Hey what’s up with Tiger? Elin wants half

Claire says:

06:45am | 22/12/09

Mrs W’s furious (understandably so) and whether it’s a reasonable demand or not, she wants compo for the humiliation he’s subjected her to. It’s normal in these cases to start with a huge demand and then accept less. The lawyers will sort it out (and you can be quite sure they will be big winners too!).

Woods can afford a big payout and as you’ve pointed out, he stands to lose far more than a few mill - if she really wants to make it hard for him, he could end up spending years and a few mill more fighting to see his kids.

BJ says:

08:27am | 22/12/09

No one really knows what goes on inside any marriage. There may well be more to the story than just infidelity & Elin may well deserve the half of his fortune she is asking for. You have no right to judge her & her actions.

Tiger, tiger - burning. says:

08:28am | 22/12/09

That is a hell of a lot of money. But if she wants custody of the children and is used to living a certain way, she will probably need half to be able to raise his children without having an income and maintain her/their current lifestyle.

I think any person that decides to marry and then cheats (regardless of the number of times!) waives all rights and given the amount(s) he was allegedy paying his ‘flings’ to be quiet about his filanderings, I think that his wife is probably justified to be demanding half. I actually think he is lucky that he still has a penis (can you put a price on that!?).

Dan says:

08:38am | 22/12/09

It’s absurd. The reason Tiger is worth so much comes down to his being a brilliant golfer; his wholesome image or not, if he wasn’t the best golfer in the world, people wouldn’t be as interested. That half of his fortune should go to someone whom he was only married to for a relatively short period of time, and had nothing to do with transforming him into a champion golfer, is ridiculous.

BTW when you say that most people don’t dispute Nordegren’s decision to end her marriage with Tiger, why say ‘I guess it doesn’t really matter, it’s not our marriage’? It’s NOT our marriage and what anybody says doesn’t matter in the slightest. There’s no guessing about it.

Claire says:

08:43am | 22/12/09

... and furthermore, I’m not sure I’d want to place a monetary value on being humiliated in front of the entire world by someone who swore, not that long ago, to love and respect you. (That’s barely an exaggeration. How many Tiger jokes have landed in your inbox in the past couple of weeks? My favourite is the new Nike ad ... oops, sorry!)

I reckon this particular woman scorned will make Woods learn the anthropomorphic meaning of “tigress” before she’s through with him.

Dan says:

08:54am | 22/12/09

Nice Tiger, tiger - burning, so you’re justifying domestic violence? Thankfully the law does not take your ‘contribution’ into account.

hoofman says:

08:59am | 22/12/09

A lighter side of Tiger’s troubles:

It is near the end of the school year. The teacher has sent out her reports. There is really nothing to do. All the kids are restless because there is nothing to do and it is near the end of the day.

The teacher says, “Whoever answers the questions I ask first and correctly can leave early today.” Little Brad says to himself, “Good, I want to get outta here. I’m smart and will answer the question”.

The teacher asked, “Who said ‘I have a dream’?” Before Brad could open his mouth, Susie said, “Martin Luther King”. The teacher said, “That’s right Susie. You can go”. Brad was MAD that Susie answered first.

The teacher asked, “Who said, ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate’?” Before Brad could open his mouth, Sarah said, “Kevin Rudd”. The teacher said, “That’s right Sarah. You can go”.  Brad fumed.
The teacher asked, “Who said ‘We will decide who comes here and the manner in which they come’?” Before Brad could open his mouth, Julie said, “John Howard”. The teacher said, “That’s right Julie . You can go”. Brad was steaming that Julie answered first.

Then the teacher turned her back, and Brad said, “I wish these bitches would keep their mouths shut”.

The teacher asked, “WHO SAID THAT?”

Brad said, “TIGER WOODS! CAN I GO NOW?”

JaneAgatha says:

09:05am | 22/12/09

Well Elin’s his wife and marriage is about sharing 50-50. Tiger broke the contract not her. As Tiger’s wife she’s entitled to half whatever they have; is after all the mother of his children who will inherit his fortune and who are entitled not to lose out on account of their father’s philandering. It’s a pity for Tiger that he didn’t think all this through beforehand. I imagine that Elin would have preferred they stayed together; was committed to that. That makes her deserving of her half. Half his fortune means very little compared to what Tiger has lost; what Elin has lost; and what their kids have lost.

Freddo says:

09:22am | 22/12/09

I don’t know the twisted things that go on in some women’s minds that make them think they would be justified in getting half.
They are all for equality until something like this comes up.
“I deserve half.”
What a joke.

Judy Shepherd says:

09:54am | 22/12/09

You’ve got to be kidding….she derserving of a large slab but certainly not close to half….people are acting like he’s killed an angel…Mrs Woods has quite a past career as a “glamour” model and a fairly significant and graphic collection of photo shoots available online for the world to see.
Even if she won’t admit it there are always signs that things are not as they should be.  After a scant 4 years - get a motza off him and move on.

Mother says:

10:01am | 22/12/09

Whatever happen but it this will not be a divorce like Paul Mccartney’s divorce.
For the sake of the kids so far they are behaving OK.
She gets what she deserve.

Davy says:

10:22am | 22/12/09

Why is it that a divorce like this comes back to “getting even”. So many female comments are all related back to “him being a bastard”. We have no idea what “she” is like behind closed doors. Does she put out or is it always, “Oh I’ve got a headache tonight”. Is she good as a wife or a total dud. Did she support this man or give lip service to an arrangement only in the public eye. Good looks and good wife do not necessarily go together.

So many womens judgements on fairness or not seem far more related to revenge, rather than good sense.

Garry says:

10:22am | 22/12/09

I need to ask this question of the ladies out here.

Do you really believe Elin Woods is worth half of a fortune she had not earned in any way? Does this make her another gold digger?

As hurt as she may be a my prenup said 300 million but hell, I want the kids, the houses and half of earnings and future earnings is just money grabbing.  And if she uses kids then I say she is as bad as some of the worst gold diggers out there.

