OT: LIV field

[Mike Worth]

While it is true that professional golfers are not employees of the PGA Tour, as noted in prior comments they do commit to and accept  certain proscribed obligations and parameters of activity/behavior when they choose to become members of the PGA Tour. They need to honor those commitments if they wish to retain their membership in the Tour and access to Tour competitions.

They also commit to accepting the judgement and discipline of the PGA Tour should certain situations or disputes arise.       

How all that plays out in a courtroom remains to be seen.

Tongue and cheek smart ass comment — the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 called and they want their golf tournament back.


  

[Niall C]

Anyway, how many PGA Tour events do you need to win to get £25m ?

It's not just PGA Tour payouts. DJ has lost sponsors.

Phil could have made $20M/year for the next 20 years between sponsorships and the Champions Tour. Will he get $400M out of this whole deal?

Erik


Could have made $20M/year for the next 20 years !!! Let me point out a few weaknesses in your argument;


- the first one is "could". You seem to be assuming that Phil will be a money making entity when he's 73. He might well be but let me suggest that is a very big IF.


- as Bruce points out, even if you took it as a given he'd be on $20M/year for the next 20 years, the present value of that accumulative income is a lot less than $400M.


- you seem to assume that as he has lost some sponsors that he won't gain further sponsors to either offset the sponsorship lost or even to surpass it. It strikes me that commercial entities are basically amoral and any sponsors who have cut ties with Phil have done so because his recent comments on the Saudi's doesn't suit there short term aims which is fair enough, however I expect there will be commercial companies from that part of the world who will gladly sponsor Phil because of his exposure on the LIV tour will suit their business model. As for the Saudi's, if they are as cynical as everyone says they are then I doubt they will black-ball him because he chose to say a few home truths about them.


Niall   

[John Kavanaugh]

54 holes is a better format for gaming.


Like anything with Roman Numerals isn’t bet on. Kudos for LIV. What a great name.

[Lou_Duran]

Who cares?
Let the market decide....meaning US the viewers.


If the LIV tour sucks ass (like the USFL, WHL and ABA before that), then they crap out and investors/backers lose and the players who participated must deal with the fall out as they are gown-ass-men!


However, if "we the people" actually enjoy the product they are attempting to sell us - just like the PGA Tour sells us a product - then how is that a bad thing?


Sounds to me like the PGA Tour seeks to stifle competition and nothing could be more 1) un-American and 2) anti-capitalist.

How terrifying!  Ian M and I agreeing entirely on something.


As much as Milton Friedman feared a large, dominant central government, he was just as concerned with companies and organizations in cahoots with institutions that had the power to compel.  There are far more crony capitalists than players in commerce which are willing to participate on a level playing field; many more rent-seekers than those who compete on the basis of superior products and value.


The PGA Tour split from the PGA in the late 1960s for reasons to do with reaping the benefits of their work.  I identify with that sentiment.  Competition does make most of us better, albeit not without some pain.


We see throughout the internet the monetization of golf by those who may love the game, but aren't able to make a living at it with their sticks.  The Tour financials posted here were eye-opening- some $1 Billion in fairly liquid assets beyond pension obligations.  Yet, a journeyman out because of injury with some 70 cuts made enjoys pension benefits of $0.


If the PGA Tour model works so well, why fear a bit of competition?  Creative destruction is a key principle in our market economy, so long as it is another's destruction that benefits us.  Not so sporting are we?


David Tepper,


I can see a large organization with considerable market power claim that the employee signed the conditions of employment with his own freewill and no matter how onerous, the court will hold him to the T of that agreement.  While Golf and pro golfers may not get a sympathetic ear from government, the independent contractor/employee issue has received a lot of attention by Democrats and perhaps the Tour might find a way to accommodate some releases to avoid prolonged litigation.


A while ago the Tour instituted a policy that required Tour members to play X number of events annually (15, I think) to retain their status.  It also had guidance on rotating tournaments so that the marquee players would be in a given field every three to five years (I don't know if this is accurate or still in effect).  Anyways, it seems that some accommodations in this direction might be made, though I can see the resistance, to competition.         

[Don Mahaffey]

Isn’t this just the evolution of the professional golf industry?
Early on, players were happy to be paid to play. But as more money entered the tours, the smaller tournaments started to fall away.
The PGA tour has tried to push the Fed Ex cup to get players to play in Moline, or Napa, or Miss, or Mexico, but it’s become a tour of the better known events with the largest purses. 
The modem tour player is a corporation. It’s a brand.  The LIV is just taking what’s come before it and building on it. The PGA tour put many smaller tour stops out of business.  Now they are getting some of their own medicine.  And so it goes

[David_Tepper]

Lou -

As I stated (or at least implied) in my post, I have little idea how all this will play out on a legal basis.

