Volume 3, Issue 15, The 119th Edition
By Angel Zobel-Rodriguez
It's summer. Let's say I'm having a backyard party similar to ones I've had every year for several years. I invite all my friends, and tell them I'm serving hamburgers and hot dogs. The men I've invited come back to me and say, "Hey, we don't like hamburgers and hot dogs. We want steak and lobster." They also don't like my taste in CDs, so they want to hire a band that night. I'm a person of modest means, and while I want to make my guests happy, I'm not able to throw a party of that magnitude.
As the host, I do have options.
I could be offended at the very idea and tell the men to hold their own party somewhere else. It's not necessarily the politically correct thing to do when someone just wants to make the party better.
I can say "Look, I invited you to a picnic, I'm hosting the picnic, and you're welcome to come to my picnic, but you can't change the menu." This is more than likely the response you'd get from Dear Abby. And honestly, if we were just talking about a backyard party, this would be my gut instinct.
Or I could let them men bring their own food, determine the music, let the women eat whatever I put out, and by some miracle, still call it MY party. And if I had a single female friend left after doing this, it would be a incredible. Unfortunately, when the BPAA is hosting the party, and the party is called the U.S. Open, what they've decided to do is (to mangle a famous food quote) to "Let them eat hot dogs."
Last week, the PWBA announced that members would not be bowling the U.S. Open due to the inequity in certain aspects of their participation in the tournament. What the PWBA members are really asking is "Where's the BEEF?" The "meat" of their decision not to bowl lies in the fact they will now be competing for slightly more than half of the men's purse, and the women have no ability to buy their own TV time this late in the game.
I can't argue with the PBA. They had the money, and they took over. They had that right because the BPAA let them.
While the PBA has stepped in with open checkbooks and taken over TV rights and increased the prize funds to $350,000 (the BPAA admits the PBA's involvement is to between $450,000 and $500,000). The BPAA then turned around and turned the U.S. Open into a pot luck and suggested that the women have had equal opportunity to do the same. One has to wonder what part of the party the BPAA is paying for exactly, since they originally had offered to host the U.S. Open with guarantees of $187,500 for each the men and the
women, and thanks to the PBA, they don't have to pay anything.
I'm not the BPAA, but if it were my party the solution would be simple:
I would let the men bring the surf and turf and let them hire the band, then use the money I had planned to spend to feed and entertain the guys, and use it to enhance the menu for the women as well. Of course, then I'd still be paying for the party. Since the new PBA has $500,000 to spend on pros and ams alike, then the BPAA could use the money they originally intended to commit to the men's purse and augment the women's event. This truly could have been the party of the century.
Share your opinions on the boycott or voice your support for the PWBA in BowlingFans.com's Message Board Community