Imagine the scene, ‘I earned my money by being an incredible person’ the response ‘poor you, I just married someone with money then screwed them for it’.

If this is how this woman thinks then I think she is just another gold digger who waited for the first opportunity to cash in. Sure woods was a fool but to me the bigger crime will be how much a person can worm by threats and blackmail. Its a shame society has gone this way. To actually admire women who screw men in such a manner is a disgrace.

Still I am hopeful we wont have another ‘Look how much I took him for’

Shama says:

10:28am | 22/12/09

When it comes to being a wife and motherhood, society has all kinds of expectations.  For e.g. presumably Elin had the duties of a golf wife (trivial as this may seem it has to get boring to front up each time as duty) and of course she had primary care of their children. We are told these are important - indeed there have always been homilies to the good mother who puts her children first.  Most women also manage the household money, in some cultures deal with the in-laws etc.  But let anything go wrong with the marriage, and men will be screaming blue murder about “my” money.  And post a divorce it’s not terribly hard to find men who default on payments - even to their children in case the “bitch” ends up getting it.  In fact marriage is the single most vulnerable economic decision a woman makes which is what alimony reflects.  And its present in one form or the other in most cultures.  How much is debatable - surely a price cannot be put on it? Had Tiger stayed true to his marriage vows and had a marriage that lasted he would have provided financial support to his wife after all.

None of us earn only for ourselves. Most people have family responsibilities, it’s not that uncommon for parents to manage an income for e.g..  We take on a marriage expecting to share and lead a life together and bring up children.  I don’t think alimony is based on how much Elin contributed to Tiger’s earnings or indeed Tiger’s abilities as a golfer and celebrity. It is based on the societal nature of marriage and responsibilites to a spouse, it just happens that Tiger has a fortune which makes it all seem disproportionate.

BMJ says:

10:42am | 22/12/09

She can’t even claim she helped him keep in shape. har har.

Not Davy says:

11:00am | 22/12/09

@Davy: “So many female comments are all related back to “him being a bastard”. We have no idea what “she” is like behind closed doors. Does she put out or is it always, “Oh I’ve got a headache tonight”. Is she good as a wife or a total dud.”

Hello, Davy - marriage is not about the wife “putting out” - what a disgusting, degrading term - or being a “total dud” (presumably by that, you mean refusing him sex when he demands it).

So if a woman doesn’t want sex, do you think that justifies her partner going after it elsewhere behind her back? Is that what marriage is about in your view - sex on tap or I’m outta here? Poor Mrs Davy is all I can say.

Even if Mrs Woods hasn’t “put out” (my keyboard turns green every time I type that) on a long-term basis (and maybe she has postnatal depression after having his kids, who knows?), then Tiger is free to seek a divorce or separation, and only then to find another partner. NB that’s one other partner, singular - not another 14 or however many it is (allegedly, of course) this week. What is he, a responsible adult or a little boy in a lolly shop?

If Tiger had just had the discipline to keep his pants zipped and think with his brain, of course, he wouldn’t have brought all this on himself. Now he deserves whatever he gets ... or loses.

paulm says:

11:41am | 22/12/09

You talk as though his money is just going to her, but she will obviously use it to raise THEIR children.  Also, when they are both dead their children will most likely inherit all of what’s left, including any assets she’s bought.  Also, what pain and suffering has Tiger’s lust caused his wife and children, but you only talk about the cost of precious $ to him?!  If you must reduce it to money, what value to do you put on her giving birth to his children?  Did he risk his life in labor like she did?  Anyway, Tiger already has an obscene amount of personal wealth in a world where so many are struggling to knock out a basic existance.  I’m sure he’ll struggle to get by on the $500 million or whatever he has left, the poor thing.  All he does is hit golf balls around a golf course, but of course he sells a fantasy to millions of middle aged men and that’s where the money is concentrated in this society so he gets payed obscene amounts of money to do so.  Well bad luck fellas, he’s just another infallable human being who can’t keep it in his pants and you’ll have to find another sports “hero” to worship.  Like Shane Warne, oh hang on, er, hmm, gee there sure are a lot of sports “hero’s” who actually have pretty low morals and IQs it seems.

bullwinkle says:

11:51am | 22/12/09

I’m no socialist, but how much does one person need? If she gets $300 million, and she lives for another fifty years, that’s $6 million a year for the rest of her life, ignoring interest. That’s an obscene amount of money. I can understand her wanting to punish him, but what the bloody hell are you going to do with $300 mill.?

Liz says:

12:03pm | 22/12/09

Isn’t this sort of settlement to ensure kids don’t loose out on a lifestyle they might have had if their father wasn’t living the life of a single playboy?

John A Neve says:

12:17pm | 22/12/09

A divorce settlement should only be based on the money earnt since the marriage. No contribution = equals no payout.

So the question should be how much has Tiger earnt since getting married?

Dan says:

12:26pm | 22/12/09

Not Davy, you say that Tiger is free to seek a divorce or settlement and then is free to find another partner… but only one. This may shock you, but Tiger and other people do not have to follow your ‘rules.’ What if he wants to act like a ‘little boy in a lolly shop’? It’s his right to do so. It’s also none of other people’s businesses (BTW, having multiple partners may not be something that other people disagree with but it doesn’t make him a ‘little boy in a lolly shop’ or an irresponsible adult; it is his life and his choice.)

Furthermore, to say that he deserves whatever he gets or loses is absurd; you do realise that just because someone doesn’t follow your ‘rules’ doesn’t mean they have to lose half their fortune to someone who clearly doesn’t deserve it?

Paulm, one doesn’t need $500, million to raise children, and I’m sure Tiger would be helping himself.

As for Warne, and low morals and IQs, I would be a little careful if I were you. Having affairs does not indicate a low IQ, and as for morality, who are you to judge? Are you really sure that your moral standard is so much higher? Your post doesn’t indicate that at all. However, I and many others will continue to worship brilliant sportsmen like Tiger and Warne, unlike foolish (im)moralists like you who haven’t contributed a hundreth to society as Warne and Tiger.

