Golf, Olympics don't really need each other

A few years back, when the idea of trying to return golf to the Olympics resurfaced, Tiger Woods didn't completely shoot down the idea.

But he didn't exactly embrace it, either.

"It would be great to have an Olympic gold medal," Woods said then. "But if you asked any player -- 'would you rather have an Olympic gold medal or a green jacket or Claret Jug?' -- more players would say the majors."

And therein lies the most compelling reason why golf shouldn't be added to the Olympic program.

The Olympics will never be more important than the majors.

Being an Olympic gold medalist will never be the pinnacle of the game.

So, really, why bother? Truth is, if the Olympics are not the ultimate level of competition -- if Olympic gold isn't the grandest prize -- then that sport doesn't belong on the Olympic stage. And, yes, that also goes for basketball and ice hockey, baseball and soccer, tennis and boxing.

They have their own marquee events, whether it is the NBA Finals or Stanley Cup Finals, World Series or World Cup, Wimbledon or world title bout.

The Olympics, for those athletes in those sports, are merely something extra, not the something that matters most. Too many of the millionaire athletes who go to the Games do so only for the Olympic experience, not because winning gold will define their careers.

And, quite frankly, the Olympics ought to be above that.

The Olympics ought to be above professionalism, too, but that's another story for another day.

My point is, the Olympics should be for athletes who train for years to compete in the Games because, in their sports, there is no higher court. They should be for athletes who work their entire lives for one Olympic moment. They should be for swimmers, gymnasts, skiers, skaters, wrestlers and lugers.

Not for golfers.

Especially pro golfers.

Golf already has its Olympic-caliber tournaments: The Masters, U.S. Open, British Open and PGA Championships, even The Players Championship. It also has international, us-versus-them competitions like the Ryder Cup and Presidents Cup.

On the women's side, the LPGA Tour has its majors, as well as the U.S.- vs.-Europe Solheim Cup.

So it's not as if there's a shortage of global competition.

Just as the Olympics don't need golf, golf doesn't need the Olympics.

Not in America, anyway.

The sport hasn't been part of the Olympics since 1904, and nobody here -- fans, players or media -- has been clamoring for its return.

Why, then, has PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem and USGA executive director David Fay joined the heads of the LPGA, European Tour and Royal & Ancient Golf Club in their efforts to get golf into the 2016 Games?

Why do you think? Money, of course.

Oh, that's not what they're saying. They want everyone to believe they're doing all this because, as the stewards of the game, they're obligated to grow the sport by taking it to places where it's currently not played.

And, without question, putting golf in the Olympics might prompt some of those nations to pump some cash into a developmental program.

But this isn't an entirely magnanimous gesture.

The members of golf's Sanhedrin know that growing the game also grows their coffers. That's how they're trying to sell this idea to the players.

"The value for the players is that the more people that play around the world, the more people will be watching," Finchem said earlier this month at the PGA Championship. "They'll be paid back, eventually."

But what's in it for the Olympics? Would golf make the Games better? Would it sell more tickets or attract more viewers or create any real buzz? Or would Olympic golf be as irrelevant as Olympic tennis? If so, it's not worth it.

Especially if Woods doesn't play.

(Ray McNulty is sports columnist for Scripps Treasure Coast (Fla.) Newspapers, The Stuart News, Fort Pierce Tribune and Vero Beach Press Journal. Contact him at ray.mcnulty@scripps.com or on the Web at www.tcpalm.com.)