I was reading a column on SI today by John Donavan, talking about the latest in Bonds news, where he comments that Bonds may have the most famous face in American sports today.
And I thought, really?
Whether he's right or not (which is arguable), it's an interesting question because some sports are about names (NBA), some about teams (NFL), and some about faces (tennis or golf).
For example, Michael Vick is one of the most popular athletes in the country, but would half of his fanbase recognize him on the street? Take away any products of his fame (entourage, Bentley, whatever), if he were wearing a T-shirt and jeans, would they recognize him? Is that true of Bonds?
I'd have to argue that it's Tiger, at least in America. Globally you could probably put Beckham up there with him.
Maybe it's a more interesting argument if you take Tiger away as an option, since he appeals to more demographics than any other athlete.
And I thought, really?
Whether he's right or not (which is arguable), it's an interesting question because some sports are about names (NBA), some about teams (NFL), and some about faces (tennis or golf).
For example, Michael Vick is one of the most popular athletes in the country, but would half of his fanbase recognize him on the street? Take away any products of his fame (entourage, Bentley, whatever), if he were wearing a T-shirt and jeans, would they recognize him? Is that true of Bonds?
I'd have to argue that it's Tiger, at least in America. Globally you could probably put Beckham up there with him.
Maybe it's a more interesting argument if you take Tiger away as an option, since he appeals to more demographics than any other athlete.






