⭐ AMATEURISM: CLASS, GENDER & ACCESS

How the original definition of “amateur” shaped 130 years of who could — and could not — play women’s golf.

Introduction: The Elegant Ideal With a Hidden Cost

For more than a century, amateurism was held up as golf’s highest virtue — a symbol of purity, honour, and playing for the love of the game.

But the amateur ideal was never just a sporting principle.
It was a social code, built in a world where women’s lives were shaped by class, economics, and gender roles that no longer exist today.

Amateurism did more than define what counted as “non-professional.”
It decided:

• who could belong,

• who could compete,

• who could stay,

• and who quietly disappeared.

This page explores how the amateur ideal — admired, sophisticated, well-intended — became the first great structural filter in women’s golf.

⭐ 1. The Birth of the Amateur Ideal (1890s–1920s)

The early rules of amateur golf were created in a world where:

• leisure was a privilege,

• work for pay was associated with lower status,

• women with means had domestic support,

• and “proper” sport was played without financial incentive.

In this setting, a “lady amateur golfer” was assumed to be:

• financially independent,

• socially elevated,

• able to travel mid-week,

• free from the need to earn income,

• and capable of funding her own participation.

Nothing in this model was designed to exclude people — but by reflecting Victorian social norms, it inevitably did.

⭐ 2. Amateur Status Was Built on Economic Assumptions

Remaining an amateur required more than talent.

It required:

• club membership fees,

• travel to national championships,

• accommodation for multi-day events,

• coaching costs,

• equipment purchases (in an era of expensive hand-built clubs),

• suitable attire,

• time to practise,

• freedom from employment or domestic labour.

None of this was reimbursed.
None of it was financially supported.
None of it was optional.

To be an amateur was to be self-funded.

This single requirement created a narrow doorway.

⭐ 3. Class: The First Barrier

Because amateurism assumed:

• leisure,

• money,

• and freedom from work,

…it shaped the demographic of early women’s golf almost entirely.

Who could compete under the amateur ideal?

✔ daughters of professional families
✔ women from landed or well-connected families
✔ women with private means
✔ women educated at schools with sporting culture
✔ women with domestic help
✔ women not expected to earn income
✔ women who could travel without consequence

Who could not?

✘ working women
✘ women from families without financial flexibility
✘ talented girls whose families could not self-fund golf
✘ women who needed to earn wages
✘ women supporting dependents
✘ women with limited leisure time
✘ rural women without transportation access

This was not prejudice.
It was structure.

⭐ 4. Gender: Complicating the Barrier Even Further

For men, turning professional eventually became a viable path:

• club professional roles,

• equipment making,

• instruction,

• exhibitions,

• early tournaments.

For women, the professional alternative simply did not exist.

Becoming a professional meant:

• social stigma,

• limited opportunities,

• tiny or nonexistent prize money,

• exclusion from amateur championships,

• and no stable teaching careers until much later.

Women who could not remain amateurs often had no way to remain golfers at all.

Men who were excluded from amateurism could still find a career in golf.
Women could not.

This is a key gender distinction —
and one of amateurism’s most overlooked consequences.

⭐ 5. The Literary Loophole — and Its Collapse

For several decades, women could write about golf without losing amateur status.

Thus:

• Mabel Stringer (1924) could publish Golfing Reminiscences.

• Joyce Wethered (1934) could publish Golfing Memories & Methods.

They were paid because writing was considered “literary work,” not “payment for skill.”

But as the sport commercialised, the boundary narrowed.

In 1937 the LGU followed the R&A in tightening the rules:

Instructional writing counted as “earning from golf skill,”
which meant losing amateur status.

This directly affected Pam Barton, whose book A Stroke a Hole (1937) was instructional.
She was told she could not receive royalties and remain an amateur.

This moment exposes the contradictions of amateurism:

The rules were designed for a world where women did not work —

then punished women who tried to earn income cleanly.

This was not a personal judgement.
It was systemic misalignment.

⭐ 6. The Global Pattern: Amateurism Exported Worldwide

This was not just a UK or LGU issue.

The amateur ideal was adopted across:

• the United States (USGA),

• Canada,

• Australia and New Zealand,

• South Africa,

• Japan,

• Europe,

• and most Commonwealth nations.

Everywhere it went, the same pattern appeared:

Where women had leisure → the amateur game flourished.

Where women had to work → participation collapsed.

Amateurism shaped the geography of women’s golf.

⭐ 7. The Structural Consequence: Lost Talent, Lost Participation

Throughout most of the 20th century, amateurism led to:

• limited socioeconomic diversity,

• small national talent pools,

• low retention of girls after school,

• massive drop-off rates among working women,

• and women who left the sport when life pressures increased.

Golf wasn’t failing.
Women weren’t failing.

The structure wasn’t built for them.

⭐ 8. Why This Matters Today

Although the amateur ideal is less visible now, its legacy lives on in:

• weekday competition structures,

• county and regional pathways,

• selection expectations,

• volunteer-led governance,

• travel and cost barriers,

• tournament scheduling,

• participation patterns by age and class,

• the marginalisation of senior women,

• the disappearance of mid-amateurs,

• and the difficulty working women face accessing pathways.

We still live inside the architecture amateurism created.

⭐ 9. Reframing Amateurism: Not Blame — Context

This is not about questioning the remarkable women who helped build the game.
Nor is it a judgement of governing bodies who inherited these systems.

It is simply a recognition:

**Amateurism was built in a world that no longer exists.

And its legacy still shapes participation, access, and belonging today.**

By understanding this foundational barrier, we can begin to design structures that finally reflect women’s real lives —
not the lives they were expected to have in 1895.