Re: Clijsters out of Olympics

> "H Holbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Steve Jaros wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> No, they are not in the wrong.  Sponsorship of olympic athletes is de
rigueur,
> and has been for some time.  The sponsorships, in fact, make the olympic
games
> possible.

Adidas is sponsoring the BOIC, not the olympic games themselves. The games
would get along fine without Belgian participation, for that matter. And Kim
doesn't need 'sponsorship' to go to Athens. She can do that herself.

Perhaps a good rule of thumb is that only athletes who need a subsidy by
their olympic federation must wear the clothes? In that case, the player is
getting something for their 'endorsement'. Kim isn't.

>  One participates in the olympics at the pleasure of the country's
> olympic organizers.  It's not a right.

Who said it was? But neither is it a requirement.

Playing for Belgium for 'patriotic' reasons is something Kim should do, in a
'moral' sense, though of course she doesn't have to. But playing for Belgium
on the condition that she provide an economic benefit to a BOIC sponsor is
something that she not only doesn't have to do, it's something she also has
no 'moral' duty to do either. That has nothing to do with "playing for
Belgium", etc. it's just about money and the sponsor's goal of getting a
free-ride on Kim's prominence while Kim gets nothing in return.