Biting the Hand that Feeds You

I have some bad news J-Bors. In an effort to promote gender equality within the Jborhood, I had planned to bring you in depth coverage of the Fields Open from Hawaii, however, I was denied entrance to the event after I refused to sign a waiver which would have given the LPGA ownership of any photographs or writing I created while covering the event. I would have still been able to bring you yet another clever and intriguing look into a new area of sports, but after I had written my expose, I would have had to acquire written permission from the LPGA in order to republish or reuse my material for any other purpose. I guess I’ll have to direct my attention to another less exciting sport like Baseball, Basketball, or (*yawn*) Football.

I’m sorry, WHAT??!?!?!??

I would like to know, at exactly what point the LPGA thought it could impose these types of ludicrous restrictions on the media? Did they think that the majority of the American public would rise up in fury and refuse to buy any newspapers that didn’t cover the first round of the Fields Open? (“What’s that honey? No Fields Open coverage? Get the New York Times on the phone because I’m cancelling my subscription NOW!”.) I could understand this type of action from the NFL around the Super Bowl, but comparing the Super Bowl to the Fields Open is like comparing the London performance of the Phantom of the Opera with Michael Crawford to a kindergarten Christmas pageant. The LPGA is a bottom feeder sport that ranks on the average American’s sports interest level somewhere between Extreme Tiddlywinks and the WNBA (I swear that I just heard Nelly in the background say “Oohh!!”). The bottom line is that they simply do not have the bargaining power to enact this type of totalitarian control over the media coverage of their events. It would be like Motel 6 saying that you had to sign a contract that you would make the bed after you left in the morning or risk paying a $50 fine. Every month. Forever. In the words of G.O.B Bluth, “Come ON!”.

What I truly do not understand in this whole debaucle is why the LPGA tried to do this in the first place. For the first time in, well, ever, the LPGA has a little bit of what – in the right light – might be construed as momentum. They have a number of budding young stars, a dynamite player in Annika Sorenstam, and Michelle Wie, the female equivalent of Tiger Woods. The LPGA should be doing everything in their power to market themselves and establish an excellent and open working relationship with the press. The more exposure they get, the more new fans they gain, and in turn, voila, the more money they make. If anything, the LPGA should be bending over backward to make the media comfortable, happy, and excited. Why squabble over a few thousand dollars worth of photo royalties when it is front page headlines and Sportscenter highlights that make the real money? I should be writing about the Morgan Pressel and Michelle Wie feud instead of the foolish antics of the LPGA. The mere fact that I just had to Google LPGA, Morgan to learn that the last name of the second most exciting young female golfer is spelled with two S’s and no T is proof that the LPGA doesn’t market itself well enough. In fact, I am so confident that the LPGA has a complete lack of media presence that if one of my readers can name me a female golfer not named, Annika, Michelle, or Morgan without any additional research I will write an entire article on the topic of their choosing. Is it bad that I don’t think I’m going to lose this bet?

On a serious note, I do think that this is a very compelling issue and its resolution could set the precedent for some very serious and interesting legal work. The main issue at stake is whether or not the LPGA can rightfully claim ownership over photographic and journalistic work done while covering their event. There is currently no legislation concerning this type of claim, and a settlement on this issue may set the stage for a fierce legal battle between sports leagues and the general public based around the idea of ownership; namely, do leagues own the rights to items, facts, and information about their leagues? The LPGA battle is very similar to a legal battle between Major League Baseball and a number of fantasy sites over the rights to MLB statistics. MLB is claiming that they own the rights to their statistics – facts which are technically in the public domain – and that if anyone wants to use their stats to generate revenue, in this case through fantasy baseball, then they have to pay MLB royalties for the rights to use the statistics. MLB is claiming that they own these facts, but in actuality, anyone could obtian these numbers simply by watching games and recording the events. Their claim is that any unsanctioned use should be considered theft of intellectual property. In my opinion this notion absurd, but at this point, the outcome is unknown. However the outcome turns out this could have a significant impact on the future of sports in America and potentially cause a rift between sports leagues and its devoted followers: the media and fans.

The old saying says, don’t bite the hand that feeds you and hopefully these leagues will realize who’s feeding them before it’s too late.

Don’t tempt me. I just might start watching Lacrosse.