Burying the Lede

...is a term from journalism used to reflect instances where the most important or interesting aspect of an article is buried deep within a story.  See if you can guess why that occurred to me in reading this Alistair Tait piece from Golfweek.  Nut graphs below:

“We promised a period of reflection immediately after last year’s championship, and this process is ongoing,” the spokesman said. “Naturally we have taken soundings within the game, and we will report the outcome of our deliberations in due course.”

HSBC is a long-term sponsor of the Open Championship, as well as this week’s $2.7 million Abu Dhabi HSBC Golf Championship, the WGC–HSBC Champions and other tournaments around the world.

Morgan has told the R&A that his company is uncomfortable being associated with the Open Championship being held at male-only clubs. The R&A stages the Open at nine venues, three of which do not admit women members: Royal St. George’s, Royal Troon and the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers Muirfield.

I understand that some people feel strongly about this, though I'm personally more inclined to note that the plight of women in the world seems curiously unaffected by the admission of two extremely well connected women into Augusta National Golf Club.

But that's not the point I'm trying to make in this post.  Does anyone notice something missing from the discussion?  Anyone?  Bueller?

HSBC and others are concerned about the R & A holding championships at all male clubs, when the R&A is, ignoring a minor detail, itself an organization that does not admit women.  Isn't the fact that the organization governing golf and its rules in all but two countries in the world (the exceptions being the U.S. and Mexico, where the USGA has jurisdiction) excludes women kind of a bigger deal than the membership policies of certain private clubs where the Open Championship happens to be played?

Now, back to the technicality.  In 2004 an organization called the R & A was formed, and it's that organization that currently governs the game and hosts the Open Championship, British Amateur and the like.  That organization is now technically distinct from the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, the original governing body formed in 1754.  It's the latter that is the members' organization, and a Y chromosome (as well as the demonstrated ability to drink copious amounts of alcohol) are absolute requirements for admission. 

Now, I don't begrudge the R & A, Muirfield or anyone their right to associate with those they prefer, but it seems far less sustainable in today's world for a de facto ruling body.  How Peter Dawson, Chief Executive of the R & A, manages to keep the discussion on Muirfield's membership policies is, without doubt, a public relations home run albatross. 

I have no dog in this fight and it would be a tragedy to lose Muirfield from the Open Rota (Royal St. Georges, on the other hand, I'm prepared to sacrifice to the gods of political correctness),  I present it merely as an example of seemingly misplaced focus.  And lest anyone get too worked up over this, please remember that it was similar nonsense that replaced Cypress Point with Poppy Hills at the Crosby Clambake AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am.  'Nuff said?