"I think that's why I have not come out and more aggressively defended myself."
/I'm not sure I understand Mark Steinberg's explanation of his position on Tiger and his silence in the face of all the apparently untrue reports that have been published. David Dusek reports:
"I had to do a lot of soul searching about the whole thing," he said. Steinberg said that he spoke with his wife about the situation several times and that she helped him realize that he couldn't leave his friend in this situation.
Wait, so he's his friend, but in the article he says he's only been to Vegas once with Tiger and doesn't have much idea what his friend does in his personal time? Just asking.
At the same time, he was clearly not happy that his name has appeared in articles like a recent one in Vanity Fair. The magazine quoted one alleged mistress, Mindy Lawton, who said she told Steinberg that The National Enquirer had learned of her affair with Woods.
He told me that he chose not to come out and strongly deny what he said were false accusations because that would only keep the story alive.
Yep, that squelched it!
And, people would simply assume he was lying.
Pretty much.
"I think that's why I have not come out and more aggressively defended myself."
So, Steinberg seems to be issuing a non-denial, and in his defense I'm not sure what he can do in this situation.
On this topic, there were a couple of interesting stories yesterday about Tiger's endorsement prospects. One quotes several experts suggesting Tiger merely has to play great golf and the big sponsorship deals will come back. Another felt he's never been a good value and that his prospects are dim beyond EA and Nike.
But in light of those stories and Steinberg's first comments, this reader email makes some key points in suggesting that Steinberg and Tiger's credibility will never be the same within the corporate community.
With regard to yesterday's events, one has to wonder as to the mind-set of both Woods and "Steiny" when Woods said (quoting from the transcript), "Going forward, hopefully I can prove to the other companies going forward that I am a worthy investment; that I can help their company, help their company grow and represent them well."
Say what, again?
Here's a great piece by Matt Debord that rips the myth of Tiger's commercial value to utter shreds. Nike nothwithstanding (The piece, like others, incorrectly states that Nike's "sales" are approximately $600 million. That number is more likely their net earnings from golf. Top line revenue from those operations is closer to $3.5 billion.), the economic value Woods delivered to his sponsors was minimal, if it existed at all. According to DeBord, Tiger and Steiny's Excellent Adventure gave sponsors an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway once the first opportunity arose -- namely get out from under a very costly mistake.
Indeed, the overall issue NOW appears to be trust, or better yet, the lack of it. And not as it relates solely to Woods' personal realtionships. How can any corporate CEO, any potential sponsor, look Steinberg in the eye and fully come to trust HIM knowing that Steinberg was fully aware as far back as 2007 that his client was a walking tabloid-selling timebomb set to explode? Try and imagine the size and scope of Woods' endorsement earnings if the following statement were made at the conclusion of any negotiations:
Steinberg: And please keep in mind, Mr. CEO, that my client reserves the right to engage in any and all types of perverted, scandalous behavior at any time that is inconsistent with both your mission statement and corporate image. You got a problem with that?
What CEO in his right mind would sign up for that?
We keep hearing from certain IQ-impaired members of the media that Woods owes nobody outside his family an apology. Yet since the late 90s, he has garnered himself nearly $900 million in endorsements from among the bluest of the blue chip companies and still chose to embarrass them all. One would think he owes the shareholders of those companies a BIG apology. But if you're the beneficiary of a pension fund or shareholder of a mutual fund (both large owners of stock in those same companies) don't hold your breath.
"Steiny" doesn't think you're owed.