Hogging the back (and often front) pages of many of the nation's newspapers recently have been two men of vastly different sports and character, united by exposure of their alleged infidelities, and the subsequent battles to save their marriages and reputations. Each has made a very different response to the unwanted bad publicity, with both routes generally attracting far more criticism than praise from the media. While Woods seemingly disappeared into a metaphorical bunker for several weeks before Friday's staged 13 minute apology, Terry has not yet spoken of the allegations and - bar missing one FA Cup tie - has carried on playing regardless, his only apology being that for his part in both Everton's goals in Chelsea's recent defeat. Despite these vastly different reactions, both have been accused of the same thing: that of responding in such a way that seems they are more concerned with protecting their future earnings from sponsors than the feelings of those close to them. This throws up all sorts of questions about what we expect of sportspeople when regrettable - though sadly commonplace - incidents like this happen, and whether we judge people from different sports - or even countries - in a different light.
In the case of John Terry, much of the discussion centred on his position as England captain, a position he was subsequently relieved of in a meeting with Mr Capello that lasted marginally shorter than Tiger Woods' apology. There was all sorts of talk about whether this was acceptable conduct from an England captain, whether such conduct was a relevant factor in someone being captain or not, and if the captaincy of a football team really was integral to the success of the team or not. As a cricket fan (where captaincy is of great strategic importance) as well as a football fan, I certainly don't see the captaincy of a football team as of the same importance as many in this country seem to believe. While a truly great captain (Bobby Moore for England, Roy Keane for Manchester United) can serve as a lightning conductor on the pitch, inspiring team mates and acting as the manager's voice on the field, these characters are rare indeed and Terry for me, while no doubt possessing battling leadership qualities, is certainly not in this class. Indeed, it could be argued that he got the Chelsea captaincy by virtue of being their only significant youth team product of the last decade-and-a-half, and the fact that he plays in a position where many captains play, rather than him being a particularly great leader. Any Chelsea (or England) fans who disagree with this should ask themselves the following question: if John Terry had never been given the Chelsea captaincy, would Chelsea have been any less successful? My hunch is a team with such strong characters as Drogba, Lampard, Carvalho and, more recently, Ballack, would have achieved similar levels of success. Regarding whether his alleged infidelity should have cost him the captaincy, the issue that the woman in question was a team mate's former long-term partner is crucial to me. Being unfaithful to your wife is not necessarily grounds for losing the captaincy but, if being captain is about fostering spirit and unity amongst your team mates, then having flings with their partners (or ex-partners) is surely unacceptable conduct. His subsequent refusal to comment or apologise, and effort to present a "happy families" image to the press, has been interpreted in some quarters as an attempt to bury his head in the sand over the issue until the fuss dies down, his public image (and earning potential) recovers, and he's then able to potentially squeeze some money out of it with a "tell all" interview and/or book.
Tiger Woods' reaction, whilst also involving much silence, was very different to Terry's. Woods' initial silence following his car-crash incident, to the police as well as the media, arguably caused more damage to his reputation than speaking up would have done, damage that was barely stemmed by his bizarrely worded admission of "transgressions". A fuller admission of guilt, via another press release statement a few days later, did little to sate the media's thirst for the story, and the next couple of months followed in a blur of further allegations of affairs, rumoured sightings of Woods at a sex-addiction clinic, and the loss or suspension of endorsements involving Woods before Friday's controversial press conference. Much coverage of the conference - certainly in the UK - was negative, focusing on the fact there were no questions allowed from those present, and that Woods' seemingly rehearsed emoting to the camera was unconvincing at best. Like Terry, it was alleged he'd chosen a course of action designed more to protect his future reputation and earnings ahead of the wellbeing of his family. It is certainly difficult to argue that there was not a significant element of truth in this perception. Indeed, it is difficult to watch some of the footage without cringing, with parts of it appearing to be lifted from some cliched guide of
how to act like you're sorry even when you're not, with well-timed glances into the camera, embarrassing apologies to his sponsors, and overwrought hugging of family members at the conclusion. It should also be asked though: what did people expect from arguably the most famous sportsperson on the planet?
I'm no big fan of golf - excepting the wonderful Ryder Cup - and far less a fan of Woods, while respecting the excellence he has bestowed on his sport, but give me Woods' course of action over Terry's any day. In a team sport, where as captain of his country he seemingly acted in a manner damaging to the interests of his team, Terry's silence shows an unwillingness to face up to his mistakes and responsibilities, hoping that by saying nothing and throwing money at the problem that it will magically disappear. While Woods was criticised for appearing unconvincing, when do press conferences by sportspeople ever appear totally genuine? From the ageing boxer who talks himself up like he's still in his prime, to the embarrasing pre-tournament declarations by England footballers that "this is our time", sportspeople have rarely come across as decent, convincing speechmakers. Nor should they be, it's not the skill that got them to where they are in life. Woods' press conference deserved a lot of the criticism it got, but it also deserved praise for facing up to his demons and arguably going a lot deeper than any cosy chat-show appearance would have done. If he was only bothered about the money then he'd be heading - or at least planning to head - back on the golf circuit by now, instead of continuing the therapy and refusing to name a comeback date. While the apologies to his sponsors made many squirm - myself included - I'd have found it more unusual if a statement 13 minutes in length went by without them being mentioned at least once. Whatever the flaws in the way he executed it, Woods has at least shown a desire to work out his problems, admit his faults, and try to come out of it all a better person. When it comes to the issue of whether sports stars apologise for human indiscretions or not, it is surely wrong to adopt the view "damned if they do, damned if they don't".