Voxpop says:

12:41pm | 22/12/09

Umm if Tiger hadn’t f**ked up his marriage then they would have continued to be together, with her and the kids enjoying all that their lifestyle (and yes his earnings) had to offer.  She is certainly not at fault here for the breakdown of the marriage and the comments that try to lay blame at her feet for not ‘putting out’ are not only completely unfounded but come from a source whose obviously just bitter and twisted (it says more about you rather than your intended target).  Tiger, even though he’s suffering sponsorship losses at this stage (through no fault but his own) will continue to earn the big bucks well into the future and so will no doubt recoup some/most of his losses.  However Elin and the kids do not have the capacity to bring in that kind of money and why should their life be diminished by his gross mistakes.  I would think that a man with honour would want to do the right thing and see that they don’t suffer financially while it’s obvious they have and will continue to suffer emotionally.

In any case the $ amount is all just speculation at this point.

Vicki PS says:

12:44pm | 22/12/09

Tiger and Elin were married by an Anglican priest.  The Anglican ceremony (from the Book of Common Prayer) includes the vow “with all my worldly goods I thee endow”.  That seems as reasonable a benchmark for division of property as the “forsaking all others” bit does for marital fidelity.

Skeptical says:

12:50pm | 22/12/09

As a woman I have to say she doesn’t deserve half, why do women think this? I get fed up to the back teeth of women and anyone else thinking the world owes them something! I married a man with money and in all honesty couldn’t care less about it if something should happen to our marriage (god forbid), so much so I refused to sign a recent investment property contract, keeping it in his name, he has earnt the money, it’s his property as far as I’m concerned. We have one we both contribute financially to fine split it both ways and for our children. I returned to work once our children went to school I didn’t need to and have been accused of being fiercely independant but I want to make it on my own I get so sick of women expecting the world from sitting on the couch. Sorry but if you didn’t earn it it is not yours! Sure if your raising the kids etc whatever split it as you need to, but I’m all for pre-nups you earnt it you keep it. So no as I see it Elin does in any way deserve half! Sure to be humiliated like that - horrific but that doesn’t mean you need $‘s to compensate that, clearly nothing will and don’t worry I’m sure she won’t go without!

Tim says:

01:00pm | 22/12/09

Voxpop,
can you give us more detail about the Wood’s marriage seeing as you seem to know so much about the inner workings?
And surely you jest when you say that her life shouldn’t be diminished because she doesn’t have the capacity to earn hundreds of millions of dollars?
Are you saying that her ex-husband has to maintain her in the style she has become accustomed to? Get real.
If she can’t earn that kind of money herself, then too bad.

And Vicki,
you do realise that church vows are not binding legal contracts don’t you?

Voxpop says:

01:25pm | 22/12/09

Tim I don’t claim to know anything about the inner workings of their marriage - if you bothered to read I was calling bluff on someone else claiming that the whole reason Tiger played around with so many women is only because his wife won’t put out - now that’s the person who claims to know their intimate details not me.

I’m not saying she deserves half - let the system sort that out.

Davy says:

01:27pm | 22/12/09

Well throw a stick into a pack of dogs…..

So exactly where in the anglican vows does it say that if one partner defaults then the other can take them to the cleaners.
Didnt she also promise for sickness and health, good and bad etc.

What gives her the right to reneg. She is the one moving out.
I didnt realise that the vows had disclaimer clauses.

Or did you just add those yourself. Must be the “vibe” of the thing.
I thought she had infact signed a legal agreement stating a limit on her payout.

To NOT davy…there are a lot of lollies in that shop aren’t there. Guess what gender they are. I thought a green keyboard would be very PC considering current world affairs.

Skeptical why are there not more women like you. x

Mr Subramanian says:

01:36pm | 22/12/09

*sigh* Marriage is not about 50-50 - it’s about both parties being 100% together in everything.

Tiger has humiliated himself in this matter: I don’t see why Elin should feel humiliated by anything at all - those people who think she is an inadequate lover because of Tiger’s infidelity are frankly not worth wasting her emotional capital on.

An argument from what anyone “deserves” is fraught. I mean, who can seriously argue that anyone who hits a little ball is “worth” as much money as they earn? What is the “worth” of a wedding vow?

For mine, the key issue is the children - who are always the ones who lose the most when any marriage breaks down. And it should be less about how much who gets, and more about how can they look after these little people as well as they possibly can, given the screw up the grown ups have made of their own relationship.

Razor says:

01:57pm | 22/12/09

Vicki PS -  nice sentiment but it ain’t goign to hold up in court.

If I was Tiger I would have had a water-tight pre-nup to start with.  Even if I didn’t she wouldn’t be getting half and I would move heaven and earth to put as muchmoney into trusts for the nippers with independent trustees to quarantee the Ex from as much as possible.

Voxpop says:

02:07pm | 22/12/09

Skeptical I agree with your basic sentiment.  From what I can see by all comments people reply based on their experiences - so you get men who claim they’ve been taken to the cleaners by their ex’s and that forms their opinion that women deserve very little.  Or you see women who have really struggled as single parents with very little support from the father of their kids and have to suffer the hardships.

