In an interview with the Telegraph of London, openly gay gold medal-winning diver Matthew Mitcham says he remains puzzled by his lack of endorsements and hopes that homophobia is not the cause. In February, Mitcham signed his only deal to date with an Australian telecom.
Although he insists he has had nothing but positive feedback from fellow athletes and the media since going public, he admits he has attracted precious little corporate sponsorship compared to Australia’s other gold medalists.
“I haven’t experienced any homophobia in sport but I’m hoping I’m not experiencing any in the corporate world because I haven’t had any companies rushing to sponsor me,” he said. “It took me a very long time to secure any form of sponsorship after the Olympics, and that’s still my only sponsorship.”
Mitcham’s comments were more nuanced than the headline on the Telegraph, which said, “Matthew Mitcham says gay status cost him sponsorship.” Mitcham was not quoted as being that specific, yet this was the slant taken by other website that picked up the story, including Pink News, which incorrectly quoted Mitcham in its headline as saying, “Being gay cost me sponsorships.”
The use of language on this subject is important. If Mitcham is blaming homophobia for only having one sponsor, then he needs to say it and offer some proof. But that is not what he is saying; he is wondering aloud as to whether coming out has had a negative effect on sponsors.
I have argued that there is no evidence that homophobia has played a role. Instead, I see other reasons, such as diving’s relative obscurity on the Australian sporting scene; Mitcham’s decision to drop from public view for two months after the Games and not keep a strong public profile that would appeal to sponsors; bad timing with the global recession forcing businesses to evaluate sponsorships, and perhaps his management team being too picky on what it would endorse.
Mitcham is far from the only gold medalist who has not cashed in. Other than Michael Phelps, it’s hard to think of any American athlete who has made an endorsement splash. And Down Under, Aussie pole vaulter gold medal winner Steven Hooker (presumably straight) is still waiting for sponsors (though some are expected) and he competes in a sport with a much higher profile than diving.
Mitcham, who finished fourth at a 10-meter platform event last weekend, has never regretted coming out and has garnered a lot of publicity and acclaim for being who he is (he won Australia’s sportsman of the year award for 2008). However, if a storyline emerges that homophobia has cost him sponsors (despite any evidence to support it), this would have a detrimental effect on other athletes considering whether to come out, and reinforce stereotypes of what would happen to an openly gay athlete.
Homophobia exists in sport, yet should not be trotted out every time a gay athlete does not get what he wants (unless there is proof). The media also have a responsibility to report accurately on the issue and not use misleading headlines that paint a false picture for their audience. I would to hear your take on this.
Related: Our Matthew Mitcham archive.
on Apr 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Well written.
I agree that Mitcham seems to be caught in the “perfect storm” which makes it difficult to attract corporate sponsors. And I do hope that other gay athletes who are thinking of coming out, don’t necessarily use this as an example of what would happen to them.
I also hope that it is just the case of a “perfect storm” rather than homophobia.
Still cheerin for him though
on Apr 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 PM
The dude should never have taken that European vacation right after the Olympics and totally dropped out of sight for a month. The kid probably should be more involved with his management team too. Sounds like they haven’t done him any favors.
As far as the inaccurate headlines go the editors may think it’s not sexy enough of a story so they tweek it to grab your eye?
Still a fan too and the boy does look fine in a tux as well as a Speedo
on Apr 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 PM
anyone else think Mitcham’s PR people are just claiming homophobia to get press attention in hopes of getting sponsor attention?
on Apr 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Talk about deja vu all over again. Is he caught in a time warp? He seems to be repeating himself… and gosh, golly, can the world economy have something to do with endorsement deals drying up?
on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 AM
This old story? The more “Why aren’t companies lining up to pay me, golden boy, millions to promote their products?” the more I am losing sympathy for Mitcham. Why do we read more about this complaint than his athletic accomplishments? And why would a company want a whiner as their spokesperson?
on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 6:02 AM
While he may not have had companies “rushing” to sponsor him, I wonder what he’s doing to solicit sponsorship. He should be going to companies and saying, “Here’s what I can do for you” and provide them a list of activities, from motivational speaking to helping train young kids at a local swimming pool. Because if companies want a model–they’ll hire a model. What is it about Mitcham that makes him a *role* model that will raise the stature of a brand. He needs to show that. Maybe by speaking out for things (the environment, gay rights, whatever are his interests) he can demonstrate his leadership qualities, and show that he can help motivate and sway the public. Then, maybe a company will pay to sponsor him.
on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Other than Phelps and Bolt I’m having a hard time thinking of anyone from the last Olympics who scored much in the way of endorsements. Plus it’s not like he’s got some kind of dynamic personality.
on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I can’t think of any diver who has gotten endorsement deals, other than Greg Louganis for Speedo. Did gold medalist Marc Lenzi (straight) in 1992? Not that I recall. You’ve flogged this story enough now. Time to move on.
on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Historically swimming in general isn’t popular enough w/the public to attract the attention of product endorsements and corporate sponsorship. Matt Biondi was a big deal in his day and got a RayBan endorsement and a few others but not until Phelps did the cash pour in.
on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Maybe b/c he’s way too femmy acting and his face looks like a horse?!
on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 PM
if ur marketable you’ll have sponsors wanting you to promote their product doesn’t matter if you’re gay, straight, black, white, blue, half horse, etc
winning the gold medal was awesome but other than that what makes him so special except that he’s openly gay? Does he have a dynamic personality? Is he extremely attractive? Not really
on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 PM
another question…did he do something that’s never been done before like Bolt or Phelps? Nope
on Apr 24th, 2009 at 12:14 AM
I am soooo over this story.
on Apr 24th, 2009 at 3:49 PM
@ 12
He was the first austrailian swimmer to win gold in like 40 or so years??
on Apr 24th, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Of course is homophobia.Advertiser rather sponsor a drug addict like Phelps than sponsor a gay athlete.It seems that drug use is approved by the corporate world but gayness is frowned upon.That is the world we live in.Get use to it.Everywhere in the world is the same thing and the same mentality.In many countries,including developed one,ie:Holland,gays are killed on the streets.And lets talk about backwards Africa.They are where they are because what you mettle is what you get back.
on Apr 25th, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Jim, as always, good journalism by you.
on Apr 26th, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Greg Louganis pretty much went through the same thing back in the 80′s. Turns out his preferences were already discussed in whispers, which naturally made sponsors very skittish about signing him to sell their products. After his record-breaking Olympic run the only product I recall seeing him endorsing was for Banana Boat tanning products. The bottom line is that corporations prefer someone pretty much scandal-free to endorse their products, even moreso now that Mr. California…errrr, sorry…Michael Phelps’s little herbal indiscretion cost Kellogg’s a whooooole lot of money. Recently At my local supermarket there was a sale on Kellogg’s Corn Flakes. Buy one, get one free. Guess who was on the box? Here’s a hint: it sure wasn’t the traditional rooster!