Tiger down under
With news choppers circling overhead, a scrum of reporters waiting down below and a barrage of puns waiting to be unleashed, Tiger Woods flew into Melbourne on Monday, where he will take part in the Australian Masters golf tournament, attend a gala dinner, play in a charity event for victims of the bushfires, promote Victoria as a golfing destination and pocket a personal appearance fee of A$4m ($3.7m ;£2.2m) for his trouble - more than 10 times the prize money for winning the tournament.
His first visit to Australia in 11 years has the feel of a presidential and royal visit all rolled into one. But then, Tiger has the star power of Barack Obama (I think that a strong case could be made that Tiger helped pave the way for Barack by dominating, and thus winning widespread acceptance in what was long regarded in the US as a whites-mainly sport). He is the undisputed king of golf and, arguably, of world sport.
Awaiting him in Melbourne are an array of tiger treats. A suite at a posh hotel in the central business district which has played home in recent times to Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Tickets to the hottest show in Melbourne - Jersey Boys. And the prospect of playing without the jarring staccato of hundreds of clicking cameras. The course has banned spectators from carrying them.
I happen to be in Melbourne covering another story and the front page of the city's tabloid, The Herald Sun, pretty much sums things up: TIGERMANIA.
Admittedly, there are numerous ways to spin this story. Should taxpayers' money be spent on Tiger's appearance fee? Seems like a worthwhile investment, seeing as the four days of the tournament are already a sell-out and that it reaffirms Melbourne's position as the sporting capital of the southern hemisphere, if not the world. State Premier John Brumby, who lobbied Tiger personally, claims his visit will be worth $19m for the state's economy. A figure plucked out of the air, perhaps? But it sounds plausible.
You could view it through the prism of civic rivalries. Sydney tried hard to lure Tiger, but he went with Melbourne instead - a familiar story since the 2000 Olympics, where the Victorian capital has outstripped its long-standing rival.
But I'm going to go with what I reckon is a legacy of the old "tyranny of distance" syndrome. The way that the country lapses still into "aren't we lucky to have a big celebrity visiting little ol' Australia" mode. As I write, I'm watching a news bulletin which is not only featuring Tiger Woods, but the arrival in Melbourne of Britney Spears.
And it's not just big-name entertainers and sports stars. This year we have already had "Christopher Hitchens week", when ABC handed over large chunks of its output to the visiting British polemicist. That followed "PJ O'Rourke week" earlier in the year, when the American satirist was granted the same airtime. Both are brilliant authors, but they hardly merit the red carpet treatment in a country with writers, public intellectuals and polemicists who can rival them. Early next year, we will no doubt witness Prince William week, as he makes his first visit to Australia since crawling around on a picnic rug in one of the happier photo-ops staged by Prince Charles and the then-Princess Diana (there is still a lively Republican referendum debate: ten years on the thread is still going on, by the way).
During my first Christmas in Australia a couple of years back, I was astonished by the blanket coverage devoted to Paris Hilton, who had jetted in to celebrate the New Year in Sydney. Why wouldn't she? The pyrotechnics are worth the trip alone.
The tyranny of distance used to come with a felony of international neglect. But that is no longer the case. As the world has got smaller, Australia has got bigger. Tiger's arrival down under, and the media-driven mania which has surrounded it, speaks of both.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.