The story of Jon Rahm, who said a few months ago that he would never go on the golf circuit sponsored by Saudi Arabia using two impeccable arguments: money (for what more?) and tradition (for what less?), is a universal story. which has its origins in philosophy and its relationship with the concept of freedom. One of those stories for which we all have such a forceful response that, before we say whether what Rahm did seems good or bad to us, the instinct is to start by saying what we would do, even assuming that what we would do For us it is, for God’s sake, what seems good to us. Ignoring the monstrous difference in context between him and us, or perhaps – on the contrary – being more aware of him than usual.
More information
Perhaps the difference between such a grotesque change of opinion (it was in June when Rahm emerged as a defender of the circuit he has just abandoned) is that there has been no time for the conditions the golfer spoke of to have changed. He hasn’t had twelve children at once with whom to raise his brood of grandchildren to think that maybe a few hundred million euros more would be useful for his savings (“I could retire now and I would live comfortably,” he said in June; wouldn’t he? ?), nor does the circuit promoted by Saudi Arabia with a virtuous stroke of a checkbook any longer have the glory or tradition of someone who aspires to remain in the history books not for their gigantic current account but for their showcases. This change of opinion puts the focus on money and its destruction (“you said no publicly, and we are going to destroy your word in front of everyone with an impossible contract”), it also puts the focus on the cause to which serves (the whitewashing of the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia and its regime contrary to human rights through elite sports, allowing itself to be sponsored by its right hand while the left unleashes hell on its citizens) and does even something more, it stops the focus on a delicate debate for a professional athlete, in this case already extraordinarily paid, which Mr. Burn summarized in The Simpsons: “Would you give everything you have for a little more?”
It is likely that the day-to-day life of Rahm and his family is not going to change at all economically, except in the spectacular way if they wanted it, even if it did not suit them (you know, nonsense like that of Neymar filming himself in a Boeing only for himself when he went to the Arab League). It is certain that his public image has been affected by many, not just romantics of old competitions, but of old words. It remains to be seen what happens with his career and his mark on history, if the latter continues to grow and in what way, or if it is vaguely overshadowed by the “a little more” at the service of the multimillion-dollar Saudi public relations agency. Nor is it known, in short, whether their enthusiasm is original or is the enthusiasm similar to that of those YouTubers or heirs or motorists who, full of money, decide to sacrifice the place where they would like to live for one where they do not want to live for pay less taxes, thus taking the debate about freedom and money to its maximum splendor: why do you want to earn it if you end up becoming a slave to it, and make your decisions according to what it tells you, including living in Andorra instead of Ibiza?
This is not the case with Rahm, but, in another galaxy, at the same time it is.
You can follow EL PAÍS Deportes on Facebook and Xor sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
2023-12-11 04:15:00
#Rahm #Sports
