if the olympic committee
insists that she wear *anything* commercially-related that she doesn't want
to wear, they are in the wrong, not her.


>"gp calliauw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
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?
>