It’s players v officials for this edition of Ryder Cup
FOUR months to go to the Ryder Cup and, as ever, the battle lines are being finely drawn as the speculation ramps up. The composition of the two opposing sides is coming into sharp focus.
What is different this time is that it is not Europe versus America. It’s the players versus the administrators — and the fight is over whether the contest should take place at all in late September at Whistling Straits.
At the heart of the matter is whether a meaningful Ryder Cup can take place without fans.
The administrators want to see what the game looks like without spectators when the PGA Tour resumes in the middle of next month and are urging everyone to keep their counsel until then.
The PGA of America, who run the contest when staged in the US, want to keep their options open because they have bills to pay and cottage industries to think about. They tried to keep the ball rolling by wheeling out a couple of vice-captain picks last week.
The PGA Tour — a separate body, running the most powerful circuit in world golf — will not want the Ryder Cup postponed for a year because that would have a knock-on effect for their own Presidents Cup affair in 2021, when a US team takes on the Rest of the World.
On this side of the Atlantic, captain Pádraig Harrington suddenly changed tune and started talking about the Ryder Cup having to take ‘one for the team’.
Paul McGinley, a member of the Ryder Cup committee, heaped praise on a BBC blog by golf correspondent Iain Carter that painted a rosy picture of people still leaping around their living rooms, immersed in every shot, even if the contest is played without fans.
How would the players react to all this subtle coercion? Would they come on board with the move towards reserving judgement?
Last week we had the answer. The two best players on either side dug their heels in.
Brooks Koepka said he mightn’t even bother playing if there were no fans.
Rory McIlroy said it would be unfair to ask players to turn up in such circumstances for a contest in which they would be reluctant participants.
You can see both sides of the argument although, as so often these days, it’s McIlroy who presents the most persuasive case.
After all the momentum built up by a string of compelling Ryder Cups, there would be a real danger of causing lasting damage with a soulless charade.
No doubt the debate will rumble on for another month or so, although this might end up as one of those old-fashioned onesided Ryder Cups.
It’s hard to see how the administrators can win if the players remain resolute that they will not walk alone in Wisconsin.