Following The Money

The International Olympic Committee has rejected a bid to reinstate softball into the Summer Olympics in time for the 2016 Games. Instead, it is considering rugby, which I can support, and . . . golf.

Now, I've never played golf other than the mini- or computerized version, but it seems to me that golf would not really be in keeping with the Olympic spirit, at least not in terms of equal opportunity for athletes.

This is not even taking into the account that golf is really, really boring to watch, and softball isn't.

Golf is money and privilege. Softball isn't. The Olympics are supposedly a celebration of amateur athletics, even if that distinction has definitely been blurred with the inclusion of NHL, MLB and NBA players. Golf is decidedly not amateur.

Yes, golf does offer chances for women, as well as men. But look at the list of top money winners. For the men, Tiger Woods has earned more than $6 million. Tiger is obviously an exceptionally dominant player, but even the second placed earner is earning over $4 million. The leading earner on the LPGA has earned $1.3 million. Nothing to sneeze at, but proportionally, come on.

When you consider the fact that golf's 'hallowed ground' at Augusta, Georgia, is a club that is closed to women, I think there is not much more that needs to be said. Golf is a country club sport for wealthy men. I think even aesthetically speaking, it has no place in the Olympics.

Softball, on the other hand, does not get the professional rewards or sponsorship deals that the golf tours offer. Doesn't softball make more sense for inclusion in the Olympics than does golf?

Of course, there might be more money to be made from including golf, but I would require proof of that. And even if that were the case, it wouldn't make me happy.