Opinion | What we learned from this year's Hong Kong Golf Open
Having a title sponsor back on board helped lift the atmosphere at Fanling but the government made a real meal of it
It's the small things that count, the little issues that prove so revealing. In the firmament of world affairs, and even in the firmament of sporting affairs, the UBS Hong Kong Open is not that big a thing. It's a golf tournament that boasts a long tradition.
However, it's a tradition that came perilously close to disappearing last year because of the lack of a title sponsor and government support.
Even with the Swiss bank back aboard and the government's Mega Events Fund returning after a two-year hiatus, the total purse of US$2 million in prize money is in the lower quarter of the European Tour's 40-plus events, which is kind of ironic because few people think of Hong Kong as being a low-money place. But that's OK because this tournament was never meant to be the most lucrative stop on tour.
There is one group which seems to play by its own rules and that is oblivious and delusional in regards to its place in the food chain. That would be the government of Hong Kong
What it will hopefully continue to be is a nice, medium-sized event featuring a few of the world's top players competing on a classy, old-school golf course in one of the most dynamic cities in the universe. I think we can happily live with that going forward and kudos to all involved this year for making that happen.
Yet despite the humble scope of the event it still served as a perfect microcosm for the way things work both in the world of sport and in Hong Kong. At the top end of the food chain are the star players, and not surprisingly there is a high end and a bottom end. The reality is that more players in the tournament were doing their own laundry than not.
Next is the title sponsor and its own corporate stars, most of them being high net-worth clients enjoying the ample hospitality the host puts on.
Because UBS has close to US$2 trillion in assets under management globally, they are rightfully protective of the brand. Every quote of any employee has to be approved in the corporate culture and at this event it is no different when they are dealing with the lowest end of the food chain, the media.
