Why EA Should Keep Backing Tiger

14 Jan 2010 at 00:00:00 by Andy Alderson

Since Tiger Woods’ personal life unceremoniously exploded all over the tabloids at the end of last year, there has been much speculation over the future of his relationship with EA Sports. The publisher quickly leapt to the defence of the troubled golfer iterating, and reiterating, its support for Tiger with EA Sports head honcho Peter Moore recently offering what we assumed would be the last word on the subject.

“Our relationship with Tiger has always been rooted in golf,” wrote Moore on his blog, presumably unaware of the alternative meaning of “rooted”.  

“We didn’t form a relationship with him so that he could act as an arm’s length endorser. Far from it.  We chose to partner with Tiger in 1997 because we saw him as the world’s best, most talented and exciting golfer.  We struck that partnership with the assumption that he would remain near or at the top of his sport for years to come.”

And so when news emerged yesterday that EA was polling (although not in the same way Tiger was) to find out if the controversy would adversely affect EA Sports brand, yet again I found myself spending a morning desperately trying to think of golf-related sexual innuendo. In the end “finding himself deep in some rough” was the best I could muster, although I was very close to crafting something involving “shaft”, “wood” and Tiger’s dire need to clean his balls. 

It seems the publisher may be having second thoughts about its previously unwavering support for Tiger and, following the news that its financial projections aren’t quite what it initially hoped for, you get the impression that EA can’t afford to take any chances. Peter Moore’s aforementioned blog post rightly attracted praise from the more reasonable members of the gaming community but, as always, dissenting opinion was not far away, with complaints that negative statements about Tiger had been removed from the comments section by EA. Is the publisher really so worried about the moralism of gamers that it would consider dropping the Tiger Woods brand? I, for one, hope not.

Firstly, if I remember correctly, the game is about golf and - much to my chagrin - not about serial adultery (that’s Tiger Woods VAG Tour 2010).  As Mr Moore stressed, Tiger’s personal indiscretions have no bearing over his standing as one of the greatest golfers ever to have lived. The scandal has nothing to do with golf and, frankly, only someone deeply committed to the practice of sanctimony would boycott EA products because of its relationship with Tiger. 

Moreover, I think it would be hugely hypocritical of EA Sports to think about ditching Mr Woods considering some of its other celebrity endorsements. The latest FIFA title, for instance, features Manchester United’s Wayne Rooney on the cover. Yes the same Wayne Rooney caught cheating on his fiancé with a middle-aged prostitute in a tabloid expose a few years back. And then of course there is the double whammy of Muhammed Ali and Mike Tyson appearing on the cover of Fight Night Round 4. In the run up to the infamous Rumble in the Jungle, Ali was not only revealed to be racist (his comments on Joe Frazier were truly shocking) but an adulterer too, at one point introducing his mistress to the assembled press as his wife. And Iron Mike Tyson may well have been one of the most electrifying boxers of all time, but he was also a renowned womaniser and, well, a wee bit rapey.

I wonder if the same people talking about boycotting Tiger Woods games will do the same for FIFA and Fight Night? Or any basketball game that features Kobe Bryant. Does anyone (other than those directly involved) really, genuinely give a quivering fuck that Tiger Woods may have slept around? It’s not like he’s killed anyone forchrissakes. He hasn’t stolen wheelchairs from handicapped kids. In the same way that I can love Lou Reed’s music despite all the evidence indicating that he’s a bit of a twat, I can play a Tiger Woods game without feeling like I’m supporting the concept of adultery.  Or am I just amoral for wanting to have another bash at Tiger Woods when I get home tonight (just like his wife did WAHEY!)

If we take anything away from this whole kerfuffle (that’s right, kerfuffle) it should be that perhaps publishers are placing too much stock in licensing when it comes to sports games. Is it a good thing that sports franchises live and die by the big name in the title or on the cover? Obviously, celebrity endorsements are a contributing factor to sales but surely there are other ways to make a successful sports game. As Tim mentioned in his column last week, we must ask what happened to the characters? Speaking to the FIFA dev team last year, we discovered that licensing can be problematic as organisations representing sports stars insist that they must be portrayed in a certain way to maintain their professional reputation. Maybe it’s time for publishers and developers to take a risk and try something new with the genre, something that allows them complete creative freedom. A pipedream, perhaps, but at least then we wouldn’t spend so much time reading about how Tiger seemingly can’t keep his putter in the bag.

Comment