Lynch: Rory McIlroy vs. the media is one battle in a bigger war, and no one is winning

USA Today

11 hours ago

Lynch: Rory McIlroy vs. the media is one battle in a bigger war, and no one is winning
OAKMONT, Pa. — For people whose concerns extend beyond existential issues — the quality of food in media centers, the proximity of restrooms to media centers, and WiFi functionality in media centers — the simmering war between Rory McIlroy and golf's press corps must seem a peculiar and petty squabble.
The Masters champion stiff-armed reporters after all four rounds at last month's PGA Championship and for the first two rounds of this U.S. Open. The reasons at Quail Hollow were varied —Thursday he was pissed after a poor finish to his round; Friday he wanted to see his daughter before she went to bed; at the weekend he was irked by coverage of his driver having been deemed nonconforming during routine testing, a fact that is supposed to be confidential. McIlroy's was the only name reported, despite Scottie Scheffler's driver also having been among those failed. A mundane occurrence that happens every week was treated as breaking news and duly weaponized by bad faith bullshitters determined to present it all as extraordinary and suspicious. Whether McIlroy cares to distinguish between the bullshitters and those he sees regularly on Tour is a question no media member seems eager to pose, perhaps knowing there is at least some overlap in that pen diagram.
But it's not as though McIlroy has been in the witness protection program. He had pre-tournament press conferences at last week's RBC Canadian Open and earlier this week at Oakmont, and will do so again at the Travelers Championship next week. He's doing what he feels is appropriate, but not what the media thinks is appropriate. That chasm is unlikely to be bridged anytime soon.
The media has few advocates these days, a combination of the cancerous malevolents eager to undermine any source of information that contradicts their conspiracy theories, and the verifiably lousy performance and dumbing-down of so much in the industry. But golf media isn't oversubscribed with wannabe Woodwards and Bernsteins, and players have no justification for acting like they're dealing with pit bulls when the reality is closer to golden retrievers eager to please their masters.
This standoff is practical in one sense (reporters want answers to inform their work) and philosophical in another (weighing privileges or rights on one side, obligations versus responsibilities on the other).
There are media members who believe they have a right to hear from golfers post-round and some who consider it a privilege earned by their conduct or coverage. It's neither. It's a grace and favor routine established over generations, and certainly not a privilege since those can be withdrawn at will or extended only to the sycophantic. It's really an opportunity to be grasped when available and worked around when it isn't.
McIlroy is entitled to dismiss requests for his time, and the generous accessibility he has granted over the years makes for predictable griping when the door is inexplicably slammed shut. Whether he should limit media is a separate argument, and a reckoning looms for the PGA Tour between players' mandated obligations and their optional responsibilities.
McIlroy took questions after his third round Saturday and was asked if he feels he's earned the right to step back from the microphone after several years as a de facto spokesman for the Tour in the LIV war. His answer was much broader than the question: 'I feel like I've earned the right to do whatever I want to do, yeah.'
Actually, he's always had that right. Tour players aren't required to accommodate media requests and plenty have rejected reporters more frequently and disdainfully than he, as anyone who covered Vijay Singh can testify. When Collin Morikawa was criticized for skipping press after a tough loss at the Arnold Palmer Invitational in March — 'I don't owe anyone anything' — McIlroy defended him, noting that press availability isn't mandated by Ponte Vedra.
Today he was asked if he's daring the Tour to make it compulsory, which is about as likely as a member of the press hoisting the trophy at Oakmont on Sunday night. 'I'm not daring them to do anything,' he said. 'I hope they don't change it because it would, you know -- this is, it's a nice luxury to have. But I'm just pointing out the fact that we have the ability to do it.'
So there is no obligation for McIlroy to speak, but is there a responsibility? And to whom? Because this isn't really a row about whether players owe media anything — they don't — but whether they owe something to the consumers of their product.
The Tour and its investors believe that players became co-owners of the business after they were granted equity last year. Sponsors pay handsomely because fans are willing to invest time and attention, and that audience is entitled to the final chapter of the weekly serial, and not to be left hanging because someone is pissed at choking away a lead or rushing to catch a flight. The media is the conduit to those consumers, whether players connect the dots or not. Sure, they can post to their own social channels, but the vast majority of fans don't engage with those platforms because they know most of it is sanitized spon-con thanking whatever corporate 'family' has bunged them a few bucks.
Professional golfers are not paid for their wit or charm, and only partially for their performance. The compensation of athletes correlates with their value to the league and impact on the business. Marketing is a key component of that. In January, Justin Thomas sent a memo to his fellow players encouraging greater media co-operation to better sell their shared product. For all but the last few weeks of his lengthy career, McIlroy has been a leader in that effort, admirably so since requests for his time far outnumber those for his peers. So this is not simply a Rory McIlroy issue. But at some juncture, those who administer men's professional golf need to decide whether they're in the 'we' business or the 'me' business, because right now the expectations of their consumers and the compliance of their players are not at all aligned.