I don't need $1,000. Possession of $1,000 would not change my life in the slightest.

But if someone said, hey stand in front of this camera for two hours and I'll give you $1,000 I'd still do it. Being driven by the pursuit of money and refusing to take easy money are not the same thing.

If Rolex offered me $1,000 to be in an ad for their watches I'd do it and then say **** off to the first person who said that meant I had to tell them who I was having sex with.

The catch-22 for someone like Tiger Woods is that the guy who buys a Rolex or Gillette razors because of a Tiger Woods ad is the same guy who does want to know who Tiger is sleeping with and might even think he has a right to now. There's no on/off switch for being celebrity-struck with some people. These are the people Tiger Woods Inc. has been actively courting for years. It's what advertising outside your field of expertise is all about.

Yes, but it's one thing to acknowledge that it's going to attract those kinds of people, it's another to claim that those kinds of people are within their rights, or that he should just roll over and accept it.

It's inevitable, and probably a bit shortsighted if one is taken by surprise by it, but it's still worth pointing out that it's pretty reprehensible behavior.

Does Tiger Woods doing ads for golf balls open him to the same loss of claim to privacy has him doing an ad for shaving gel?

When it comes right down to it, Tiger Woods is the golfing personality whose indiscretions, I would probably be least interested in. He may be a bit of a robot, but he doesn't really personify that icky white Republican fake gentleman vibe that the PGA cultivates. Phil Mickelson? Paul Azinger? Some tradition-spouting stiff at Augusta? Bring it on.

Oh, I'm not claiming he would or should do anything for free. I just don't think that's his driving force.

I can't imagine the decision to take part in this image was the result of anything but the desire to cash a $20million check.

Agreed. I would never claim that these people are within their rights to demand total access to Tiger's life. Or that they're being reasonable or rational in doing so.

In my view neither ad should result in losing the claim to privacy. But then, I'm not a celebrity whack-a-doodle. But I think a golfer selling golf equipment to golfers is different than a golfer selling his celebrity to everyone. The latter, imo, is going to lead to a much more extensive invasion of privacy -- in good times and bad. Not that I'm saying it's right, or that Tiger is wrong for going for every advertising dollar he can get, mind you.

On a personal level, I feel for Tiger and his family. Even an (alleged) cheating dog doesn't deserve to have his awkward attempt-at-a-cover-up-voicemail played to the world. Truly cringe-worthy stuff.

If I'm not mistaken, scaeagles is saying that money is not the driving force behind Tiger's golf success, and I agree. Take away the endorsements and those giant winner's check and Tiger probably would still put in the effort to surpass Jack Nicklaus. I don't think you get to be the best in the world at anything by doing it for money.

And I'm sure Richard Williams still would have raised his girls to be tennis players from infancy if they had been born in the amateur era.