At a press conference for the upcoming Lexus Cup (an international team v asian team event), Annika Sorenstam said it’s unlikely the Men’s and Women’s Opens will offer equal prize money anytime soon.

The prize for the 2005 USGA’s Men’s Open was $6.25 million, while the Women’s Open was just over $3 million.

Tennis, on the other hand, does offer roughly equal prizes at the US and Australian Opens. The US Open, for example, offers a $1.1 million payout to both the male and female winners.

Annika’s statement got me to wondering about how the USGA gets away it. The USGA certainly a public organization, and subject to US anti-discrimination laws.

I’m not clear as to the USGA’s tax status. It’s listed on the IRS site as a charitable organization, but there is no associated tax code. But if does receive tax breaks—either from the US government, or from the state of New Jersey, where it’s headquarters is—then it is absolutely subject to laws against discrimination.

I’m sure I smell a civil rights lawsuit in the making. Perhaps a lawyer out there can clarify this for me.

Now, I’m not a radical feminist—far from it. (I’m a card carrying member of the Conservative Movement.) And I’m not a big fan of lawsuits. So perhaps the best plan would be for the members of the USGA to put pressure on the board. I don’t know what percentage of the USGA’s membership is female, but if you include them, plus every man who has a golf playing wife or daughter, it’s probably a big number.

So in the interest of kicking off a campaign, I’m calling on the USGA to work (if I may borrow a phrase) with all deliberate speed to equalize the payments. Certainly not next year, or even the next after that, but they ought to show some progress.

I just finished watchign the US Women’s Open (TIVO is a wonderful thing), and it could not have come to a more exciting finish: Birdie Kim birdied 18 from a bunker to beat teenage amateurs Brittany Lang and Moran Pressel by 2 shots. Natalie Gulbis finished three back.

Heralded Michelle Wie shot +11 to finish tied for 23rd.

Missing her chance for a Sorenslam, Annika finished tied with Wie.

You could see the future of women’s golf here: Along with amateurs Pressel and Lang, 19-year-old Paula Creamer finished tied for 19. Wie had a bad day, but no doubt will be a major star when she turns pro.

It was an enjoyable match to watch, but I think there still are some deficiencies in the women’s game that have to ba addressed. And distance is not one of them.

The thing that the PGA guys seem to do so much better has to do with the short game. There were just far too many wedge shots left short; offline chips and poor putts. If I were an agent for one of these young LPGA stars, I’d insist that they spend six weeks every year with one of the top short game coaches.

The Denver Post has an article on the course conditions at Cherry Hill at the US Women’s Open.

There won’t be a grand slam in men’s golf again this year. But in the women’s game, Annika Sorenstam can win the third leg of the slam ths week at the US Women’s Open.

Sorenstam right now is having a better year than Tiger ever had, having won six of eight starts. Heck, that’s moving into Byron Nelson territory.

Unlike many others, I don’t view the women’s golf game as an inferior product—just different. Its like NASCAR vs Formula One—ok. bad example. At least NASCAR can get more than six cars going in any particular race.

But back to my point. Women’s golf is just as good—but in a different way. The same is true of women’s basketball. Or of any women’s sports.

I’ll be watching this weekend.

Peter McCleery has a review of NBC’s coverage of the US Open. He says that there was way too much punditry.

I agree. I thought that it was a bit like coverage of the last election where the big media was sure that the “brilliant” John Kerry was going to defeat the “moron” George Bush. On Saturday night, NBC had all but given Goosen the trophy.

So much for pundits.

Not since Gil Morgan in 1992 has there been a final day collapse of the type experienced by Retief Goosen (+11) and Jason Gore (+14). It was ugly to watch.

It was Goosen’s Open to lose, and he did. The growing legend of the unflappable South African has been shattered.

But that’s not to take anything away from New Zealand’s Michael Campbell, who shot one of just four rounds under par for the day. Campbell, if you will remember, was once considered one of the top up-and-coming players when he just missed out on a playoff at the 1995 British Open.

His career has been less than spectacular since then (he has won six times on the European Tour, but this was his first US victory), but at 36, he is still young enough to make a go of it.

Aside from the Goosen collapse, I think that the most interesting thing about the day was that Tiger finished second. Why is that interesting?

Its only his second, second place finish.

Consider this: While Jack Nicklaus won 18 majors, he also finished second 19 times. Tiger has nine majors and just two second place finishes.

In my mind, even if Tiger wins 19 or more majors, he won’t be considreed Jack’s equal until he also matches those seconds.

It sounds petty, but all of those seconds show that Jack was grinding it out and staying in contention. My perception (wrong or right) of Tiger has been that if he’s not in the lead, he’s not contending.

So I really enjoyed hte way he fought from the pack to get himself into second. That shows real character.

Anyhow, here are the top ten finishers at the US Open:

Jason Gore is curently tied for second at the US Open, and he’s playing with Retief Goosen in the final pairing tomorrow.

But who is he? USA Today has the answer.