My experineces come from many over my life 1) my parents divorced when I was 13 and still to this day my father takes the stance that he was taken to the cleaners even though it was my mothers inherintance that paid for a huge chunck of the family home (which was split 50/50).  He to this day tells me he will be leaving everything he owns to his step-kids because he expects our family home (mums residence, to be left to us). This despite the fact that he never paid a cent in maintenance all those years and never bothered to get to know his youngest son who was 3 at the time.  Needless to say I don’t have a lot of respect for my father who has quite a lot of accumulated wealth while my mother and us struggled for everything.  The wealth divide is extremely obvious in this case - yet I want nothing from him.
2) I was in a relationship where I was the big earner and brought the most wealth into it (though we were young and it wasn’t the level of wealth I have now).  When we broke up I willingly split it 60/40 in his favour as I didn’t want to disadvantage him and his studies/future etc.  I didn’t consider that I was loosing all that much as I knew I had more capacity to recover easily.
3) I have been with my current partner for 15 years and he had just gone through a divorce when we met.  What a refreshing change to meet a man that continued to support his ex and child wholeheartedly without all the disgusting negative baggage.  Over the years yes there were times when I thought that it was unfair that the ex-wife had a higher living standard than us because she had a new wealthier partner but through all that I knew that it was a fathers responsibility to provide for his child not the step-father.  And although a lot of men begrudge the fact that it’s the mother who chooses how the child support payments are spent he always had respect for her as the mother of his child and praised her for the excellent and difficult job she was doing where his time was limited to weekend parenting.

All in all I hate the petty feuding between men and women on this issue it comes down to self interest and revenge on both sides.  The parents that look past all of that and work things out fairly and compassionately with the kids best interests as the priority are the well adjusted ones that make the best of it and have a great working relationship - and I might add their childrens respect.

Dan says:

02:45pm | 22/12/09

Voxpop, a fascinating post. Thankyou for revealing so much about yourself! I think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence!!!

Eric says:

02:53pm | 22/12/09

“So if a woman doesn’t want sex, do you think that justifies her partner going after it elsewhere behind her back? “

Yes, absolutely.

Bec says:

03:28pm | 22/12/09

I think he should have to pay half for being so damn stupid and narcissistic. If you are one of the richest people alive and you’re naive enough to think that out of over ten extramarital partners NONE will go to the press, you’re an idiot. If a woman did the same thing, then the same rule applies.

And I hope that you wouldn’t blame a woman for going outside her marriage if her husband was a dud root, Eric.

Jade says:

03:29pm | 22/12/09

My gosh there are so many gold digging ladies out there today.  I am a lady and I find it wrong.

He should not have to give her a cent, he should have to give money to his children to support them.

Why is it that chicks stay home, pop out a few kids think they are automaticly entitled to take everything and leave the ex with nothing even though he has worked his ass off to get it all.

S.L says:

03:35pm | 22/12/09

If Tiger always intended to see any number of women after getting married then why did he get married at all? With all this talk about what Elin will get if they divorce I can’t see a problem with her getting half of his income since they tied the knot but I hear they have a pre nupt so she’ll need a gem of a lawyer to get around that one! At the end of the day he is still the worlds best golfer by a country mile who is the patron of many charities. As John Daly said recently “golf needs Tiger more than Tiger needs golf!” I am one who hopes he’s back on a golf course soon. His lobido is his business.

Dan says:

03:46pm | 22/12/09

Hear hear S.L. I am getting kind of tired hearing about Tiger and his affairs. The way some people talk, you would think that he killed someone. The astonishing thing is that in the US he would probably be less impopular if he had actually killed someone! Anyway, I really do hope he returns ASAP. The sporting world would not be the same without him.

Lynne says:

03:48pm | 22/12/09

Davy is obviously not getting any.

The way it is says:

03:59pm | 22/12/09

No woman is worth half of what a man is worth unless she is directly (read: financially) responsible for earning that.

Women that want half who didn’t contribute half (and no, ironing, cooking, cleaning and the kids aren’t earning half) are leeches, especially when you consider it from the standpoint of Elin

Tim says:

04:05pm | 22/12/09

@Voxpop,
i read your post. How is you saying:
” She is certainly not at fault here for the breakdown of the marriage “
not implying that you know the inner workings of their marriage? For all you know she didn’t mind him going off with other women. We have no idea what kind of people Tiger or Elin are, so trying to lay blame is pointless. 
As for your follow up comment, i believe your current partner did get a raw deal woth his ex. Why should his ex wife be able to live to a higher standard of living, just because she has found a new, more wealthier partner?

cats says:

04:08pm | 22/12/09

Oh wow, you really are all idiots aren’t you. Incase you’ve been living under a rock your whole life, we can’t believe everything we read in the media, ESPECIALLY about celebrities. It’s none of our business anyway, they can sort it out themselves without a bunch of people who don’t know them, voicing their opinion on what they should do. The Punch should stop running articles about celebrities, because most of the crap we hear about them isn’t true!

marley says:

04:16pm | 22/12/09

No, she shouldn’t get half.  Yes, she should get what was agreed to in the pre-nup - and if that’s 300 million, so be it.    It has nothing to do with her contribution or otherwise to the marriage (although I would hope that carrying two of his children for nine months apiece would count just a teeny tiny bit as a contribution to the marriage).  It has nothing to do with the vows made in Church.  It has everything to do with a contract which Tiger willingly entered into when he signed that pre-nup.  He signed it, he was certainly mentally competent to do so at the time, and he should now honour it.

And hopefully, since he seems to have a taste for - ahem - variety - in his life, he won’t sign another pre-nup anytime soon.

Goody Goodwyfe says:

04:28pm | 22/12/09

If the money is supposedly there just to support the kids then why don’t the kids stay with Tiger?

There is no evidence to suggest that Elin was a good wife and mother and should automatically have the kids with her. Her earning potential is minimal at best considering she is no longer hot enough to be a 4th rate model.

There is no evidence out there to prove that Elin greeted Tiger with a steak and a blowjob every time he came home. Who knows, maybe she was a frigid boring nagging starfish.

I’m sure Tiger can get a nanny and a tutor for the kids. Ironically, Elin was an au pair when they met

Vicki PS says:

04:58pm | 22/12/09

@Tim and Razor: Of course I realise church vows aren’t legally binding.  I was simply highlighting, in my clumsy way:
a) the hypocrisy entailed in rabbiting on about the unfairness of a 50/50 property split when the supposedly solemn marriage vows include just that
b) the hypocrisy of couples who make such vows with no real intention of regarding them as binding—why bother with a religious ceremony at all?
c) the utter, utter bastardly hypocrisy of our supposedly socially righteous government and all the other miserable pharisees who oppose gay and lesbian marriage UNDER LAW (not in religion) because it doesn’t conform to the Christian convention (which has no legal relevance). Bah.

