‘Oh no’, you’re probably thinking, ‘another post about Tiger Woods.’

Fear not. This is not about his many and much reported transgressions. This is my theory about why Nike has stood by him and why they had no option.

When Nike signed up Tiger and wrestled him away from the stalwart of golf equipment, Titleist, it was a big deal. Remember, Titleist had paid a reputed $20M per year to rookie Woods when he turned pro and he didn’t disappoint. US Opens followed Masters, followed Opens, followed USPGAs.

Nike upped the ante by reputedly doubling the fee and took our breath away. The fact that the Nike clubs TW played were actually created by a manufacturer (who I cannot name) in Japan and then branded with the Nike swoosh, or the fact that the balls he played were made by a popular ball manufacturer then branded under a different guise, is neither here nor there. The golfing public bought into the Nike golf brand, especially those new to the game.

Success followed success. Brilliant ad, followed brilliant ad. And when his ball hung over the lip of the 16th cup at Augusta in 2005 (see below) the Nike tick played centre stage in a brilliant piece of sporting drama that sponsors and brand managers can only dream of.

Then came the fall.

You all know about it so I won’t go into detail.

And the sponsors started jumping ship. Gatorade cancelled their TW sports drink. Accenture declared ‘he is no longer the right representative’ for their brand. TAG Heuer dropped him from their American ad campaigns, but continued to support his golf foundation. They said “we have to take account of the sensitivity of some consumers in relation to recent events’.

And who could blame any of them?

Only Nike stood firm. And here’s my take on why they did.

The Nike brand has ‘Victory’ as its central organizing principle.

Their advertising and marketing, indeed their whole company is focused around the idea of ‘winning’.

‘Nike’ is the mythological winged Greek goddess of victory.

The Brand ID, the tick, is an affirmation of winning and of being right.

‘Just do it’ is a rallying call to arms to go out there and win.

Their advertising famously celebrates victory. The iconic ‘Michael Jordan 1, Isaac Newton 0’ poster demonstrates the brand beating even the laws of physics.

So, was this company that has ‘Victory’ at its core going to be defeated by media tittle-tattle? By sex? By human frailty?

No chance.

If a brand can beat gravity it can certainly beat The New York Post, The Sun and even Sky News.

That’s why dumping Tiger would have gone against their brand essence.

It must have been a hard decision, hammered out during board-room table sessions long into the night. In branding terms, it was the right decision. Morally, I’ll let you make your own mind up.

The post-script to all of this is of course the new Nike commercial launched on the Wednesday of Masters’ week.

At first, I hated it. I thought the timing was exploitative and the usage of Earl Woods voice, crass.

On reflection, I still think the timing was poorly judged and perhaps the use of Woods’ father to question his son from the grave was bad taste. Very bad taste in fact.

But I think it shows that TW is willing to publicly atone. The Earl Woods voice over hauntingly asks his son ‘…did you learn anything?’

Hopefully he has. But one thing I’ve learned from whole debacle is that Nike, with all its faults, has stuck to its brand’s core principle and perhaps, just perhaps, it may come out the other side stronger. Even if Tiger doesn’t.