So he would have known it would have been interpreted one way and not the other.
Definitely moving a bottle of something aside he's not being paid for is rational in his part.
If he 'said the names' of the water companies he was not sponsored by, that would be odd as he knows not to do that, but if he just said 'water' then that would be normal.
Why assume it's a rejection of the Coca-Cola corporation vs soda as a choice of beverages?
These are 'businessmen athletes' who are intimately familiar with issues around sponsorship.
If he were sponsored by a Coke 'sub brand' (i.e. water or healthy drink) ... he would have done it more gracefully for sure.
If you think tobacco-caused disease is expensive to treat, wait until you see diabetes and obesity.
They’ve reduced the sugar of the Canadian version of coke (used to have more than US formulation). Bottles are all getting smaller (591 to 500) and smaller options than 355mL.
And the obvious push toward low/no-sugar options.
It's borderline evil to formulate even sweeter versions, but with zero calorie sweeteners: people drink them freely because they don't have calories, but the sweetness could be causing insulin resistance, which can turn into diabetes.
Pushing for low sugar and moderation is better than no sugar and no moderation.
In places where that is not true it's probably still better to drink water than coca-cola.
Which of those has the best tap water?
See also: https://www.vewin.nl/english/News/Paginas/Dutch_drinking_wat...
Side note: If you really think about the power Coke will amass in China, it feels staggering. Imagine having a quarter billion people (being conservative here) pay $1 for a can of soda. That’s $250m on a Monday. Do it again Tuesday, maybe have them buy two. It’s crazy money.