Sports Media Review by Jonathan Weiler

Tuesday, July 18, 2006
1:52:00 PM EDT
 Since we’ve been down this road before, the fact that Michelle Wie has now received exemptions to play in five men’s tournaments (she has yet to make the cut), is not quite as controversial as was Annika Sorenstam’s participation in a men’s event in 2003. At that time, particularly if you listened to sports radio, you might have thought that the apocalypse was nigh as Sorenstam’s entry into a PGA field via a sponsors exemption caused heated debate on sports radio, with many hosts and callers expressing outrage at the unfair nature of Sorenstam’s participation.  But, notwithstanding the relative equanimity with which Wie’s efforts on the men’s tour have been met up to now, there is beginning to emerge a growing hum of resentment about whether Wie has earned the right to continue competing in these tournaments.

Todd Wright, on Sporting News radio, in an interview with the golf writer Bob Harig last week, repeatedly asked “is it fair?” Wright insisted that if Wie had qualified for the US Open, that would be fine. But, to get in through the backdoor of sponsor’s exemptions violated the rules of fair competition. “Isn’t this going to offend the men?” Wright asked Harig at one point. Wright also criticized Wie for entering last weekend’s tournament, an event that had a particularly weak field, since it was just prior to the British Open, and therefore wouldn’t be well attended by the top players. Wright snarled “she sure knows how to pick her spots, doesn’t she?”

On Around the Horn yesterday, Jay Mariotti, fresh off his labors in support of sensitivity toward gays, opined that “money equals resentment if it doesn’t come with results and plus you’re keeping somebody else from this field if she keeps getting these.”

Nancy Lopez, herself a hall-of-fame golfer, complained that the LPGA needed Wie and her big swing, and urged her to commit herself full-time to the women’s tour.

On Pardon the Interruption, Michael Wilbon had a somewhat more sober assessment:

“I think she doesn’t need it, I like seeing Michelle Wie play but I’d prefer to see her play all four rounds which would be the women’s major tournaments, which she’s played in and played very well.”

His partner, Dan LeBatard, though generally supportive of Wie (“I like the circus act”) criticizedWie as “immature,” for having complained about bugs last Thursday and for having had to stop play on Friday due to heat exhaustion.

In general, there appear to be three major complaints about Wie. One is that Wie should stop trying to play in men’s tournaments until she can win a women’s tournament. Wie has done very well on LPGA tour this year, with multiple top five finishes to her credit. And, of course, Wie, as a 16-year old amateur and not yet a member of LPGA, is still extraordinarily young to be as competitive as she is. But, she still hasn’t won an LPGA event and, as noted above, is now 0-5 in trying to make the cut at a men’s tournament. This prompted Michael Smith (more on him later) to argue on Four Corners yesterday: “no she doesn’t deserve it, no she’s never done anything to deserve it, she’s never won anything on any level.”

Two, there’s a seeming resentment that Wie is not following the proper steps up the golfing ladder – that she’s manipulating the system to get into tournaments that she couldn’t get into on the merits, via the sponsors exemptions that were such a source of controversy when Sorenstam entered the Bank One field in 2003. This was the essence of Mariotti’s comments above, as well as Wright’s.

Three, that she’s making a mockery of the game, turning tournaments into publicity stunts.

There was overt sexism in the course of the Sorenstam controversy in 2003, from golfers like Vijay Singh saying they refused to play in a tournament with a women (Singh later modified his statements) to widespread discussion of how “embarrassing” it would be to be beaten by a “girl.” Sorenstam had plenty of backers, too. For example, Tony LaRussa told Sporting News radio at the time: “I could not be more supportive of Annika trying to compete…I think she’s doing a great thing. Anytime someone stretches and is willing to test themselves, they should be commended.  I hope she shoots under par.”  La Russa also criticized Vijay Singh, one of the top male golfers in the world who said he would refuse to play in the tournament if Sorenstam appeared. La Russa commented: “Vijay’s comments are so far off base…I know he lost a lot of points in our clubhouse by not playing this weekend.”

But, there has been, until recently, a sense that Wie is potential sensation in a way that Sorenstam, already an established star on the LPGA, could never have been. The prospect of any teenager whacking a golf ball 300 yards is noteworthy enough. That it was a striking six foot three female significantly added to the novelty. That novelty, for Wie’s critics, is obviously beginning to wear off, although Le Batard said yesterday that five tournaments is not much really, and he’d like to see more. But, what’s noteworthy about the complaints is an ongoing resistance on the part of many sports commentators and fans to accept the full implications of what it means for professional sports in America to be a major economic enterprise, concerned primarily with the bottom line.

As Bob Harig told Todd Wright, it’s ridiculous for golfers to complain about Wie’s sponsors exemptions. First, because contra Mariotti, sponsors exemptions are not taking spots from would-be qualifiers. Second, because every sponsor reserves that right in ordinary sponsored tournaments. And, third, according to Harig, because “any player who complains doesn’t understand that the sponsors are what allow them to play for $5 million dollar purses every week and they want to get a return.” As Smith noted, Wie’s play is, on one level, irrelevant: “it makes it interesting, it’s why we’re watching.” Smith’s Four Corners sidekick Bill Plaschke went a step further, noting that since no one watches the LPGA, Wie should just be on the men’s tour full-time, that it would be great for the sport.

There’s no denying the economics behind this, at least for now. Wie is a major draw, perhaps the most talked about golfer in the world after Tiger and maybe Mickelson. That her undeniable marketability is running up against time honored norms of meritocracy in sports is simply an unresolvable contradiction at the heart of the enterprise of big-time athletics. The money behind the games is what promotes them, sells them and turns their participants into impossibly wealthy stars and, as a secondary benefit, allows lots of other people to make a good living broadcasting and commenting on the competition. It is private, for-profit companies that make this possible. Those same companies are going to know a marketing opportunity when they see one.  

 

Written by sportsmediaguy Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

This entry has 0 comments: (Add your own)