Tiger and his management team are not stupid. The question is are they able to weigh the morality of the issue against the doing big business aspect? These are questions of leadership in an organization. Does Tiger have a stated position on this issue of captive (virtually slave) labor where he chose to do big business and possibly uses this captive labor on the project. Does his organization and participation in Dubai events give tacit approval to all these totalitarian regime and human rights charges against the Shieky man's one-man rule? If not, some journalists that are always kissing Tiger's butt for trivial question golf interviews ought to hold his feet to the fire in the next press conference at one of these events and put it to him.
As a part African American descendent of the slave trade at some point in his ancestory, he ought to be put that question. What may be particularly disturbing is how wildly wealthy Tiger already is and is projected into the future, and how trivial to his career an extravagant unnatural desert golf course design is in the overall picture of his celebrity/business platform. 25 million dollars design fee, no matter if it is up front or not, and no matter if it is a solid job for his burgeoning design staff, is a piss poor excuse to not address this human rights problem, IMO.
Tiger's dad said someday Tiger will make an impact in society far beyond golf. Is this the kind of association and impact that Tiger sees as good for his image? Or, does he feel like many of those ex-pats spoken of in the article where they drive by the obvious underclass that are everywhere to be seen if one looks and thinks about what is behind the glass and steel and artificiality of virtually everything in that country, yet they drive by and say, my oh my isn't that interesting, and move on?
Joe makes the point that if you buy some Asian country goods you are supporting the same thing. Well, I think that is correct to an extent. The difference is that buying cheap stuff made over there on the backs of near slave labor or child slave labor on the individual consumer basis because it is cheap at Wal-Mart is not the same as Wal-Mart making the marketing and trade decision to buy boatloads of the cheapest stuff so they can sell at 'everyday low prices'. It may start with the individual consumer, but generally that housewife looking to save $5 on a school clothes item for one of her kids may possibly even pay the extra $5 for an item made under more morally mis-guided labor circumstances if the issue was put directly in front of her at the point of purchase. In that case, it seems to me that the single consumer at point of purchase is comparatively oblivious to the underlying moral issue, just as the ex-pats are described in the article, who seem to take the "out-of-sight - out-of-mind" approach.
But, it is the leaders of organizations who make the high impact/profile decisions who should take responsibility for the decisions, like Tiger - head of his organization, with his high celebrity profile.