Let the gold rush begin

Published on Saturday 17 October 2009 21:15

RIGHT FROM the start, it was difficult to root for golf's ultimately successful attempt to join the Olympic "family of sports" in Rio de Janeiro seven years hence. The whole thing was just too demeaning. Throughout the protracted bidding process that thankfully came to a close last week, something called the International Golf Federation got to its knees and indulged in a bit of ring-kissing in front of that well-known bunch of good fellas, the International Olympic Committee. &#40

And now, thanks to the combined efforts of those on the IGF, the good name of golf is about to be besmirched further through its association with a quadrennial spectacle that reached a new nadir during its most recent visit to China. No wonder I was cheering for roller sports or squash.

Sadly, however, golf had a pretty good prima facie case to take to the IOC. For one thing, it had Tiger Woods, the most recognisable – and bankable – sporting figure on the planet. It also had the eager backing of almost every other well-kent face amongst the game's elite, especially and significantly those for whom the designing of golf courses has become a lucrative sideline.

"One big question we had to answer was that of support from the top players," explains Ty Votaw, executive vice-president, international affairs at the PGA Tour and, alongside Peter Dawson, chief executive of the Royal & Ancient Golf Club (one can only imagine what the IOC should have made of golf's bid being fronted by the heid-bummer at a proudly all-male body), one of the main driving forces behind the IGF. "From Tiger and Lorena Ochoa; from Jack Nicklaus and Annika Sorenstam; from the leading members of the men's and women's game around the globe, all came forward to help our cause."

For the record, here are just a small sample of the secretly self-serving quotes fed to a no-doubt eager IOC in the run-up to the decision that finally admitted golf and rugby sevens. Add the words "course design" after every mention of "golf," then join me in my cynicism.

Colin Montgomerie: "I always felt golf and tennis were on a par, and when tennis became an Olympic sport it was about time golf followed suit."

Nicklaus: "Golf can strengthen the Olympic movement throughout the world. At the same time, it can have a tremendous impact on the growth of golf where it is a developing sport. I'm pleased to lend my support to the cause."

Sorenstam: "A major objective of mine is to help grow the game around the world and I can think of no better way to grow it than through the Olympics."

So it is that, in contrast to the recreational golfer with nothing to sell and so no benefit to derive, for those savvy guys and gals, golf in the Olympics could well prove to be a nice little earner. If the IGF's claim that participation in the Games will see golf spread to countries currently bereft of country clubs holds up, that is. "Eight per cent of the Japanese population plays golf," points out Votaw. "And that has happened since the Second World War. Imagine if that is replicated in, say, China, a country of 1.6 billion people. Hell, let's say only 1 per cent of the people take up the game. The numbers even then are enormous."

Hang on a minute though. What does this "growth of the game" stuff really mean? Is it the game itself that is likely to grow, or is it simply the business of golf that will see global expansion? Are countries like China – where golf is currently enjoyed by only the super-rich – going to open up the sport to all, regardless of gender, creed or economic status, or is it simply going to follow the flawed model that exists the world over? In other words, are we going to end up with an endless stream of R&As blithely perpetuating the widely-held perception that golf is a game played by ageing bigots?

Votaw, as you'd expect, is looking on the bright side.

"Golf started as a game for the wealthy in the United States at the end of the 19th century and has evolved into a game for every level of society," claims the former LPGA commissioner, albeit more than slightly unconvincingly. "Today, 72 per cent of courses in the US are public access. We would see something similar being replicated worldwide. But this is a very long-term undertaking. Nothing is going to change overnight. We are probably talking about 60 years or so before significant change can be effected in most countries."

More immediately, of course, the IGF is going to be involved in the more prosaic logistics of working out just where, when and how golf's first Olympics since 1904 is going to play out. As of this moment, there are a few glitches still to eliminate.

So far at least, it would appear that the competition is to be a rather humdrum 72-holes of stroke-play. More controversial is the number of players involved. At the moment the top-15 players on the world ranking, plus two from each participating country, will take part. All of which will make the list of those players not flying to Rio far more attractive than those who are. Rory McIlroy, for example, would not be eligible if the games took place next week.

Then there is the golf course. Right now, Rio does not have even one course nearly good enough to host players of more than county standard, never mind Tiger and Co. So stand by for an unseemly rush led by the aforementioned luminaries desperate to leave their mark on Brazilian soil and/or cash in on golf's newly attained status.

Then again, if Tiger decides not to play, practically no-one will watch anyway. At least I still have something tangible to root for.