Debate: Is golf elitist or accessible?

Russell Brand once asked, “Have you ever had a best friend who you… fucking hate?” This pretty much sums up my relationship with the treasured sport of golf. Like many adolescent teenage boys, my attitudes were awfully predictable: the war in Iraq was good (“Let’s get the bastards!” I ignorantly proclaimed), the use of the word ‘gay’ in the pejorative sense was adequate for any vaguely negative situation. Similarly, golf was obviously shit. That, however, was until I tried it…

As a convert, it’s hard to describe to those who are unfamiliar with the sport why golf is so intrinsically enjoyable. “Golf’s boring,” they jibe, and I’d retort with something such as, “But you can’t appreciate the complete sense of satisfaction of perfecting your swing, and then making the perfect contact compression between club turf and ball.” “Golf’s shit,” they reply.

But, as is the case with all seemingly common-sense statements such as “Golf’s shit,” there are large elements of truth. Golf is, despite its modern PR makeover, a historically, and perhaps eternally, elitist sport. The new-found “accessibility” that sports media commentators reassure us has emerged in the game for the common man, is only partly true.

I argue that because golf club manufacturers have become increasingly powerful in the game, as the demands of the expansionist parasite that is capitalism grow (demanding ever greater profits and revenues), the “common man” market has been excavated.

Go to any driving range around the country and you will find middle-aged plumbers and tradesman, whacking the hell out of balls with their new “TaylorMade burner 460 macho domestic violence dick stick”, comparing clubs in the manner in which the Daily Mail (probably) claims inner-city black youths compare their newly-looted Foot Locker trainers.

Thus the new freedom in golf is a freedom to consume. The dirty secrets which golf ignores are sustained elitism, sexism, outright class discrimination, and to some extent racism. The proletariat are welcome, but only on limited terms, and at limited venues. This is the true message that golf subtly whispers to you the more you interact with it.

This was illustrated perfectly in a recent incident. The millionaire former caddie of Tiger Woods, Steve Williams, (or ’obnoxious rude caddie bouncer thug’ as he was unofficially, affectionately known by fans on the course) culminated his world tour of post-redundancy moaning with a racial slur against his former boss. Whether or not you think what Williams said was racist is another issue – it certainly wouldn’t have gone down well at Malcolm-X High School.

However, the reaction by golf’s leading authorities was indicative of their ignorance and indifference to contemporary notions of equality. For a few days there was zero reaction, and the condemnation eventually centred on how it was meant to be a ‘private event’ and how ‘unfortunate’ it had been that such comments became public – a bold moral stance by golf’s trusted custodians. Racism becomes nothing more than an excuse for a reiteration of the game’s favoured right to its cherished privacy, which can be interpreted more accurately as exclusivity.

This is also highlighted in the non-existence of female membership at some of the world’s most famous golf clubs, notably Augusta and Royal St. George’s (that’s correct, the Queen can’t become a member at ROYAL St. George’s), or historically, ethnic minorities.

For me, the greatest apologists for golf’s status quo in the UK come from the BBC’s golf coverage. Watch, for example, the Open Championship with its emotive cinematic trailers of golf’s past and present heroes, uniting in common purpose with the plebeian sports fans. “Everyone is welcome,” seems to be the message Peter Allis and his ensemble of ‘toff’ golf friends promote (spoiled from a young age to such an extent that if they did not become golf professionals there would have been a national inquiry).

The truth of the Open is this: it costs cash to go, serious cash. Even if you get there, the class system will exclude you some more. The players are as unreachable as Tony Blair at a war crimes tribunal, and an array of wealthy, ignorant, selfish assholes frequent the links with their giant branded umbrellas, obscuring the views for everyone else (a particular sore point for me when I visited this summer).

To Peter Alliss and his colleagues, the game may seem all inclusive, but they live in a bubble world. Outside it, the view is of literally gated communities and lavish VIP corporate hospitality tents – a world of exclusion that they do not necessarily ignore, but do not know. The wider public may think golf is ‘shit’, because it is synonymous with this image of the rich old boys’ network.

It should try and reform itself and stop resisting, based upon the spurious justification of preserving tradition, or it should come clean on its lack of social conscience and declare, as “the judge” stated in the classic comedy Caddy Shack: “The world needs ditch diggers too.” The comedian George Carlin’s solution to what he called golf’s “rich cocksucker” problem, was to allocate social housing projects on golf courses. Perhaps if golf can’t be truly social, we should socialise golf.

**Joshua Funnell**

There are issues of consumerism, elitism, sexism and racism in every sport. To suggest golf requires socialisation is quite hyperbolic.

I believe that golf companies act responsibly in your so-called ‘common man’ market. Releasing yearly updates to your product happens in every product market. Think about brand icons such as the iPhone: When should you buy one? Is the latest product really the best? Like the iPhone, golf equipment is subject to constant research and development, so there is a need for products to be released yearly, if it means that golfers can achieve greater distance and accuracy.

If your average golfer feels at a disadvantage by not having the latest equipment, I would explain to them that unless they are the next Tiger Woods, they would barely notice the difference between the new and old equipment. They should go to the driving range proud in the knowledge that they have not wasted their money on equipment that is of no benefit to them. Personally, I have used the same clubs for the last eight years and this has had no detrimental impact on my ability to play golf. Furthermore I believe that golf equipment has never been more reasonable than it is today.

In my opinion, access to golf courses is increasing. The overwhelming majority of courses are available to play without membership on a ‘pay to play basis.’ The price of club membership has decreased dramatically as courses have had to compete for members during the economic downturn. The very survival of some clubs is at stake, so there is great pressure on clubs to enact social changes. Some courses even accept golfers without a handicap certificate and offer a relaxed dress code to attract players to their course.

With reference to the issue of sexism, I do concede that the membership policy of Royal St George’s to not allow female members is abhorrent. I also believe that the decision to award the British Open to a club with such a membership policy was a huge mistake by the Professional Golf Association (PGA).

However, out of this mistake came public scrutiny and subsequently changes to the game have been rightly made to alleviate the problem of sexism. The English Amateur Golf Associations for men and women have recently voted to merge with 86% of the votes being in favour of the motion. This means that despite seven men playing golf for every woman, female golf representatives now have a 40% voting say in how the sport is run at an amateur level. This move is sure to help tackle sexism in the sport.

As seen recently by racism scandals in football, unfortunately no sport has been able to completely eradicate racism. I believe that levels of racism in golf are decreasing dramatically due to the rise of Tiger Woods as a global sporting icon and sporting role model to a generation of golfers (despite the recent demise of his image as an upstanding moral citizen).

I believe that racism is in no way tolerated or accepted by the golfing establishment. The actions of one man, Steve Williams, ex-caddie to Tiger Woods, should not be taken to reflect the attitude of a whole sport towards an issue. The response to Williams’ comments, however, did not go far enough to punish him for his words.

From the perspective of the Warwick University Golf Club, I would like to highlight that no matter how the wider golfing society reacts to these social issues, here at Warwick we are committed to our motto of “golf for all”, welcoming all levels of golfers from all backgrounds. This year, for example, one quarter of our students are female and our lessons are extremely affordable, with each lesson costing less than £3.

To artificially ‘socialise’ golf is unrealistic, but it is likely that the traditions of golf will change over time, for sport can often be seen as a mirror of the values of contemporary society.

**Danian Back**