It is the sports page. Even if it wasn't, how would a journalist segue from this to investment and careers?
"In other news, no matter how shrewd you are, you will never achieve a fraction of Tiger Wood's net worth. But let's talk about 401k plans, anyway."
or maybe
"If you happen to be rich, remember, Tiger Woods got there by playing golf - you had to spend 20 years trading natural gas futures in Calgary."
There doesn't seem to be a great angle...
That is an interesting thought and one of the many problems with the way data is typically organized.
This IS the "sports" section of the paper, but whether or not this is the appropriate paradigm is certainly worth questioning...
Re:Woods first athlete to earn $1 billion
by coglethorpe on Monday October 05, 2009 @05:13PM
(#862801)
I assume the "Watson" is Tom Watson and is one of a handful of golfers who deserves mention alongside Woods. He darn near won the British open at age 59 and, while not a billionaire, has made some crazy money getting the ball in the hole in fewer strokes than the other guys.
"Forbes says Tiger Woods has become the first athlete to surpass $1 billion in career earnings.
"The magazine estimates that golf's top-ranked player crested the plateau when he earned $10 million for winning the FedEx Cup on Sunday.
"Forbes reported on its Web site on Tuesday that Woods entered 2009 having earned $895 million since he joined the PGA Tour in 1996. Prize money, appearance fees, endorsement fees, bonuses and his golf course design business were calculated to have pushed him over $1 billion.
"The magazine says former NBA great Michael Jordan and former Formula One driver Michael Schumacher, at $800 million and $700 million, respectively, are Woods' closest competition in career earnings.
"More golf: Watson takes 2-shot lead"
So we have this stupendous amount of money discussed for four paragraphs, and then the cliché "And in other news..." is that Watson has taken a two shot lead somewhere or other. The implication that both datums are of roughly equal interest to the reader is amusing and makes me curious. Is it a machine that decides that? Or does a human actually believe that after reading about Tiger having earned a billion dollars the reader will next want to turn back to the details of a match instead of thinking more about investments and careers?