War of the worlds - or war of the brands

When you think of wars and the players who run them, you can't help but wonder, who's the winner? Of course each side claims to have won, but in the absence of referees, well...
so if there is no winner and it's just going on and on, can we stop and continue tomorrow? and for the love of god who sponsors all this?
Well life isn't sports and wars are not a game. But a game on the other hand, can be war.
Two days, five sets, ten hours and two modern days gladiators have proven (and will keep on doing so tomorrow) to us what is it like to go to war and fight like lions, for the win (and for the sponsor). This time it is Nike against Lacoste, U.S.A against France or just Isner vs. Mahut. It doesn't really matter, because in a game (not like in war) everyone's a winner. The players, both winner and looser, will become richer. The brand they represent will become even more known. Even the country they came from will earn the respect. So... what have we learned boys and girls? I think I can quote Edwin Starr when I say:
"War, what is good for? absolutely nothing!" well except for the sponsors of course