In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 99-2580

FORD OLINGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.

No. 3:98-CV-252-RM--Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge.

Argued February 7, 2000--Decided March 7, 2000

 Before KANNE, ROVNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

 EVANS, Circuit Judge. This case presents a clash

between big-time sports and the Americans With

Disabilities Act (ADA). It pits the venerable

United States Golf Association (USGA) against a

professional golfer who wants to compete in

America’s greatest--and most democratic--golf

tournament, the United States Open.

 Ford Olinger is a highly skilled golfer who,

since 1988, has held a "professional" title by

virtue of a certification he received from the

Professional Golfers Association (the PGA). But

Olinger suffers from bilateral avascular

necrosis, a degenerative condition that

significantly impairs his ability to walk.

Everyone agrees he is a "disabled" person within

the meaning of the ADA. Because of his

disability, Olinger wants to be allowed to ride

in a golf cart as he competes to qualify for the

Open. The USGA balks at this request, arguing

that the ADA does not apply to its tournament and

that, even if it did, the use of a cart by a

player would "fundamentally alter the nature" of

the tournament. The district court, on the latter

argument, granted summary judgment for the USGA.

Today we resolve Olinger’s appeal from that

decision.

 The USGA is a private, not-for-profit

association of member golf clubs and golf
courses, chartered for the purpose of promoting

and conserving the best interests and the true

spirit of the game of golf. The USGA claims no

legal power with respect to the game beyond its

own championships which it conducts each year in

13 designated categories, such as the U.S.

Women’s Open, U.S. Senior Open, and U.S. Amateur.

Nevertheless, the USGA is regarded as the

governing body of golf in the United States by

the common and voluntary consent of the golf

community, including individual golf enthusiasts

everywhere. The USGA is concerned with all

aspects of golf, especially preserving the

integrity of the game and the conditions under

which it is played. The official "Rules of Golf"

by the USGA (and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club

of St. Andrews, Scotland) is a staple in the bag

of all true golfers.

 The United States Open is the men’s national

championship of golf in America. It has been

conducted yearly since 1895, with the exception

of the war years 1917-18 and 1942-45. It is

played at a different premier golf course in June

of every year./1 The 100th United States Open

golf championship will be contested this year at

the historic Pebble Beach course in California.

 Past winners of the U.S. Open include legends

in the game: Bobby Jones (1923, 1926, 1929, and

1930); Gene Sarazen (1922, 1932); Byron Nelson

(1939); Ben Hogan (1948, 1950, 1951, and 1953);

Arnold Palmer (1960); Jack Nicklaus (1962, 1967,

1972, and 1980); Gary Player (1965), Hale Irwin

(1974, 1979, and 1990); Tom Watson (1982); and

Lee Trevino (1968, 1971)./2

 The U.S. Open is treated with respect by great

players of the game. As John Feinstein reports in

his recent work "The Majors" (Little, Brown and

Company 1999), golfer Payne Stewart’s father

"always insisted" he use the formal "William

Payne Stewart" on his U.S. Open application

because, quoting Payne, "Dad always said this is

the United States Open, your national

championship, you write down your full name."/3

 In a typical year, over 7,000 players submit

applications to play in the U.S. Open. All

professional golfers can play in local qualifying

rounds, along with amateurs who carry at least a

1.4 certified USGA handicap index. Local

qualifying rounds in May reduce the field to

around 750 for the sectional qualifying rounds,

from which close to 100 survivors join about 60

of the world’s best golfers who are exempt, based

on published criteria, from preliminary rounds.

The field for the Open is limited to 156 players.

 The USGA holds its local and sectional
qualifying rounds at different courses every

year. Competition in the qualifying rounds is

keen, often necessitating playoffs to break ties

and establish who will advance to further action.

Competition in the U.S. Open itself is fierce. In

30 of the 99 U.S. Opens played since 1895, 2 or

more competitors were tied at the end of 72 holes

of regulation play, requiring a playoff to

determine the national champion. And that

champion is always the survivor of a brutal

ordeal, as the USGA sets up its championship

course with narrow fairways and rough so high

that even a slightly errant shot puts the player

in jail, where he usually faces at least a bogey

once he gets to a lightning-fast green. In short,

the consensus in the golf world is that the U.S.

Open is the greatest test in golf.

 This test is controlled by the "Rules of Golf"-

-34 separate rules and appendices, totaling 144

pages. In addition, the USGA publishes hundreds

of interpretations of the rules, applying them to

myriad specific facts and circumstances. The USGA

also develops and issues a set of "Local Rules

and Conditions of Competition for USGA

Championships" which apply to all USGA

Championships, as well as a "Notice to

Competitors" for players competing in each USGA

Championship spelling out the local rules that

have been adopted by the USGA Championship

Committee.

 The "Rules of Golf" restricts such things as

the physical properties of clubs and balls, the

number of clubs players may use during a round,

and golfers’ behavior while in play. The rules

are strict, sometimes even odd, as, for example,

the provision that penalizes a player two strokes

if he asks an opponent how far away he thinks the

green is, because information of that sort is

"advice which could influence a stroke."/4

Although the rules do not expressly preclude the

use of golf carts, they empower tournament

competition committees to set conditions for an

event, including whether to prohibit the use of

carts.

 Golf carts started appearing with increasing

regularity on American golf courses in the

1950’s. Today they are everywhere. And they are

encouraged. For one thing, they often speed up

play, and for another, they are great revenue

producers. But since 1955 the entry forms for

every U.S. Open have informed competitors that

"[p]layers shall walk at all times during a

stipulated round." The USGA requires competitors

to walk the course because it believes that their

physical endurance and stamina are important

parts of the competition./5
 Still, the record in this case discloses that

since 1986 the USGA has received 12 requests from

11 different people seeking waivers of the

prohibition against using carts in the U.S. Open.

The USGA does not have an established procedure

for waiving the rule. In fact, only one player

since 1895 has ever ridden in a cart while

playing in the U.S. Open. Every other player, and

there have been tens of thousands, has walked the

Open course from start to finish.

 Which brings us to Casey Martin. By now,

everyone in the golf world and most of the public

at large knows about Mr. Martin. He is, like our

Mr. Olinger, a disabled professional golfer.

Martin sued the PGA Tour (a separate entity

unrelated to the USGA) under the ADA for the

right to play in its tournaments while riding in

a golf cart. Martin won his suit when a federal

magistrate judge in Oregon cleared him to play in

PGA events, ruling that not doing so would

violate the ADA. Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., 994 F.

Supp. 1242 (D. Or. 1998). That decision is on

appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit. And although the Martin

decision was not binding on it, the USGA

voluntarily agreed to abide by the ruling, and so

Martin played and rode his cart in the 1998 U.S.

Open.

 Like Martin, Olinger applied to play in the

1998 Open and asked to use a cart. When the USGA

denied his request, he sued under the ADA 4 days

before local qualifying was scheduled to get

underway in South Bend, Indiana. The district

court gave him a TRO and, armed with his court

order, Olinger played, but not well, failing to

advance to sectional action. Later, after a full

trial, the district court sided with the USGA.

 Congress enacted the ADA to ensure that

individuals with disabilities fully enjoy the

goods, services, privileges, and advantages

available indiscriminately to other members of

the general public. The ADA’s mandate extends to

three broad, yet distinct, areas: employment

(Title I), public services (Title II), and places

of public accommodation (Title III). This case

can only fit, if at all, under Title III.

 Title III of the ADA applies to "place[s] of

public accommodation." Regulations broadly define

"place of public accommodation" as "a facility,

operated by a private entity, whose operations

affect commerce and fall within at least one" of

the categories set forth in 42 U.S.C. sec.

12181(7):

(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of

lodging . . . ;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment

serving food or drink;

(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall,

stadium, or other place of exhibition or

entertainment;

(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture

hall, or other place of public gathering;

(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store,

hardware store, shopping center, or other sales

or rental establishment;

(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop,

beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service,

funeral parlor, gas station, office of an

accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office,

professional office of a health care provider,

hospital, or other service establishment;

(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for

specified public transportation;

(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of

public display or collection;

(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of

recreation;

(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary,

undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or

other place of education;

(K) a day care center, senior citizen center,

homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or

other social service center establishment; and

(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf

course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

 A "golf course" is mentioned in (L) but, as the

USGA correctly observes, an entity may

simultaneously be both a place of public

accommodation and a place that is not fully

subject to Title III--in other words, a "mixed

use" facility. Pursuant to Justice Department

regulations implementing Title III, to the extent

that a mixed use facility "is not open to the

general public," it "is not subject to the

requirements for public accommodations." 28

C.F.R. ch. 1, pt. 36, App. B, at 624. It is this

interpretation that the USGA banks on as its

reason for claiming that the ADA does not apply

to its tournament.

 In a nutshell, the USGA argues that the courses

where the U.S. Open is played are "mixed use"

facilities subject to Title III regulations

"outside the ropes" where the general public has
unfettered access to the course but not "inside

the ropes," where the actual championship

competition is conducted and access is tightly

restricted. The USGA concedes that a golf course

is listed as one of the examples of a place of

public accommodation under the ADA (42 U.S.C.

sec. 12181(7)(L)). But the USGA says it is only

properly classified as such when it is used for

"exercise or recreation," and the U.S. Open is

not conducted for those purposes: It is held to

identify America’s national golf champion.

 Following this thinking, places like Green Bay’s

Lambeau Field and Chicago’s Wrigley Field would

be "mixed use" facilities. Although they would be

subject to the ADA in general, their actual

fields of strife--where Packers battle Bears and

Cubs play Cardinals--would not be places of

public accommodation under the ADA.

 While there may be some logic to this

contention, we hesitate to embrace it for we can

resolve this appeal, as did the district court,

on a more narrow ground. Even assuming that the

competitive part of the golf course on which the

U.S. Open is played is a place of public

accommodation covered by the ADA, Mr. Olinger

cannot prevail because we believe his use of a

cart during the tournament would fundamentally

alter the nature of the competition.

 Olinger’s contention on appeal is that "the

USGA failed to present proof--responsive to the

disabled golfer’s personal circumstances as they

interacted with the USGA’s event--that in fact

allowing a cart would fundamentally alter the

event." According to Olinger, trial testimony did

not support the district court’s conclusion

because it "did not bear on Mr. Olinger at all."

In addition, Olinger contends that the USGA

"presented no proof" that allowing him to use a

cart "would impose impossible administrative

burdens."

 Under Title III of the ADA, an owner, operator,

lessee, or lessor of public accommodations must

"make reasonable modifications in policies,

practices, or procedures, when such modifications

are necessary to afford such goods, services,

[or] facilities . . . to individuals with

disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate

that making such modifications would

fundamentally alter the nature of such goods,

services, . . . or accommodations[.]" 42 U.S.C.

sec. 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasis added).

 The "fundamentally alter" concept originated

under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. sec. 701

et seq., in Southeastern Community College v.

Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979). In Davis, a deaf
nursing student who was unable to complete the

required clinical work in her program requested

that the school permit her to substitute

different work. The Supreme Court held that the

requested accommodation was unreasonable because

the Rehabilitation Act was not intended to

accommodate an individual who cannot "meet all of

a program’s requirements in spite of [a]

handicap." 442 U.S. at 406. The Court explained

that to lower or to effect substantial

modifications of standards to accommodate a

handicapped person is not a reasonable

modification. "Such a fundamental alteration in

the nature of a program is far more than the

’modification’ the regulation requires." Id. at

410.

 In light of Davis, courts have repeatedly held

that the ADA does not require entities to change

their basic nature, character, or purpose insofar

as that purpose is rational, rather than a

pretext for discrimination. See, e.g., Sandison

v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 64 F.3d

1026, 1035 (6th Cir. 1995) (rejecting disabled

students’ challenge to an athletic age

requirement); Pottgen v. Missouri State High Sch.

Activities Ass’n, 40 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 1994)

(finding that waiving an essential eligibility

standard would fundamentally alter the nature of

a youth baseball program). In addition, under

both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA,/6

courts consistently have concluded that an

accommodation is not reasonable if it imposes an

undue financial and administrative burden. See

School Bd. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 287 n.17

(1987) (Rehabilitation Act), and Sandison, 64

F.3d at 1035 (ADA case) ("It is plainly an undue

burden to require high school coaches and hired

physicians to determine whether [various] factors

render a student’s age an unfair competitive

advantage. . . . It is unreasonable to call upon

coaches and physicians to make these nearimpossible determinations.").

 The district court concluded that "the nature

of the competition would be fundamentally

altered" if the walking rule were eliminated

because it would "remove stamina (at least, a

particular type of stamina) from the set of

qualities designed to be tested in this

competition." As a result, "[c]onditions that now

affect a golfer’s performance, but which lie

beyond the golfer’s ability to control--the

fatigue born of hills, of heat, of humidity--

would lessen in importance to the competition."

Finally, in summarizing its ruling in favor of

the USGA, the district court returned to the

"nature of the ’program’ to which Mr. Olinger

seeks access: the U.S. Open" and concluded,
[t]he point of an athletic competition . . . is

to decide who, under conditions that are about

the same for everyone, can perform an assigned

set of tasks better than (not as well as) any

other competitor. The set of tasks assigned to

the competitor in the U.S. Open includes not

merely striking a golf ball with precision, but

doing so under greater than usual mental and

physical stress. The accommodation Mr. Olinger

seeks, while reasonable in a general sense, would

alter the fundamental nature of that competition.

 These findings are amply supported in the

record. For example, Ken Venturi, the winner of

the 1964 U.S. Open, testified that physical and

mental fatigue and a uniform set of rules for all

golfers are integral parts of championship-level

golf. Olinger’s own expert witness, Dennis

Hepler, likewise testified that physical

endurance and stamina and uniform rules are

critical factors in determining the winner of a

championship-level golf competition. Dr. Theodore

Holland also testified that physical endurance

and stamina are important criteria in determining

the national golf champion. As he put it,

"[t]here is a lot more to getting . . . around

those 72 holes than just hitting the shots."

 We find the testimony of Ken Venturi to be

particularly persuasive. During his storied

career as a PGA professional he competed in 15

Masters tournaments. For the last 31 years he has

been the golf analyst for CBS Sports. His

testimony regarding the 1964 U.S. Open, by

itself, supports the golf community’s insistence

that all players play all tournaments under the

same conditions and rules.

 Back in 1964 the U.S. Open was played over 3

days, with 18 holes played on Thursday and Friday

and the final 36 holes on Saturday. The

temperature hovered near 100 degrees in 1964, and

the humidity was at 97 percent. Venturi, like all

other competitors, walked the morning round and

fired a 66. (When asked his score during the

trial, Venturi replied "a 66" but, like all

golfers, he could not leave it at that, for he

added "with two small misputts. I 3-putted from

12 feet at 17 and missed a 3-footer at 18.")

Venturi said he rested for about a half an hour

before going out against the advice of his doctor

to play the afternoon 18. In the stifling heat

and humidity, battling dehydration, Venturi

walked the course and, on the verge of collapse,

won the tournament. In that tournament everybody

played under the same grueling conditions.

Venturi explained, "That’s the beauty of it." If

another competitor would have been riding in a

cart, there would have been a "tremendous

advantage to the other player," Venturi said.
 Finally, Venturi recalled the amazing story of

Ben Hogan. Hogan was severely injured in 1949

when his car collided with a Greyhound bus. He

was told he would never walk again, let alone

play golf. Yet the next year, he walked and won

the U.S. Open. During the trial, Venturi was

asked if there was any accommodation made to

Hogan as a result of his accident. Venturi

replied, "They never thought about it. They never

thought about carts. And knowing Ben Hogan as

well as I have, he wouldn’t take one." Olinger’s

situation, of course, is more dire than was

Hogan’s in 1950, and we don’t mean to suggest

that Olinger is any less of a competitor than the

great Hall of Famer. We offer Venturi’s statement

for one reason: it emphasizes the importance and

tradition of walking in championship-level

tournament golf competition.