Not Davy says:

05:14pm | 22/12/09

“So if a woman doesn’t want sex, do you think that justifies her partner going after it elsewhere behind her back?

Yes, absolutely.”

So much sickening misogyny rearing its hideous head in so many posts, combined with pig-ignorance of the real world of grown-up relationships. Let’s hope all you little boys out there grow up in time.

And as for Tiger wanting full custody of the kids - ha, ha. One “man” who has never matured beyond the “geez, I can get any woman I want” stage and has absolutely no self-control isn’t going to be able to look after two vulnerable small children.

Anyway, it would cramp his “style” and I’m pretty sure that spending quality time with his children is not high on Tiger’s agenda. Whether the kids will move up that agenda before they realise what a juvenile. embarrassing, skirt-chasing dropkick they have for a dad remains to be seen.

Davy says:

05:16pm | 22/12/09

Vicki which vow includes a 50/50 split exactly.  I actually agree with point b).
Point c) well thats another matter and not sure if it pertains to tiger woods. Could be wrong though.

Lynne are you suggesting that if this was occurring it would account for a disagreement of opinion with a woman. Do all men in your experience agree with you if they are “getting enough”.

Actually I’m quite flattered that you have shown an interest in what I’m “getting”.

BB says:

05:34pm | 22/12/09

Judy Sheperd, Garry, Not Davy

Her name is Elin Nordegren. Not Mrs. Woods or Elin Woods.

Lisa says:

05:45pm | 22/12/09

Every marriage is different but for many people the whole concept of marriage is about joining together financially and in life, in all facets.
Like many wives, I personally have devoted every important aspect of my life including my own money, my daily efforts and all my priorities towards assisting my husband in HIS work lifestyle.
This is practical from my perspective, because this support from me is an important, if not totally central, reason as to why he married me in the first place.
Marriage is therefore a three-legged race: If he makes money, I make money. If he loses money, I lose too.
Mrs Woods has the right to share in the wealth that her children are party to, and has every right to expect that her future wellbeing will be enhanced by her previous choices and efforts, made in good faith.

Claire says:

06:12pm | 22/12/09

BB: This is splitting hairs but okay ... she can call herself whatever she likes, which includes keeping her “maiden” name, but if she married Tiger Woods she is also Mrs Tiger Woods.

Another blonde ex-model, Heather Mills, announced to the world after her marriage that she wished to be known as Heather Mills McCartney. We journos complied out of courtesy (believe it or not), but technically, because she was married to Sir Paul McCartney, she was also Lady McCartney. That’s just the way it is.

Venise says: says:

06:45pm | 22/12/09

It grieves me to admit, that as a woman, I have to agree with Eddie Murphy. “No pussy on the planet is worth $150 million.

Yes she has been humiliated, yes the kids have to be looked after, etc, etc. All the usual s/hit

I would go down on my knees to be so humiliated. And I wouldn’t dare to take half of his money. I’d settle for 15%.

She must have known he would stray. Anyhow, it’s not as if he was sleeping with anyone who could compete as a wife.

Vicki PS says:

08:14pm | 22/12/09

@Davy:  “With all my worldly goods I thee endow” means share and share alike, what’s mine is yours.  Leaving aside the fact that the idea of a prenup isn’t exactly consistent with this, it does create a presumption that property is jointly held.

@Claire:  Wrong.  There are absolutely no legal grounds requiring a female marital partner to be Mrs [husband’s name].  It is merely a convention in our society.  If Elin Nordegren chose to retain that name after marriage, then that is her name for all legal and social purposes.  If she wanted to call herself Mrs Elin Cheating-Mongrel, that would be her name. THAT is the way it is.

Been there girl says:

09:18pm | 22/12/09

Who knows how much she is entitled to because it is such an extraordinary case.

Under “average” Australian conditions (under Australian law), such that the marriage is of a longer duration and the parties have “average” assets and a few kids, the wife may be entitled up to 60-65% of the total assets if she has custody of the children. I’ve seen 70% if the husband did nothing in the marriage. This figure is based on the fact that the wife would have given up work during the younger years of her children to look after the kids and “compensation” for housework as well as a lesser earning potential after marriage.

However, this is not the case here. As most of the money is made from Tiger’s ability, he may be entitled to more than 50% himself, so it really depends on what she did with the kids, their household arrangements (see above situation) and whether she used any business acumen to assist him in making more money (eg business advice).  The short nature of the marriage will weigh against her.

Under Australian law, divorce is no fault but I think here we would be dealing with the US jurisdiction, which is fault-based so she might be entitled to a bit more here than in Australia.

Anyway, if I was to say what I felt personally on the situation, I hope she takes him to the cleaners because he really is a jerk but that’s not what the courts will say really.

cellophanemoments says:

09:33pm | 22/12/09

I would say it’s fair if they work it out pro-rata. I’m not sure how long they’ve been together… let’s say 5 years.

Take the earnings he/they’ve made in that time and split it in half and then that’s her entitlement- plus of course adding what the children are entitled to. I would be surprised if that’s not enough for her to live well, not have to work and continue the standard of her current lifestyle.

Freddo says:

11:16pm | 22/12/09

Not Davy,
Can i visit this fantasy land you obviously live in?
Of course any man who has sex with someone other than his wife must be a horrible father, incapable of looking after the kids.
That makes complete sense, and it is sickeningly misogynistic to suggest otherwise.
In other news, Santa just landed on my roof.

Steve says:

11:56pm | 22/12/09

All the gold digging women on this forum make men sick! In an egalitarian society, a prenup must be legally binding. And the primary breadwinner (Tiger) should receive custody while Ms Feminist gets off her lazy duff and works in a Chinese mine for a living. Equality in action, bitter girls!

