Caddie's Role: There is an interesting argument developing between the US PGA Tour and some of its foreign members. The tour is not happy some of its overseas members are only playing the minimum required number of events each year, 15 tournaments. There is talk they are going to increase the minimum to 20.

This probably does not seem that drastic to those of you who work up to 50 weeks of the year but to a global golfer, increasing his quota in one country by 30 per cent can have a huge impact on his world schedule. The players that have been named openly in this US Tour suggested stipulation are my boss, Retief Goosen, and his South African compatriot Ernie Els.

The two are the original global golfers, having won on virtually every continent and on every tour. The world, you could say, is their oyster.

There are a lot of advantages for a golfer in playing globally, the most obvious one being the experience gained under varying competitive circumstances and on a diversity of courses.

There is also the financial carrot luring these global golfers to foreign fairways. Often there is a genuine inquisitive attraction about travel, a mild cultural challenge for the travelling pro. The monocultural experience of playing the US Tour does not come close to satiating the inquisitive mind.

This is something the pampered American pro has rarely got to deal with. As we saw recently at Mount Juliet there were a number of late drop-outs with excuses but hardly feasible reasons for not making the trip for a $7-million, no-expenses-spared event. All the World events next year apart from the World Cup will be held in America.

The country seems to be closing in upon itself. Hopefully the outcome of the presidential election will ease their siege mentally.

The tour's proposal is just going to add more fuel to this insular thinking. The US Tour is the strongest in the world and it is hard to imagine there could ever be a challenger to this position. What is making it best may also be softening its members against the challenge of the global game. The lack of home winners on the US tour this year, the decisive defeat in the Ryder Cup, the miserable showing in the World Matchplay, for those exempt American golfers who bothered to show up at all, signify a lack of international competitiveness.

Some may suggest the US Tour should insist their players ply their trade worldwide in order to become more internationally competitive. Players like Corey Pavin and the late Payne Stewart, both US Open winners, played in Asia and Europe before they went on to become full US Tour card holders and US Open champions.

It is more than coincidental their global experience had led them to a victory in their national championship. The tour should think very carefully before they enforce this rule.

There is a further issue at stake here. The sponsors of many events in the US have got global markets. Of course they are happy to advertise their wares in the hugely lucrative US market, but they are also interested in global exposure. Would Mercedes and SAP be happy their main man Ernie is limited to their US markets?

Another problem arises for the other tours around the world. Despite lagging well behind the US Tour they still survive and do so often on the back of some co-sanctioned events where the likes of Retief and Ernie show up to bolster their otherwise modest fields. Does the US Tour want to stifle the already flagging secondary world tours?

At the rate the Americans are going they could argue the British Open should be played in the US because the majority of the contestants play on the US Tour. Already there is a loaded qualifying system whereby those US players not exempt for the Open can take part in qualifying without leaving the country.

A curious case of double standards looms in the proposals. The US's star player, Tiger Woods, used to play globally for huge fees. This year he did not reach the suggested quota of 20 events for next year. I am sure they have considered the implications of upsetting Woods and he does indeed intend playing 20 events next year in the States.

The US tour has admirably opened its doors to the world's best golfers who didn't happen to be born in the States. As soon as Augusta changed its invitation policy the foreigners started to win more than their fair share of green jackets. Some might say they are xenophobic in their suggested plan to make it more difficult for the global player.

Perhaps they are hoping the non-American world beaters will go away and leave them alone like they were before they truly opened up to foreigners in the 1980s. The debate has just begun. Let's see how highly the US Tour values its popular global golfers.