In these gloomy times, where everyone wonders when we will return to a normal life, specialists explain to us that we need to find ways to destress, otherwise…
The little verbal jousting that followed the deliberation concerning the allocation of grants to high-level international and/or national Nice athletes, possible/probable candidates for the Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022 Olympics, and some promising talents, triggered a minor circus with public exchanges that took on the guise of a clown therapy session.
Eventually, the grotesque took precedence over the serious, enabling us to enjoy a sequence which, due to its “I love you, me neither” development, was a source of entertainment.
In this time of bombardment by figures, each more anxiety-inducing than the last, having listened to so many illogical banalities and read reverse reasoning gave us a certain lightness of mind and reassured us that while a situation may be serious, it is not necessarily grave. And so much the better.
Act I
During last Thursday’s city council, the deliberation granting subsidies to Nice athletes was met with an amendment request from the “ecologist” group who wanted to exclude recipients with an annual income exceeding 100,000 euros. The rationale was to not favor those who, as professionals, already enjoyed a privileged status in this difficult economic and social context.
Of course, the amendment was rejected and the proposers were lectured by the Mayor of Nice, a defender of these athletes’ exemplary role as ambassadors of Nice in the international arena through their achievements.
A first neutral comment comes to mind: if it is quite difficult to find a logical connection between a grant and the current economic context as motivated by the proposers [wouldn’t it have been better to stick to the sporting aspect and simply ask if professional status is not an obstacle to a grant?], it is also hard to grasp the linkage between the individual achievements of the concerned athletes and the reputation of Nice, a world-renowned tourist city for over a century.
Are we to believe that a tourist comes to Nice because the city is the birthplace or home of a sports champion? If that’s the case, (but how can one believe it?) wouldn’t it be better to pay them through a commercial contract, like brands that use the notoriety of media figures for product promotion?
Act II
Through the press, tennis player Alizé Cornet, one of the beneficiaries of the municipal munificence, feeling targeted by the “ecologists’” criticism, responded to the criticisms (which, in fact, were not addressed to her by name) with a lengthy dissertation.
In summary, what did Alizé Cornet say? That the pandemic was hindering activity and consequently her earnings. That she was paying her taxes in France and, as an independent professional, she had operating expenses to cover.
And in fine, in search of a captatio benevolentiae from her critics, that she was environmentally sensitive since she had recently participated in planting some trees on the island of Saint-Honorat.
Another neutral comment comes to mind: paying your taxes in France when residing there is part of every citizen’s duty, even an obligation under the law. Moreover, this is what millions of people and households with incomes do. The accountant assisting Mrs. Cornet will surely not fail to deduct from her gross income the expenses incurred as production costs so that the taxable income is applied. Thus, it is difficult to find in normal behavior the reason to highlight it as exceptional or to present it as a meritorious motive.
Additionally, reading the publication of the situation (as of March 22) of the WTA (Women’s Tennis Association) Money Prize Career attributes Alizé Cornet a revenue of 7.8 million dollars. While congratulating the Azurian on her success, one could perhaps deduce that the grant from the Nice municipality adds to an already financially comfortable situation, not taking into account other possible sources of income, such as marketing and sponsorship, common in international professional tennis.
As for Alizé Cornet’s green thumb, it surely hasn’t gone unnoticed by the Nice “ecologists,” who will certainly appreciate it at its proper value.
Act III
Following Alizé Cornet’s response, the “ecologists” wanted to clarify their position on Twitter by expanding the debate with risky comparisons. The 25,000-euro subsidy received by the tennis player was compared to an employee’s salary. The cessation of tennis tournaments to potential social plans affecting thousands of workers.
One understands the social fiber of the ecologist representatives, but honestly, what is the connection between Alizé Cornet’s activity and the professional situation of any individual? Her job is to play tennis, and she has been doing so for several years with success and profit. What’s wrong with that? What responsibility does she bear towards others?
In the end, while it may be debatable to grant public funding to a professional who certainly does not need to be encouraged in a poorly remunerative sporting career (this is the condition of many athletes practicing sports with a deficient economic model), how can one take seriously the ridiculous motives of the “ecologists”?
They don’t skip a pasta dish at noon or a broth at night because there are 736 million people living below the international poverty line set at $1.90 per day (UN)?
Criticism is good, castigating too when needed. But one must choose the right arguments (and in the case of municipal subsidies to professional athletes, there were indeed some) and not just throw the hat in the air.
To conclude on a pleasant note: “A round of applause,” snobs would say in the clubhouse of a tennis club, for Fabio Quartararo, the other beneficiary targeted by the “ecologists’” criticism: he accepted the check, didn’t utter a word, and demonstrated wisdom despite his young age. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
