Arnold Palmer's Grandson and the Great Nepotism Debate

There is something to be said for the contribution that Arnold Palmer has made to the game of golf. The son of a grounds keeper, Arnold Palmer climbed his way from the very bottom, with his simple charm and considerable talent, to become the King.

Yet today, Arnold Palmer is stepping over a bunch of common folk, to use his considerable influence and his place among golf's royalty to help blaze an easy trail for his grandson, Sam Saunders. Sam has been granted a number of sponsors' exemptions this season, arguably for no other reason than his grandfather's name. In so doing, he has leapfrogged over many young golfers, who are playing the Nationwide Tour and who do not enjoy such privilege. Several of those youngsters have proven themselves to be worthy of a spot on tour, but don't have the influencial Arnold Palmer in their corner.

Nobody should have to tell Arnold Palmer that the breaks don't come easilly in professional golf. While he was a great player and has always been a wonderful ambassador for the game, I wonder if he has struggled with the ethics of the situation. Has anyone even dared ask him why Sam Saunders deserves to skip over so much of golf's proving ground?

This is not to say that Sam Saunders is not a good golfer. His record suggests that he still has much to learn, but there have been signs to suggest that he has the potential to become a good golfer down the road. That's not really the point. Whether Palmer knows it or even cares, some are deeply offended that he would so shamelessly disregard the struggles of other young golfers, and stand by while his grandson blatantly jumps the queue. Out of respect for Palmer, few would dare bring it up.

In fact, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it myself, if not for public comments made by Palmer. During an XM/Sirius Radio interview, Palmer actually went out of his way to suggest that Saunders was blazing his own trail and doing things his way. As far as I am concerned, that is a slap in the face - as if the average golf fan was not intelligent enough to understand that Sam Saunders is enjoying a VERY special and unique advantage, one that is not bestowed on many.

You see, when Sam Saunders is granted one of his numerous sponsor's exemption, such as to Pebble Beach, Phoenix, Bay Hill, etc., he doesn't only skip over all the amatueurs and Nationwide players who are ahead of him, but he also takes a very valuable spot away from a veteran who is without a card. Names that quickly come to mind include fan favorites John Daly and Chris DiMarco. I will argue that both have done a great deal for the Tour and for the many sponsors and charities on Tour, where Sam Saunders has not. Shouldn't that matter?

Then there's the issue of what fans want to see. When is it wrong to deny the fans the chance to see their favorite veteran players, in order to make room for a relative? In what other sport do you see that? At a time when the tour is suffering through the Tiger Woods drama, the John Daly comeback story is compelling and has been a source of tremendous interest. Case in point, Sam Saunders has bumped Daly out of three events already this year. How can that be good for golf?

Until now, I had always looked at golf as a sort of last bastion of meritocracies in sports. The fact that players have to compete for purses, instead of earning a salary. When we start filling the spots with relatives, what the Hell happens to the field? That something like that is coming from Arnold Palmer makes it even more shameful.