Re: Clijsters out of Olympics

Steve Jaros wrote:

> > "H Holbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message

> Adidas is sponsoring the BOIC, not the olympic games themselves. 

I'm not so sure. I'd bet that Adidas is also financially tied in with 
the central body, too.  But, for the purposes of your education on the 
topic you've so badly blundered on, this is unimportant.

> The games
> would get along fine without Belgian participation, for that matter. 


The games would suffer immeasurably if countries were excluded. If 
countries choose not to compete they would suffer immeasurably.  (See 
Moscow 1984 and Los Angeles 1988, et al.)


> And Kim
> doesn't need 'sponsorship' to go to Athens. She can do that herself.

Nope, she cannot.  She must be invited by the Belgium olympic committee 
and abide by their rules.  Surely they would love her NOT to be 
sponsored individually, but as with many pro athletes there is a 
conflict with sponsorships, as we have seen in her case.


> 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.

How naive.

The sponsors sponsor the team.  There is no "i" in team, whether the 
team is made up of pro or amateur athletes.


> > One participates in the olympics at the pleasure of the country's
> > olympic organizers.  It's not a right.
>
>
> Who said it was? 

You suggested she could wear what she wanted as an olympic participant. 
 She can't.

But neither is it a requirement.

Who said it was?

> 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.

How naive.

The tradeoff is play for your country and honor your country's 
sponsorship deals, or don't play for your country.

Most athletes highly value the opportunity to represent their country. 
Whether they value it as highly as the money they'd lose by doing so is 
the question here.