As IF Times

link:  https://www.sportsnet.ca/golf/article/charl-schwartzel-wins-4-75-million-at-inaugural-liv-golf-event/

With all of the ongoing vexations occurring in the world today, the latest headline grabber comes from the sports world.  As we all know, the world of ‘sports’ has changed dramatically over the last few generations, evolving from earnest competitions among talented participants to become grossly commercial endeavours pitting billionaires vs billionaires and their stables of ponies.  Sports is big business and most everyone in the world is a fan of some kind of sports activity.

Worldwide, but especially in the US, sports is not a pastime of leisure, or of dilettantes.  It is serious business as virtually every college and university in America has a sports program that is the farm system for players hoping to turn professional.  None of these programs would exist if not for the monetization potential of any particular sport.  I suppose the javelin toss and hammer throw could be the exceptions.  They’ve yet to make the televising of throwing spears or iron balls appealing to the masses…. but maybe one day.

There is no question that money is the lifeblood for sports; we’ve become accustomed to eye popping sums offered to professional athletes based on their perceived ability to fill a stadium, draw TV viewership or hawk products.

One of the few sports to have escaped (somewhat) this crass commercialism was golf. Sure, the players wore logo’d shirts and hats, but the players were always portrayed as gentlemen whose goals were loftier than just the prize cheque for winning a tournament.  It was good enough to be recognized as good.  Or it was… until money started to drive the game, which began with Arnold Palmer and ultimately with the monetization of Tiger Woods.  As the game changed from the genteel sentiments of Bobby Jones to the present day “Nascar-ing” of the sport, money has become the dominant influence of the game.  Forget Titleist or Callaway, the number one driver in golf….is money.

The recent uproar in the genteel golf world laid bare this reality as an upstart league, the LIV tour, backed by wealthy Saudis, sought to lure top tier players away from the long established PGA tour by offering eye watering amounts of money to play in their tournaments.  To illustrate the lure, consider that Tiger Woods, arguably the greatest in the history of the game, won 18 major tournaments along with 82 regular victories.  His total earnings for his career amounts to just over 120 million dollars.  Dustin Johnson, with only a fraction of Wood’s success was offered 125 million dollars, just to come over to the new league. I’m not going to judge Johnson’s sense of allegiance or values, but we all know, he isn’t going to win 18 majors and 82 tournaments in his career.  The same is true for all of the other notable names that have elected to forgo the PGA brand for the LIV offering.  In other words, these athletes are doing what every other athlete does in any other sport, they go to the highest bidder.  Money has affected golf; what a shock!

Of course the other criticism levelled against the defecting players is that they are supporting a regime which has an abysmal record on human rights.  Not only that, but the Saudis are the source of nationals responsible for terror attacks on the US.  None of those accusations are unfounded.   But as in most narratives, there is the other side of the coin.  Nike, one of the biggest sponsors of players on the PGA tour, (and in fact all sports) manufacture most of their gear in China, a nation which pays as much attention to human rights as Italian drivers do to stop signs.

You could argue that the big money paid to elite athletes sponsored by Nike are in fact off the backs of suffering worker bees oppressed in China.  It’s somewhat akin to the superiority that drivers of electric cars feel over petrol drivers, even though their electricity is made from burning coal.  If we’re going to demonize nations for their repressive actions, that’s fair.  It’s also fair to then point out the repressions in all nations, including the US and Canada, oft considered paragons of liberty.

It’s fair to say that the past two years have seen the most repressive human rights agendas perpetrated by these very nations that most vocally protest the deeds of the Saudis.  As of this writing, Canada for example, has yet to allow all of its citizens from leaving the country. Certain parts of the US still force people to inject harmful products into their bodies in order to work.  Bank accounts are seized over actions critical to the governments.  I don’t expect PGA players to refuse cheques issued by sponsors in these countries.

Both arguments against the defecting players are hypocritical.  No one amongst us would pass on an offer of significantly higher income for doing the same thing.  That is illogical. If we expect these guys to play for the love of the sport, then people should also be expected to work because they love accounting.  As for the association with human rights thuggery; have a look in the mirror; objects are closer than they appear.

link:  https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/25/23028323/elon-musk-twitter-offer-buyout-hostile-takeover-ownership

The biggest story of the past week is not the on-going conflict in Ukraine, nor the suspicious election in France, nor the ongoing implosion of the US economy and thankfully, not the pearl clutching moaning about Covid.

Edging out by a nose the trials and misadventures of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard was the news of billionaire Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter.

For years, the Twitter platform had been accused of being a biased environment wherein conservative voices were censored in favor of narratives more in line with woke sensibilities.  This has always been denied at the company, but oddly, now that the buyout will move management into the hands of a presumably more libertarian owner, the bleating cacophony from the outraged twits is what you might hear if you dared remove food from a murder of crows.

Twitter rose from being a public bulletin board on which anyone was free to express their views on any topic; a virtual free speech soapbox.   Since mass media is so tightly controlled by a few players, having an open forum to vent views was clearly something that resonated with the public and the platform grew from just a virtual bathroom wall to become a monstrous commercial juggernaut with enormous reach and worth billions ( 45 at last count).

It was because of the monolithic aspect of mainstream news and media outlets that Twitter achieved such gravity.  However as time went on, the platform took on the role of moderator of views rather than being a conveyor of them.  Increasingly there was less and less effort in hiding the fact that hard core woke people had taken over the platform.  Thus, influential people were banned from the platform when stating things that, while true, did not pass the sniff test of the Twitter gatekeepers.  Oddly, the most despotic people on the planet continued to have voice there, Iranian mullahs for example.  It became high school on steroids where the cool kids allowed you to play….or not.

If we are to believe the deniers, who up until recently controlled the levers at Twitter, that they were not restricting access to undesirable views, then what possible difference would it make to have a new owner on board.  Clearly, the truth and reality will be revealed for all to see.

Obviously, some kind of free speech platform is needed as a counterweight to the overwhelmingly biased and laughable content offered by all other media outlets.

Many other free speech platforms have tried to copy Twitter’s model in the past few years, but most have fallen into the same trap as Twitter by censoring certain voices, so ‘free speech’ was still determined by somebody.  Even the much anticipated Truth Social is hamstrung by not being available on the Android platform.  To my knowledge only Gab has remained free of any restrictions.   It’s worth noting that CNN promoted a product labelled CNN+.  It failed after only 3 weeks in operation.  We’re unclear as to why anyone would think there’s a market for more CNN.  It’s evident that the marketplace wanted voices other than the tiresome drivel offered by mainstream media.

In a time when information is so heavily managed, platforms in which real truths can be shared and consumed are a necessity and should not be controlled by biased elements.   We’ll see what changes will come with Musk’s ownership, but it may be that the tyranny of the woke may be over.  Perhaps this will spur other organizations to see that the market for real news and unbiased reportage is huge….worth at least 45 billion.