By Jaimy Lee
September 3, 2008
Response to controversial mandate has forced the association
to clarify its rationale behind decision
The Ladies Professional Golf Association's (LPGA) recent decision
requiring its athletes to master the English language could impact
its reputation in the industry and future partnerships, industry
experts say.
The league says LPGA athletes need English skills to become more
marketable as the organization tries to find title sponsors for
its tournaments.
However, some believe that the LPGA's decision appeared to be
more behind the times than forward thinking.
“Today, the rules have changed,” says Mike Paul,
president of MGP & Associates PR in New York. “You can't
continue with the old-rules mentality.”
What irked Asian-American groups and sports columnists across
the US was the decision to separate and inform only the Korean
players, and to threaten them with possible suspension. Forty-five
of the LPGA's 121 international players are South Korean.
The LPGA's English-language mandate came to light in a Golfweek
magazine story published August 25. Within days of the story's
publication, organizations like the Asian American Justice Center,
Japanese American Citizens League, National Asian Pacific American
Bar Association, and the Organization of Chinese Americans issued
statements about the policy.
The LPGA has remained fairly quiet about its communications efforts,
despite backlash that has included accusations of racial discrimination.
A statement from Commissioner Carolyn Bivens finally appeared
on the LPGA's Web site September 2.
Bivens sought to clarify the policy, saying, “We do not,
nor will we ever, demand English fluency... we are asking that
they demonstrate a basic level of communication in English at
tournaments in the United States in situations that are essential
to their job... media interviews, the Pro-Am environment, and
winner acceptance speeches.”
In addition to the clarification, what is interesting about the
statement is Bivens' detailed account of what an LPGA sponsorship
includes, which was not a part of the initial news. Athletes are
required to entertain and engage sponsors for five to six hours
a week because the league's business model does not rely on ads
and ticket sales, the statement says.
Critics of the policy are focusing on two points. One is that
other US sports do not have the same requirement. Media reports
mention Yao Ming's early days in the NBA, and even Si Ri Pak's
start in the LPGA.
The other is that 13 of the 37 tournaments in 2008 have been
or will be held outside of the US, but league athletes are not
required to speak other languages.
“From a PR perspective, a corporation does not want to
be associated with something that's negative,” says Jimmy
Lee, VP of West Hollywood-based IW Group, a marketing firm that
focuses on the Asian-American community. “If the LPGA really
wants to global[ize]... they should change with the times and
open up the board to people from other countries.”
Lee notes that golf tends to be marketed to a “more privileged
community” and there could be an immediate effect on the
Asian-American community, which has the highest household income
in the US.
“I think they will lose more sponsors than they will get
in return,” Lee says.
Yet Jeffrey Graubard, founder of The Graubard Group, which represents
the National Hockey League, says that he doesn't expect any long-term
fallout for the league. Instead, he believes that it was a smart
business move, pointing out that at the global level, companies
often conduct business in English.
The initial announcement, though, “was a little bit heavy-handed,”
he adds. “It did sound discriminatory the way it was handled.”
Paul, too, says that incomplete or inappropriate communications
pushed the league's policy formalization into the spotlight, especially
because it stressed that punishment was the result of the policy.
Rumors and innuendo fueled the story, he adds.
“Being tough can backfire,” Paul says. The policy
and the way it was handled was a failure, he adds, and is an example
of not what to do, but what not to do.
