Sweedish golfing bombshell Annika Sorenstam is playing with the big boys at a PGA tournament. This has provoked much grumbling on the PGA circuit; the PGA is considering an explicit ban on women in response. While it’s playing out in the media as a classic knuckle dragging men vs. virtous women morality play, I’m not sure that’s the whole truth. Certainly Ms. Sorenstam has every right to play in a PGA tournament where I hope she (along with every one else) plays her best. And it would be sheer churlishness for anyone to quit the tournament if paired with her as Vijay Singh said he would. But why can’t men play in the LPGA? Where’s the outrage over that? If it’s funny that the men fret they’ll be beaten why a women, why isn’t it funny that the women fret so much they’d be beaten by a man that they banned men?
It comes down to economics, of course. And the only part of Mr. Singh remarks that had any resonance with me was when speaking in opposition to Ms. Sorenstam playing at a PGA tournament was that she was taking a spot from someone in the field. While I don’t agree, I understand: it’s fine and well for someone to measure herself against men, but it’s a business, and you’re taking money away from a union member. It’s not about the gender, it’s about the money. Surely sexism plays a role, but the reason there is a PGA and an LPGA is money. What would happen if the top ten or twenty female golfers joined the PGA? Well, that would knock ten or twenty men out of the game, and smaller pay days for many who remain — while the play might be elevated, more people means more losers and more people chasing endorsements. Would the LPGA survive? Maybe, but the money might well shrink, as it would be the Second Rate Ladies Pro Golfing Association. So I can see a compelling, non-sexist reason why most men in the PGA would want to keep women out: it cuts down on the competition. And that’s the same reason the LPGA bans men.
