Tiger will play

[Tony_Muldoon]

Most players wish they could get appearance money.  

Yep I do.

[Mike Benham]

Tiger is going over early, to prep for the Ryder Cup by playing links courses ...  

[ForkaB]

Most players wish they could get appearance money.  

Yep I do.

Tony

Make sure you submit your voucher for the Buda Cup.

[Chris Kane]

In addition the argument that the money would be better spent on junior golf by the relevant countries is flawed - his very presence means the tournament makes his appearance fees back at least. I would also imagine that seeing Tiger Woods in the flesh is a great inspiration to junior golfers in these countries.

Not true Ed.  The NZ Open where Tiger played was sold to an independant company, who made a massive loss and went broke.  They also charged $NZ500 for tickets, which meant that junior golfers weren't able to see him in the flesh.

The whole thing was a disaster.  Tiger won't be seen again in New Zealand so long as he insists on appearance fees.  I don't have a problem with him charging them, but I do have a problem with people making him out to be such a good guy when his only reason for playing is the money.

[George Pazin]

FWIW, my recollection of the NZ affair was that Tiger made a rather sizable donation, something close to his appearance fee, to one of the charitys there, maybe junior golf or something. The report implied that his reason for the large fee and then donation was that he could determine who was to receive the benefit, as opposed to simply playing for free and then only the organizing body really reaps the benefits.

I suppose most everything Tiger does is kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." There are lots of positives, lots of negatives, and most importantly, lots that those of us on here speculating are not even remotely privy to.

As to the match play, has anyone looked into the work Ernie was to be overseeing at Wentworth?

[Scott Coan]

Tiger Woods, like all other professional golfers of any merit, is a business.  As a business there is a fee that is charged for his services/appearances.  If the "Tom-Dick-and-Harry" Open want Tiger to play in their event, then there is a going-rate that is charged.  It is that simple.

No business can survive by discounting to every bleeding heart that comes along with a sob story as to why they are so special and needy and deserve a discount.  

[Chris Kane]

Absolutely correct Scott.  But if thats the case, he's not travelling for the good of the game, he's travelling to inflate the size of his wallet - which is perfectly within his rights.

[Scott Coan]

Chris,

At least he's out there playing, as opposed to many others that never venture outside the US.  I don't pretend to know Tiger but I'm pretty certain he has a management team that takes care of these appearance fee situations.  They have a job to do and their job is to maximize their clients worth.  

Tiger will eventully become the world's first billion-dollar athlete as as such does not "need" to be charging any appearance fee at all.  But the fee gets charged (and happily paid by the customer I might add) because that is his going-rate.

So lets give the guy the benefit of the doubt.  He can play around the world for the good of the game and at the same time keep charging his fees.

If he were to waive his fees, how to decide which tourney's should benefit?

[Dan Kelly]

No business can survive by discounting to every bleeding heart that comes along with a sob story as to why they are so special and needy and deserve a discount.  

I wonder if this is true.

If you set your price high enough to start ...

[Voytek Wilczak]

Tiger will eventully become the world's first billion-dollar athlete as as such does not "need" to be charging any appearance fee at all.  

...unless Schumacher beats him to the punch.

[peter_mcknight]

Mr Goodale...

Why must you single out Wayne Rooney's girlfriend/fiance here?  Just for the record, Roo isn't the top earner per week at United--at best, he is the third or fourth highest earner after Rio on 105,000 (best estimate), then Ruud on 90,000 pounds per week.  Roo did receive a great deal of his minimum 20M pound transfer from the toffees to United, but the toffees will lose out on at least a million this season because United didn't make it to the UCL knock out stage for the first time in a decade.

If you don't like Roo or United or both, well, tough on you.  We got the boy wonder and we're going to keep him.

Go bang on Terry and Lampard for fathering children out of wedlock.

Mr Wharton-Palmer:

There really aren't much in the way of appearance fees in professional tennis, but there are tournaments that will offer up free luxury hotels, free meals, rich cars, massages, other sporting tickets, etc. as an inducement to have certain players participate in their tournaments.  Besides, in tennis, the top players will all play in the four grand slam events plus the masters series (9) and the season ending tour championship, for a total of 14 tournaments.  At most, they will choose around an additional 7-9 tournaments (e.g., Stella Artois leading up to Wimbledon) because they are only a week long and are viewed as a tune up for a grand slam event.  If the PGA Tour has realistically shortened its season, I can only imagine the tennis crowd will look to do so likewise in the immediate future.

[ForkaB]

mr. mcknight

I happen to like Wayne Rooney and very much appreciate his footballing skills.  I'm just bemused at a world that allows his 20-year old girfriend to "earn" £5 million/year from the public without any obvious talent other than power-shopping and being a part of Wayne's world.

PS--I don't particularly like Chelsea, but you have to agree that they have a better side than Man U. at the moment.

[Jim Nugent]

Absolutely correct Scott.  But if thats the case, he's not travelling for the good of the game, he's travelling to inflate the size of his wallet - which is perfectly within his rights.

Tiger has been unbelievably good for the game overall.  Golf has exploded in purses and popularity since he hit the scene.  

If his fee gets excessive, sponsors will not pay it.  The fact that they do tells me that most feel they are getting their money's worth.  

[Chris Kane]

Tiger has been unbelievably good for the game overall.  Golf has exploded in purses and popularity since he hit the scene.  

Jim, its an easy conclusion to jump to, but I'm not sure that things are that simple.

The PGA Tour has grown tremendously since Tiger arrived, but the same cannot be said for other tours.  I'm not suggesting that its Tiger's fault, but the Australasian Tour had over a dozen tournaments in 1996, now it has six.

Is golf really more popular?  The ratings figures would seem to suggest that its Tiger who is popular.  The popularity of golf on a week-to-week basis is entirely dependant on whether Tiger is playing.  The purses are much bigger, but its the top 200 players in the world who benefit from this - this growth hasn't filtered down to the other tours.  

Is the gaming growing at a recreational level?  I don't have the stats on hand, but its either stagnant or shrinking at the moment.

I'm not saying Tiger is bad for golf - he's good for golf - but his impact has been to make himself and the rest of his home tour very rich.  Only with time will we know if his impact is more wide-reaching.

[Mark_F]

Scott,

How many times a year does Woods travel outside the USA to benefit the game/his wallet?

Discounting The Open, it would be what?  Twice?  Three times?  

In a 20 or so tournament season.  Wow.

Jim,

I don't see why exploding purses has been good for the game overall.  Are you saying it wasn't good when Trevino, Seve, Nicklaus and Watson were playing for peanuts?

It has made the US players more myopic than ever, which I don't have a problem with, since Fred Couples is the only one worth paying to see.

What it has done has saved the US PGA tour from terminal boredom by ensuring that the really good players in the world - Europeans and Australians - now play more in the USA, as opposed to their home tours, which, as Chris points out, has been detrimental to both.

[Jim Nugent]

I don't see why exploding purses has been good for the game overall.  Are you saying it wasn't good when Trevino, Seve, Nicklaus and Watson were playing for peanuts?

It has made the US players more myopic than ever, which I don't have a problem with, since Fred Couples is the only one worth paying to see.

What it has done has saved the US PGA tour from terminal boredom by ensuring that the really good players in the world - Europeans and Australians - now play more in the USA, as opposed to their home tours, which, as Chris points out, has been detrimental to both.

Mark and Chris -- I don't have the numbers, correct me if I'm wrong.  My impression is that purses on the European Tour have soared the past ten years.  Same with the Nationwide and other U.S. tours.  Same with the LPGA.    

Why do purses get bigger?  Mostly due to TV.  TV pays more because its audience has grown.  Many more people watch golf now.  It has become way more popular.  IMO this is the Tiger phenomenon.  I feel sure that is true in the U.S.  I bet it is at least partly true in other parts of the world as well.  The ripple effect.    

I don't believe having more good foreign players has saved the PGA from boredom.  That, at least in the eye of the masses, again is due to Tiger.    

Besides, the best golfers have usually come to the U.S. to play, before Tiger ever hit the scene.  Player, Norman, Faldo, Els, Olazabal, come to mind.  U.S. tour has always offered the best money and competition.  When they do great here, does that raise interest in the game back home?  What happened last year in New Zealand after the U.S. Open and Italy after the U.S. Amateur?  

For that matter, what happened in Australia when Norman became king of the golfing hill?  Did golf grow in popularity there?  
 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Pete..
Let's not cry too loud about children out of wedlock at Chelski...Scholes, Giggs and one of the Nevilles all had children out of wedlock..although two of them have since married their partners...so dont shout out too loud against messrs Terry and Lampard!!!!

Rich...yes Chelsea are certianly the better side this season, but they had better enjoy it while they can.

[ForkaB]

Michael

Agreed, although I think that in 2-3 years it will be Arsenal who is again "invincible."  Chelsea will implode and Man U. has too many "average" (vis a vis the "elite" standard) players amongst their youngsters.  Arsenal is loaded in that regard.  And, as an American I have no dog in this fight, just honest interest.