A colleague sent me a Golfweek.com link, regarding the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) recent policy that requires a level of English proficiency for its players; a senior writer wrote that the LPGA’s policy “stipulates that international players must pass an oral English evaluation after two years on tour or face suspension.” Yes, suspension. The story started breaking around August 25, with NYTimes.com picking it up a couple of days later. Excerpts of some of the (mainstream) media reaction is here, and some South Korean reaction is here (Hae-Won Kangn’s take is interesting).

Trying to clear up any misinterpretation, LPGA Commissioner Carolyn F. Bivens released this statement on Tuesday of this week, clearly trying to mitigate any backlash or shouts of racism, and appearing to link their English proficiency rule with the future marketability of the LGPA.

I admit that when I first started reading up on all this, my initial reaction was to look at it within a pure marketing/branding context. It was at that point that I came across The Marketing Doctor blog…and he had an interesting reaction indeed:

“This is a great example of an organization missing the marketing forest for the trees. First, to tie excellence in a sport to language ability is provincial, short-sighted and against the very point of sports. Didn’t we just get past the Olympics where we were reminded that somehow we are all united by the universality of the playing field, the track and the swimming pool? Sure, the LPGA is right to think of their target market and their sponsors —mainly North American and English-speaking. But this move will hurt the image of LPGA by making the organization look punitive and small-minded. No one. Not the NBA, MBA or NHL has made this kind of demand of its players — their players have consistently demanded this of themselves anyway. Look at Yao Min and others. They understand or are quickly taught by the marketing reality that they have to acquire some English … What will they do if the best LPGA player to come along in the future is a mute? Let golf talent be the issue.”

(To read the Marketing Doctor’s full post, click here.)

This also reminded me of a John Ridley post I read on “Huffington” a few weeks ago.  I’ve always felt that when “multicultural marketing” is discussed or reported on in the States, they’re really saying “Hispanic”.  In Ridley’s post — “Are Asians the New Invisible Man?” — he comments on a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll that focussed on how “most Americans” feel about racism and minorities, and wonders why the survey respondents didn’t include Asian Americans.  Ridley’s post is here.