Angie says:

12:29am | 23/12/09

Lets look at this from a “normal person” point of view: If they were Joe Bloke and his missus, would she be entitled to half of what he owns? I’m pretty sure she would!!!!!!! So why is it so different just because he is worth a tad more than Joe Bloke?
Venise - What on earth do you mean: “She must have know he would stray!”?

Andy says:

12:51am | 23/12/09

Honestly at the end of the day all that happend was someone was in an unhappy marriage and they cheated. It happens, get over it and let the parties involved sort it out. None of our business and takes nothing away from all the great things tiger has done for millions of people. His marriage, his issue. Grow up

Eric says:

07:57am | 23/12/09

Tiger’s biggest mistake was getting married in the first place.

Marriage is a losing deal for men, as is cohabitation, due to sexist laws and courts that discriminate against them.

As more and more men realise this, fewer gold diggers will have opportunities.

Outback Gazz says:

08:46am | 23/12/09

It’s funny how it’s ALL Tiger Woods fault and no fault of the 14 odd women who knew he was married !  I bet if Tiger Woods wasn’t rich and famous Elin would have had nothing to do with him and same with the other trollops !  Why don’t we hear about all the men that have affairs with rich and famous women - it’s because men aren’t so stupid !!  These women spoke up when they found out ” they ” weren’t ” SPECIAL ”  coz they thought they were the only one having an affair !!  JEALOUS JEALOUS JEALOUS women - typical typical typical !  In marriage it’s for better for worse - well, she’s gunna get the BETTER and he’s gunna get the WORSE !!!!

Mr Subramanian says:

09:54am | 23/12/09

Eric: “Marriage is a losing deal for men, as is cohabitation, due to sexist laws and courts that discriminate against them.”

I guess that’s why statistics show that, on average, married men live longer than unmarried men and unmarried women live longer than married women.

And if either party is unhappy about some aspect of their relationship - sexual or otherwise - they should be discussing it with the other person rather than “doing something about it” on their own initiative. One of the Punch’s favourite blogs (and related News.com site) Ask Bossy makes this point perfectly clear ~ and the fact that the commentary over there is more enlightening and uplifting than those over here is jsut a touch troubling to me…

Voxpop says:

09:58am | 23/12/09

This is just a marketing ploy and beat-up from Tiger’s management Elin hasn’t even asked for half they are doing this to tarnish her image, make her look greedy and get the male support up for Tiger.  Why because you’re all so predictable and come from the same default position.  You play into their hands and they hold the strings.  They know the courts will award whatever is legal etc but are mostly trying to resurrect his image and career.

Shama says:

10:25am | 23/12/09

All the men here so unhappy with women and gold diggers and so in agrerement with each other there is an alternative you know - homosexuality.

Eric says:

11:34am | 23/12/09

So if marriage is such a great deal for men, and such a loss for women - why is it that women chase marriage and men try to avoid it?

I sense more feminist lies at work.

Traxman says:

01:18pm | 23/12/09

People keep saying that Elin was’humiliated’ by Tiger’s conduct…......
If anything Tiger should be the one to feel ‘humiliated’ because he got found out !!.
How was Elin ‘humiliated’ ?
If she felt humiliated,maybe it was because she wasn’t pushing Tiger’s buttons the way he like em pushed.
Maybe she can feel ‘humiliated’ all the way to the bank.
And as for those sponsors who have dropped Tiger like hot brick…...
‘You fools,don;t you realise that this will all blow over (if there’s a pun in there somewhere,I apologise )and this time next year you will all be down on your kness begging Tiger to take you back at twice the money ....fools ‘.

Dr Gaye Barr says:

01:36pm | 23/12/09

A partner being unfaithful is a humiliating experience in private. What this lady must be feeling in the wake of so much public scrutiny is unimaginable. Hopefully she can take comfort in the understanding that he is simply serial at it and that it is not a reflection on any aspect of herself. But if she is seeking some kind of retribution or compensation, that would be fairly human on her part - her entitlement in terms of property division is in the hands of a court. and an entirely separate issue. 

My opinion is that any partner, male or female, should be self reliant in terms of the ability to sustain their lifestyle outside the relationship rather than expose themselves to economic (or emotional) dependency. That way, the outcome of something like this is far less critical to just accepting your financial entitlement and getting on with the business of living which is what she appears to be trying to do.

Cuppa says:

02:48pm | 23/12/09

Sorry, but i have to agree with Eric on this one.Marriage is a losing situation financially(in the case of divorce i mean ) for a male & the laws suck.I personally have male friends who are barely surviving financially after their divorce because their ex completely stripped them of any wealth.These women are now living quiet comfortably while the men are stuggling.How the courts can justify this is beyond me, but it is happening every day.

Vicki PS says:

05:14pm | 23/12/09

@Eric:  “Why is it that women chase marriage and men try to avoid it?”  That is totally a male myth.  I don’t know any women who have “chased” marriage.  You might as well ask yourself, Eric, if men try avoid marriage and women do the chasing, why is it that men do the proposing?

@Cuppa:  Those male friends of yours would be totally objective and unbiased of course, wouldn’t they?  And if their ex-wives are living comfortably (according to whose estimation, I wonder) while the blokes struggle, to me that merely underlines the fact that many men who bitch about losing “their” wealth have utterly discounted the contribution their wives formerly made to their comfort and security—and these types generally don’t include their children in the equation at all.  Show me one case in recent Australian family law where a man has been “stripped of wealth” by his ex when there are no children inolved.

Cuppa says:

05:43pm | 23/12/09

Ahh, Vicki Ps, the typical female point of view, ‘i contributed to the comfort & security’.But not(in Tigers case anyway) the actual making of the wealth. But still entitled to 300 million…?Sure you are Vicki, sure you are…...

