There is no controversy at all. Let me respond to each point:
1. There is no shirt available:
So what? Why does this even matter? Why can't a company make a shirt for only one person, I don't understand why this is even an issue. Also, who the hell would want to wear a shirt that had a giant Burger King logo on it.
2. Burger King is unhealthy, so it sends the wrong message:
This is more valid than the previous point, but still totally off base. Eating at Burger King, while not the healthiest food around, will not make you fat/have health problems unless you a) do it frequently, or b) don't exercise enough to cancel out the incoming calories. I don't see why the Olympics shouldn't be sponsored by McDonald's, and I don't see why a professional fighter who obviously understands well enough the ins and outs of nutrition should not be able to walk out in a shirt sponsored by Burger King. I swear, our current society is so concerned with protecting the "kids" that they fail to realize that any kid/parent/person who is swayed to eat Burger King (for example) to an unhealthy degree simply because their favorite fighter walks out wearing a shirt w/ logo probably deserves the negative health effects associated with eating unhealthy foods anyway.
If McDonald's were to be sponsoring the Olympics, I fully understand that there would be millions upon millions of people worldwide that would begin, consciously or subconsciously, to eat McDonald's more and thus become more unhealthy. But that leads us to a twist on a classic philosophical question: If a weak-minded person sees a McDonald's advertisement, and shifts their diet to match what it advertises and consequently becomes fat and unhealthy, does anybody care?
vBookie Record: 16-9
Current vBookie Bets: