Age of concern

Something that has been bothering me for a week or two - the subject of age in sport. Following Tom Watson's (aged 59) second place in this year's British Open at Turnberry, I asked in this blog whether golf could be considered as being the purest form of sport because it allows people of all ages to compete on a relatively equal basis. Watson's second place follows Greg Norman's (aged 53) third place at the British Open last year at Royal Birkdale. Problem is, the Royal and Ancient (the R&A) reduced its age limit for entrants to the British Open from 65 to 60 in 2007. This means that players of Watson's ilk can no longer look forward to competing in the British Open....because they are too old. Although the R&A has acknowledged that it needs to look again at the age restriction, one firstly needs to ask: are such age limits legal, certainly under British and EU law? If a 70 year old was good enough to compete in the Open (and, indeed, other golf championships, and in any other sporting competitions), would their exclusion because of an age restriction actually stand up in court? Whatever the legality of age restrictions, they do raise some interesting questions: are they for the benefit of young players (especially at the Open where starting slots are limited)? Are young players the most important focus of sport? Should they be? Or is the exclusion of older players to the detriment of specific tournaments and sport in general? Who should decide, and on what basis? Consider another scenario: in football, when a player retires, it is often accepted that they will become managers and coaches. Should lower age limits therefore be introduced so that younger athletes keep competing, allowing older former athletes a much better chance to find coaching and managerial positions in sport once they have retired?