It certainly appears the PGA Tour has a right to determine who becomes a member and the terms of membership. No golfer is obliged to join the PGA Tour if they wish to compete as a professional.

As the saying goes, "membership has its privileges." But it also has its obligations.

DT

[Kalen Braley]

Lou -

As I stated (or at least implied) in my post, I have little idea how all this will play out on a legal basis.

It certainly appears the PGA Tour has a right to determine who becomes a member and the terms of membership. No golfer is obliged to join the PGA Tour if they wish to compete as a professional.

As the saying goes, "membership has its privileges," but it also has its obligations.

DT

David,

I'd have to agree.  From what I've seen and read the questionable agreements/contracts go something along the lines of:

"You can't work for anyone else, until your contract is up with us...bar none"

But the PGA Tour agreement seems a bit different at:

"You can go work for someone else, but you're subject to being disciplined, up to and including you're done with us"

[David_Elvins]

54 holes is a better format for gaming.


Like anything with Roman Numerals isn’t bet on. Kudos for LIV. What a great name.

The Saudis are anti-gambling.  It would be respectful to not bet on their events.

[Rob Marshall]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/rbc-dustin-johnson-liv-golf

[Daryl David]

My first thought as well. Wonder what the Great One thinks?

It’s likely that is who is driving this train.

[Craig Sweet]

I have zero respect for anyone that will work for a guy that chops up Americans with a butcher knife.   This is worse that diamond money.

[jeffwarne]

Brandel just made a point to say that the figures being tossed about assume the Saudis actually pay what they say they will pay.

Unless DJ gets $150M right away, he might find that he gets $25M, then another $25M, and then when the third payment is due… well, "the check is in the mail…". And to whom would he really complain?

That was the second thing I thought of.
The first was...


Forgetting about about the potential effect on the PGA Tour (and one's loyalty to it, and the agreement that was signed)...
and forgetting that it's Saudi money....(for example if it was another World Tour)


What sponsor would want to line up a contract with a player who says "he's fully committed to the PGA Tour" two weeks ago,

and skips the flagship event of his sponsor RBC-their first Canadian Open in three years-that he was featured heavily in advance promotion.


Isn't one's word worth something?
Wouldn't you wonder about his loyalty to you, the next sponsor?


Surely he could have some of the money given to him the last three years clawed back, given there's been no Canadian Open,yet no doubt he's been collecting from RBC.


Disappointed, but not surprised.


In other news,
I can't imagine Davis Love lll is real thrilled with Hudson Swafford...

[Craig Sweet]

Nobody has the moral courage to call this what it is?   Come on!  This is sports washing of the ugliest kind!  The golf clubs letting these thugs use their course, their name, to promote this effort to make the Royal Family look like good guys is despicable.  Where has the honor that once ruled golf gone?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ed:

So would you take $20 MM/year for 2o years or $100 MM or $150 MM this year and next and march off into the sunset?  Me thinks the bird in hand (cash in the account) sooner rather than later is an option most would select.

I get what you're saying, but for Phil with his gambling, taking the annuity may be the smarter option. 

- the first one is "could". You seem to be assuming that Phil will be a money making entity when he's 73. He might well be but let me suggest that is a very big IF.

Maybe. He could have also made more than $20M. Arnold Palmer continued to do pretty well (also with Callaway and others).

[Peter Flory]

What about sponsors?


https://www.golfwrx.com/677698/rbc-extremely-disappointed-with-ambassador-dustin-johnsons-decision-to-play-liv-golf-opener/

Didn't RBC help Aramco with their IPO? 

[Jim_Coleman]

   Just because one is an independent contractor and not an employee does not mean he isn’t bound the the terms of his contract. If Tom Doak builds a course for a client and agrees not to build another one within 100 miles, he must honor his agreement, even though he is not an employee, and even though the Saudis offer him $100 million to build one next door.

[Sven Nilsen]

My first thought as well. Wonder what the Great One thinks?

It’s likely that is who is driving this train.

Anyone who knows anything about that family knows that it is Janet making the decisions.  Wayne wouldn't care.

[Sean_A]

Nobody has the moral courage to call this what it is?   Come on!  This is sports washing of the ugliest kind!  The golf clubs letting these thugs use their course, their name, to promote this effort to make the Royal Family look like good guys is despicable.  Where has the honor that once ruled golf gone?

Call it whatever you want. Guys wearing ties legitimised doing business with Saudi a long time ago. DJ is sticking his fork in the pie like many have. This is small beer.

Ciao

[JESII]

I’m curious from Ian and Lou, on the idea of free and fair competition;


How is the PGA Tour not competing fairly?


You certainly understand the value to the Tour of having their players play primarily on their Tour. They’ve apparently executed agreements to that effect. Why is it anti-fair competition to let the players choose one or the other tour?


