Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
If you must choose, which virtue would you wish for your children? To be true to their word or loyal to their state?
If it came down to one or the other, which direction would you prefer for your daughter? To follow a sensible path or chase a dream?
If Kim Clijsters were the person you cared about most in the world, what would you advise her to do? Honor a contract or play in the Olympics?
The choices are difficult and the answers are not absolute. Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed or has an agenda.
Clijsters, if you do not know, is the No. 2 women's tennis player in the world. And she will not be playing in the Olympics in Athens next summer.
This is because Clijsters (pronounced KLEYE-sters) has an endorsement deal with Fila, which means she is contractually obliged to wear its clothing when she plays. The Belgian Olympic Committee, on the other hand, has a deal with Adidas. And they say she must wear that clothing if she were to make it to the medal stand.
So feel free, at this point, to call her a sellout. Compare her to rockers turning songs into jingles or authors altering a plot to please a network. Sneer at her selfishness and marvel at her gall.
But, before snubbing the snubber, remember this:
She has a point.
Tennis is her job. Fila is her employer. What's so complicated about that? Naturally, it would have been nice if the stars aligned for Clijsters as they did for fellow Belgian Justine Henin-Hardenne, who has her own deal with Adidas. Or if the Belgian Olympic Committee had relaxed its clothing rules.
But the bottom line is Clijsters, now 20, made a promise to Fila as a teenager and is being criticized for following through on it.
It is a problem only because it does not conform with our Olympic ideals.
We hear of Jim Shea, and our hearts melt. Shea, the first three-generation Winter Olympian, won a gold medal in the skeleton in 2002. And the moment was less joyful than it should have been. His grandfather, Jack Shea, a gold medal winner in 1932, was killed by a drunken driver two weeks before the Games.
We hear of Cathy Freeman, and our bodies shiver. It was Freeman who was a cause for some and a shill to others in Sydney in 2000. She wore the uniform of Australia and the burden of aborigines. And when she ran a victory lap after winning the 400 meters, she carried the flags of both.
We hear of Kerri Strug, and our memories are tickled. It was the 80-pound Strug who showed us what strength and courage meant in Atlanta in 1996. On a severely sprained ankle with torn ligaments, Strug soared through the air and nailed her landing off the vault as the U.S. women won the all-around gymnastics gold for the first time.
These are our standards for the Olympics. These are the images we pull from our memory when the calendar year ends with an even number.
But they are the exception, not the rule. The Olympics are now spoiled performers and crooked organizers. They are networks pushing stories and agents seeking deals. They are drug abusers and ego massagers. And, yes, they are professional athletes.
It is easy, for those of us on the sideline, to speak of ideals. To talk of glory instead of paychecks and patriotism in place of pragmatism. In this case, it is easy because we are not being asked to break our word.
And, yes, because it is not our bank accounts being impacted.
Every four years, for a few days, we care about the Olympics. But when the Games are over, we go back to orderly lives. Meanwhile, the athlete must forever live with the choices made.
Would it have been better if this dilemma was resolved by compromise? Of course. Perhaps Clijsters would have felt differently if she were permitted to wear an outfit without a logo.
And maybe it would have been wiser if, two years ago, her agent had anticipated the problem and had a stipulation written into the Fila contract.
But at least she is taking a stand, whether you agree or not. To me, that's more palatable than Michael Jordan wrapping himself in the U.S. flag so the logo of a competing sponsor would not be seen on his outfit.
"(This) has less to do with money than with respect for set agreements," Clijsters wrote on her Web site.
Maybe you believe that's a load of hooey.
And maybe you are right.
But I still find it difficult to criticize someone for honoring a contract. Clijsters did not try to have it both ways. She did not use another excuse.
She made a decision that was right for her, even if it was not the best situation for her country. And that is the most regrettable part of this mess. Regrettable because Olympic fame does not come often to Belgium. The country has seen three gold medals in 20 years and none since 1996.
In the end, it is this simple:
Clijsters was asked to do a job for her country.
But, it turns out, she was previously employed.