I'd like to see this issue taken further as I'm not too sure it sits well with me in the current (wagering) environment we are in.
Sports Acumen (Alive) were the first in Australia to go down this publicity/marketing path years ago, when they paid out on the EPL winner at Christmas-time then had to pay out again when another team overtook the Xmas-time leader (I don't overly follow football/soccer so can't recall the teams in question). This worked for them in this instance as they were holding less than what most people earn in a week on that team.
Fast-forward to 2009/10, where there are court cases on race fields legislation, product fees, advertising etc. - Productivity Commission findings, the push for online/in-running availability etc. - wagering providers must be seen to providing and running the markets they bet on in an airtight and transparent way. No gimmicks. No scams, plots and ploys - just offer and run all markets with integrity and give all the do-gooders and naysayers no ammunition to base their campaigns and crusades on.
Sportsbet were also the mob that were ordered to take down a market during the Spring Carnival (clearly another gimmick/publicity stunt) offereing odds on the availaibility of Connex trains after the meetings - with options like "heat", ''drivers strike'', ''Connex will blame aliens'' etc. being the reason for any disruption. Regulators deemed that their licence was for sports and racing, and this fell outside that bracket.
So in six hours time, in the event Woods does not win, Sportsbet will get massive media coverage for paying out on Woods (early) as well as the eventual winner.
Nice airtime for them, job done - but have they monitored and managed the market correctly?