As I see it the issue is not about one's view of Tiger, either as a person or as a player. Nor is it whether the book will provide interesting insights into Tiger's character or, more importantly, the atmosphere and pressure that follows from becoming a dominant athlete given the increased scrutiny of public figures. On that basis the book should be very interesting. Brad's observations on that score should be respected.
But the real issue is whether Haney should have written the book. It is clear to me that absent a NDA, he had every legal right to author the book. If one's ethical inquiry stops with the questions " Am I prohibited by law from acting? " or perhaps, more accurately, "Am I likely to lose a civil suit if I take the action in question?" and finally, "Am I likely to profit handsomely if I take the action?" then the answer is quite simple. However, I have always thought that ethical questions were more complex than a mere calculation of the monetary gain versus risk of punishment or loss. It is a weighing of what is the right thing to do, a philosophical issue that in various forms has been debated forever and which ultimately determines how we view ourselves and how others view us.
Here, our sense of the boundaries of privacy has been dulled by modern technology. The presence of cell phone cameras, twitter, facebook and the like has led many of us to conclude that anytime we are exposed to those outside of our closest confidantes and outside of our homes, we must assume that everything we say or do may become exposed to the world at large. How much more exposed must be the celebrities? But, given that reality, isn't the confidential nature of one's relationships with those who are part of his or her's inner circle that much more valuable and isn't a breach of that trust an even greater betrayal than it was in simpler times? Whether he was paid or not, whether that pay was appropriate or miserly, Haney was invited into Tiger's inner circle and made privy to things that Tiger considered private. If in order to respect that privacy Haney required a written contract, shame on Tiger for not requiring one. But more importantly, shame on Haney for failing to recognize that by writing the book he betrayed a trust for money. I agree that Tiger may have little standing to complain about a betrayal of trust, but this is not about Tiger. It is about judging Haney, not as golf teacher but as a man. I have never met him so I can only evaluate his actions. Based on this activity, he is far from admirable. But he will be wealthier. To each his own.