Woods is a Jordan, an Ali, one of the signature athletes of his time, or any time. In the end, winners like these don't get denied. For all of his self-inflicted wounds, for all of the damage he did to what had been a forbidding game-day aura, Woods retains the talent and drive to hit the one target he's been aiming at since he was, you know, old enough to aim.

Is Nike still a Tiger Woods sponsor?

Yes. And A-rod. And Kobe. And Michael Vick, actually. No lance, no giambi, no joe paterno any longer.

Nike spends $2.5bn in marketing, a seemingly good deal of which goes to sponsoring athletes.

Why no Lance and Giambi? Seems inconsistent.

It does. I think based on popular opinion and current competitive status -- The ones they have kept still compete in their respective dominant sports; the ones they have cut have either passed away, or no longer compete in their respective sport AND have lost popular support and sentiment. Basically, *unforgivables*.

An interesting aside, Tim cook is on Nike's board: http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/09/technology/cook_apple.fortune/index2.htm