Paul Horn says:

06:31pm | 23/12/09

The thing that really grips me about divorce cases is that the mans loss of earning potential due to emotional and physical distress is never taken into account as an offset to the ridiculous amounts awarded to the woman. Why is it that courts do not take into account the fact that during the marriage the woman enjoyed a vastly improved lifestyle, something that she would never have achieved had she remained single! This more than accounts for that lie about unpaid work (cooking, cleaning, bad sex etc ) and lost income. I can pay a someone 50 bucks a week to do the cooking and cleaning, a damn site cheaper than keeping a wife and better value! If a woman was working in a menial job prior to marrying it would be highly unlikely that she would improve her circumstances by any great margin had she remained single. You only need to look at the the living standards of married vs single women to know where the truth lies. 

This woman that married Tiger should have known the rules. Had she wanted fidelity she should have chosen the average idiot in the pub. Unfortunately moral, hard working, faithful men are considered nothing more then a joke to todays modern woman. That demand only comes after they snagged the celebrity idiot and want all of the “happy thereafter”. Sorry Erin or whatever your name is you enjoyed the celebrity lifestyle now take the crap that comes with it!!! Be thankful you didn’t marry Mick Jagger or Elvis Presley. Tiger is a saint by comparison. Celebrity marriages are a world away from suburban monogamy. You only need to look at the Hollywood filth peddled in womens magazines to figure that out. 

I’ll ask one question to all you indignant ladies out there and that is if she had her chance again knowing what he was like do you really think in all your crazy dreams that she would have chosen average deadbeat faithful Joe Blow and struggle street over a megastar like Tiger and live “the lifestyle”!! Not a cursed chance!!!

You just have to look at her and her life choices to know that she was no different to the celebrity grasping women Tiger has been cavorting with!  Only ugly women are thankful for decent men as they don’t have much of a choice. 

And Mr Subramainian statistics show that married men and WOMEN enjoy much better mental and physical health outcomes than their respective single counterparts. It is also a fact that the vast majority of single men of marriageable age are generally unemployed or working in menial jobs. These are the men that women will not touch with a bargepole and are marginalised by the stinking femi nazi matriarchical system that all men in Western society presently suffer under. Our fault though as we have allowed this filth to proliferate like a cancerous sore.

And Vicki PS Anglican vows used to include the vow “To love honour and obey”. Hmm wonder what happened to that ?? Amazing how we can be so selective in putting our point of view across!! Feminist ploy if ever there was one!

Lisa says:

07:47pm | 23/12/09

Actually Paul, I feel surprised by your diatribe. My husband, also, seems to think that women are after money.
The fact that I lived in a mouldy room above a garage for four years with him, working in his business for food (as was he), and pouring my life savings into his business-of-choice doesn’t come into it, apparently.
Most women don’t marry for money.
According to bitter observation, carved in blood, single men who remain unmarried tend to play the ‘it’s more fun when it’s free’ line of anti-commitment propaganda, until the poor girl sees the dead end looming, and bails.

Venise says: says:

09:11pm | 23/12/09

Paul Horn: You must be one hell of a misogynist. Also you are under-paying your staff. You shouldn’t mistake the particular for the sweeping statement. ‘My neighbour has a dog that barks. All dogs bark, therefore my neighbour’s dog barks’. sort of thing.

Ms Nordegren would have had her socks knocked off when Tiger started dating her. So would every woman. That sort of fame, good looks and an exciting life would be very difficult to say no to.

Marriage is necessary if one is intent on having children, otherwise why contemplate it?

I would imagine Elin was under no illusion about his bed hopping. He merely broke the rules when his indiscretions became too public.

“Had she wanted fidelity she should have chosen the average idiot in the pub”. Is an offensive remark about the guys one finds in pubs.

As a misogynist you cannot give an unbiased remark about women, and, frankly, your bitterness is the only remarkable thing in your diatribe.

Paul Horn says:

09:47pm | 23/12/09

Lisa hope your husband is not aware what you have been up to with single mens blood. I hope you have them well hidden and bricked up where they can never be found!!! I bet he sleeps with one eye open! 

But anyway back to the topic at hand! For your information most unemployed men don’t enjoy the benefits of myriads of eager females banging on their door awaiting their manly virtues. For the vast majority it is one of singledom whether they like it or not most often punctuated with tryts involving bottles of spirits and copious quantites of marija woop woop. If your comment were true then we would see the exact opposite in fact. High earning men with far greater access to women spreading their favours amongst a varied female audience guarding their singledom like a rabid rotty. Tragically these stupid men for some reason traverse the marital path. A few hold out but nowhere near enough to maintain manly dignity. Modern white maleness is emasculated, a parody, a sad story of impotence and cowardice!   

We have only our pathetic selves to blame. We have allowed feminist hatred to dominate the social policy agenda much to the detriment of the Western race.

Vicki PS says:

10:24pm | 23/12/09

@Cuppa:  I was referring to the friends of yours you moaned about, not to myself (or Elin for that matter).  And you still haven’t come up with an instance of a money-grabbing ex where no children were involved.

But since you chose to raise the matter, can someone explain to me why Tiger Woods is worth $300m or six billion or whatever for spending his time playing a stupid bloody game??  If you want to debate whether golf is a more worthwhile pastime tham child-rearing or being some tosser’s trophy wife, bring it on!

@Paul Horn:  why would you choose to apply a label ie. “feminist” (whatever you think that means) merely because I recognise hypocrisy when I see it.  And it wasn’t MY wedding vows I referred to, it was Tiger and Elin’s.  FYI, I am not an Anglican and did not have a religious ceremony, because I do take my wedding vows seriously enough only to make promises I mean to keep.  Okay?

Dan says:

11:21pm | 23/12/09

Not Davy, could you be a bigger fool if you tried? 

“So much sickening misogyny rearing its hideous head in so many posts, combined with pig-ignorance of the real world of grown-up relationships. Let’s hope all you little boys out there grow up in time.” LOL Thank god we have a real man to show us how the real world works. LOL.