 The district court also offered a second

rationale for ruling in favor of the USGA, the

administrative burdens of evaluating requests to

waive the walking rule and permit the use of a

golf cart. As the court explained, the USGA

"would need to develop a system and a fund of

expertise to determine whether a given applicant

truly needs, or merely wants, or could use but

does not need, to ride a cart to compete." The

district court thought that this should be

unnecessary. We agree.

 The focus of our opinion has been on one

question: Must the USGA allow Ford Olinger to

compete while riding in a golf cart instead of

walking? The answer is "no." The question we have

not addressed is whether the USGA should give

seriously disabled, but otherwise well-qualified,

golfers a chance to compete. Compared to most

people who play golf, Olinger’s skill level is

beyond comprehension. And without question, most

players would prefer to walk while playing

competitive, championship-caliber golf. Surely a

player like Olinger would gladly trade in his

cart if he could walk a golf course without pain.

But the decision on whether the rules of the game

should be adjusted to accommodate him is best

left to those who hold the future of golf in

trust. Because the law does not force the USGA to

make the accommodation Olinger seeks, the

judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

/1 Its venues are true meccas of tournament golf,

places like Winged Foot (Mamaroneck, New York);

Medinah (Medinah, Illinois); Shinnecock Hills

(Southampton, New York); Merion (Ardmore,

Pennsylvania); and Congressional (Bethesda,
Maryland).

/2 Others, of course, could be added to this list.

Willie Anderson, for example, a Scotsman who

emigrated to the United States just before the

turn of the century, was the first four-time U.S.

Open winner (1901, 1903, 1904, and 1905), a feat

equaled only by Jones, Hogan, and Nicklaus.

Anderson is also the only player to win the Open

three years in a row, and he had several other

close calls as well. He finished second in 1897

when Joe Lloyd, one of the long drivers of the

time, eagled 18--the only Open to be won by an

eagle on the final hole. He also finished third,

fourth twice, and fifth three times. And he set

scoring records, including the first-ever 72

score (par) for a round at the Open in 1901. In

addition to Anderson, the list could include

double Open champions like Walter Hagen, Ralph

Guldahl, Julius Boros, Billy Casper, Andy North,

Curtis Strange, and Dr. Cary Middlecoff.

/3 Stewart won the U.S. Open in 1991 (at Hazeltine

National in Minneapolis) and again last year in

a memorable finish at Pinehurst in North

Carolina. He will not, of course, defend his

championship this June as he died, tragically, in

a mysterious plane crash last fall in South

Dakota.

/4 Rule 8, USGA "Rules of Golf," 1999-2000.

/5 The prohibition against using golf carts is in

effect for all but 2 of the 13 national

championships that the USGA conducts. The USGA

has permitted competitors to use carts in the

Senior Amateur and the Senior Women’s Amateur.

These events are played in the fall, when school

is in session, and there are few caddies

available to carry players’ bags. Especially

because of the age of the competitors, requiring

some competitors to carry their own bags while

others have caddies would give an advantage to

those with caddies. Thus, the USGA has ensured a

"level playing field" for all by allowing the use

of golf carts in those two championships.

Approximately 75 percent of the players in the

Senior Amateur and the Senior Women’s Amateur use

carts.

/6 Because the ADA is patterned in large measure on

the Rehabilitation Act, decisions interpreting

the Rehabilitation Act and its implementing

regulations provide useful guidance as to "the

meaning of the same terms in the new law." Vande

Zande v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Admin., 44 F.3d 538,

542 (7th Cir. 1995).