federalexpress
Member
Mmmmm.... I guess it could well vary country-wide but most folk I talk to would have golf as, still, a fairly elitist sport with tennis a little less so, I guess, as there are places to play without cost.
I certainly don't think that lobbying by EG would have made an iota of difference to joe-public's perception & could even of worsened it as they'd be seen to wishing to be treated as a special case. Can't help but think that your grudge is rather ill-founded.
I thought we followed the science during lockdown? Isn't that what they said and the public also wanted? So the science said, certainly after lockdown 1, walking outside whether swinging a golf club or not was next to no risk (and with the understanding clubhouses would have to be kept shut if other hospitality venues were). It isn't a case of it being a special case, just basic science. At the time, I was also a keen bridge and table tennis player but those sports are obviously different, as would any contact sport be.
I don't believe the public are mostly so thick or prejudiced that they would have wanted to exclude sports that are safe regardless who they perceive play them. Maybe they are but that is for the politicians to clearly state what the science says the safety situation is and enact policy on that basis alone, not on keeping shouty people quiet. In fact that is unfortunately where the parliamentary debate ended up, a load of sports quite obviously not as risk free as golf hijacking the session trying to special plead. Many activities, some more marginal than golf, became allowed after lockdown 1.
Effective lobbying might not have worked but it was never even tried. If you want to see effective lobbying in action, look at the cycling lobby. It certainly can work...