‘And as for Tiger wanting full custody of the kids - ha, ha. One “man” who has never matured beyond the “geez, I can get any woman I want” stage and has absolutely no self-control isn’t going to be able to look after two vulnerable small children.’ And you know this how? Are you an expert on raising kids?  Are you an expert on Tiger’s personality?

’ Anyway, it would cramp his “style” and I’m pretty sure that spending quality time with his children is not high on Tiger’s agenda.’ How would you know? Do you speak to him every day?

’ Whether the kids will move up that agenda before they realise what a juvenile. embarrassing, skirt-chasing dropkick they have for a dad remains to be seen.’ Give me a break. Tiger is a million times the man you coulc ever be. You are nothing but a moralistic child compared to him. He has contributed a great deal to the world. What have you done beside your false morality and delusional grandauer?

swivel35 says:

11:26pm | 23/12/09

Christ almighty!  Yet again, woman’s unpaid and undervalued domestic (slave) labour is completely discounted in any alimony consideration.  Do you misogynist pigs not realise that many married men would not achieve the heights of success if not for the selfless servitude tirelessly undertaken by their spouses?  Behind every great man and all that.  But of course you don’t!  Domestic drudgery is still not considered “work”.

And what is it that he does exactly to earn his living?  He goes out and swings a graphite club about a few times a week and spruiks a few products for which he makes (unjustified) billions, that’s what.  Whacking a little white ball about the place is hardly brain surgery ferchrissakes.

Aside from the fact that society has its priorities completely ass-about, Tiger and Elin committed to an equal partnership (unless you consider marriage an unequal partnership) and so an equal split is not only just and fair, it’s absolutely essential.

Cuppa says:

11:40am | 24/12/09

Vicki Ps, i was ten years old when my parents divorced.They divorced because my mother was cheating behind my fathers back when he went to work to earn the money that she then spent on herself.When they divorced the judge awarded her 70% of the accumulated wealth of our family.I am sure you will try to put a sad feminist spin on this to try and explain why that is fair & why she deserved it(i am sure she gave my father plenty of ‘security & comfort’why she was cheating).This happens alot.So tell me Vicki Ps, can you justify this..?And as for your other point, whether or not Tiger should be worth a billion for playing golf is beside the point, because obviously some people think he should be payed quiete alot.If you want to try & explain to me how you think his wife is worth half the money his talent made for ‘child rearing’ or being ‘a trophy wife’(your words), then as you said, ‘‘bring it on’.....

Davy says:

12:34pm | 24/12/09

I wonder what it would cost in actual dollar terms to go to indo or thailand and hire a gestational mother. Add to this the cost of a cook and house cleaner once a week.
Wild guess maybe $3000 for the gestation chamber.
Cook maybe once a day(we all get our own breakfast), so lets say maybe $70 per day.
Cleaner once a week. Lets say $50.
Should count washing I suppose. Another 50 a week.
Occasional sexual favours. Never been there but I guess about $200 once a week.
Multiplying by number of weeks, number of days, couple of kids. About 4 years wasn’t it?
Da ....dar…. da…. dar ..multiply by 52 and carry the one…..
There you go $170600

Oh sorry.
They had a pro cleaner.  $160200
Oh sorry again.
They had a pro washer. $149800
Damn. Still making mistakes.
They had a cook.  $47600
Hang on wasn’t this idiot getting his sex elsewhere. He would hardly have had any energy left when he saw her.$6000.
Actually I just thought of something else. We dont really know if they even are his kids. He was out of the country a lot. Hmmm. perhaps a paternity test is in order.
What the hell. How about we be generous and because she was good looking we round it up to a neat $10000.

Now sorry swivel 35. What was it you were saying.

swivel35 says:

05:00pm | 24/12/09

I was talking about domestic labour being completely undervalued, Davy.  I was talking about a lack of equity regarding pay disparities between the sexes for what is and what isn’t deemed worthy of comparative wealth and fortune.  Thank you for illustrating my point.

Dan says:

12:20am | 25/12/09

swivel35, just because we don’t believe that a woman (or man) should take half their partner’s fortune does not make us misogynist pigs. Ot makes us reasonable. You are not. Oh,  I think he deserves every cent he makes.

Davy says:

02:54pm | 28/12/09

I’m terribly sorry swivel35. I didnt actually realise that you were so sexist. You see I didnt actually talk gender when I talked about the cook, cleaner,washer. The only one thing I did mention that is exclusive to the female gender was the incubation chamber.

I thnk far from me illustrating your point you have in fact shown a large amount of victim mentallity which you mistakingly attribute to your gender rather than owning yourself.
This is most likely so that you can see yourself as one of a group of disadvantaged. I guess it would not be quite so lonely then.

Olivia says:

02:23am | 07/01/10

You really need to consider her earning potential (who knows where her career would be sans kids) in all of this. i agree that a woman is not automatically entitled to half if she stays home and raises kids. That said however, both myself and my husband work in the same field, and when we started a family I took a career hiatus. If we were to seperate, I would ask for half the assets, as I would have had a very similar earning capacity to him without family.

Our society is also so quick to dismiss motherhood as a simple dalliance, but the truth of it is, it is hard work, and a big decision to stop working and be totally reliant on another person for your finances. Where two people have both willingly entered such a situation, the housewife/husband is most certainly entitled to a decent portion of the money in lieu of them being financially independent (and chosing the low paying but very rewarding career of raising children).

That said - Elin is entitled to $300m by the pre-nup and i fail to see how she could need more than this, especially as this is her share and is not inclsuive of the cost of raising their kids.

oesterreich hotel says:

12:05am | 15/04/10

Below Interpretation,apparently labour must door attention somewhat pattern rather second refuse species wish draw sure extremely plate measure attract ball protection necessarily associate highly play player away text enough limit hospital movement deputy concentrate concentrate per how front hang district variation high generate background identify so happy thought into united famous less scale degree page context go northern term hospital detailed cash of document beginning price ring commercial achieve potential teaching considerable insist about immediately painting personal entry servant economy remove essential belong winner suggest represent liability wild proper door