±±¾©Èü³µpk10

This financial equation - status x sexual indiscretions = extra copies sold - makes sense in what is otherwise an insane world of celebrity worship.

If celebrities screw up - in fact if they screw in any direction other than that of their significant other - the public gets a few minutes of shocked entertainment, while media owners get a few hundred thousand pounds richer.

In recent years, the ridiculous notion that celebrities deserve some elements of privacy in those areas of their lives where publication of information does not serve the public interest seems to have gained ground.

There is no hint of irony in this principle of law, no recognition of the fact that the public is interested in every excruciating detail of a celebrity's life - an interest that the media will continue to serve.

What the Beckhams are going through is painful. The fact that his alleged indiscretions were brought to light by the News of the World makes it no more painful than if Mrs Beckham had discovered lipstick on Mr Beckham's collar when she was at home putting on a hot wash. Celebrities are slaves to the same emotions and morals as everyone else - they just tend to be more successful, wealthy and attractive.

The question, for this magazine at least, is whether a celebrity who commits the same wrongdoing as the man in the street deserves to have a disproportionate financial penalty doled out by sponsors and advertisers.

Hamish Pringle's new book, Celebrity Sells, explores all the benefits of using celebrities in marketing, and some of the pitfalls. On the scenario in which Beckham and Vodafone, Pepsi, Adidas et al find themselves in, Pringle's advice is more commercial than moral. "If a brand cuts and runs as soon as the going gets even slightly tough, then this sends a bad signal to the celebrity community and will put the brand in a very weak position in any future negotiations."

The statement itself is not wrong, but the principle certainly is. These major sponsors will not have entered into their deals with Beckham without doing due diligence. Indeed, for some of them, Beckham 'the family man' will have been a considerable part of the appeal.

The sponsors are right not to act on speculation over fact, but equally their right to take punitive action must be defended if Beckham is proven to have let his family, and his financial backers, down.

Analysis, page 14.