Could you name a single business (small or large) that welcomes a threat into their market with open arms and full assistance?   Considering the resources (top players in the world) are extremely limited, I see no reason why they should encourage players to play in even a single LIV event.

[JESII]

All that said, I suspect this will dramatically change/disrupt how the Tour operates.


Top end professional golf will look starkly different 3 years from. Ow with or without the LIV Tour.

[jeffwarne]

All that said, I suspect this will dramatically change/disrupt how the Tour operates.


Top end professional golf will look starkly different 3 years from. Ow with or without the LIV Tour.

I would guess that the DP World Tour will suffer the most.
followed by the LPGA-which is a better product than it's ever been IMO.

Particulalry if we enter a protracted economic downturn, where the Saudis are  flourishing in expensive oil, and companies begin feeling the inflationary/recessionary effects, while competing with a government backed tour who can choose to massively outspend them with a different motivation than short term financial profit and shareholders.


Geographically, LIV makes more sense than the PGA Tour for many Euros who don't want to base in the US/Florida.


We'll see how it turns out.
Thinner fields on all tours COULD have the effect of concentrating more wins in familiar hands, creating more stars, which creates familiarity and more of a reason to watch for many.


I always thought at some point players who were financially secure were playing for their legacy and and trophies/majors.
Especially in this era where it is far more reachable at an early age-I would have understood more in 1945-1990ish, where only a handful profited handsomely.
How much does your life change from 100m to 250m?
Yes, it happens in other pro sports, but I mostly stopped watching them years ago....

[Sean_A]

All that said, I suspect this will dramatically change/disrupt how the Tour operates.

Top end professional golf will look starkly different 3 years from. Ow with or without the LIV Tour.

Wasn't that basically Phil's stated goal?

Ciao

[Tom Allen]

Missing quotes, so I have edited.  Sorry for butchering it.

"I don’t know the answer to this. But aren’t there some pros who play on the PGA Tour and also play European events? So what part of a player’s agreement/contract with the PGA Tour permits players to alternatively play events in the US and Europe?


And if there is such an arrangement, why doesn’t the PGA Tour relent and let players go to the LIV?  My reasoning is if players can go to Europe, why can’t they participate in LIV?  Is it because the PGA doesn’t like that the Saudi ruler had a journalist murdered?


And if there is such an arrangement with Europe, I would think the PGA legal position is quite weak. What makes it OK to play in Europe but not LIV?"


This will answer a lot of questions, if I can post the link.  It is the Player Handbook.  If the link doesn't work, you can just Google the Player Handbook.    https://qualifying.pgatourhq.com/static-assets/uploads/2019-2020-pga-tour-handbook--regs-09_10_19.pdf


1. Yes, they can go play where they want.  They just can't do that AND be a member of the Tour.  The Tour is trying to protect its product, no doubt.  It has reasons to not let it players in events that are happening the same days as their tournaments, regardless of the funding source.


2. I believe the PGA Tour is opposed to LIV in particular because so many of their events will be held in the U.S., directly competing with its product.


3.  I liken the arrangement to something like this: The players have agreed to be independent contractors selling and delivering Pepsi to local restaurants.  The players now approach their employers and want to sell and deliver Coke to these same restaurants next week.  Pepsi, seeing that as direct competition to its product, says OK, fine, you can do that (so no restriction).  But they also say you just can't also sell and deliver our product; it harms our business. So you have to choose.  One or the other, but not both.

[JESII]

All that said, I suspect this will dramatically change/disrupt how the Tour operates.

Top end professional golf will look starkly different 3 years from. Ow with or without the LIV Tour.

Wasn't that basically Phil's stated goal?

Ciao

Yes Sean, I believe this is how Phil explained his actions after the fact.


If we are to take Shipnuk at his word, Phil had his (and 2 other top players) attorneys draw up the legal operating guidelines for this tour.


Since that all came to light, Shipnuk has given countless interviews and his book has been released. Phil has not been seen.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou -

As I stated (or at least implied) in my post, I have little idea how all this will play out on a legal basis.

It certainly appears the PGA Tour has a right to determine who becomes a member and the terms of membership. No golfer is obliged to join the PGA Tour if they wish to compete as a professional.

As the saying goes, "membership has its privileges." But it also has its obligations.

DT

Agree, but both, privileges and obligations should be within reason.


I have not studied labor law, but I think that the relative power of the parties negotiating an agreement has considerable weight.  To Jim Coleman's point, a developer imposing a limited competitive restriction on Tom Doak as a condition of employment is hardly a barrier to the architect's ability to make a living in the remaining geography of this world.  Tom and Developer X probably do not have dissimilar market power.  Also, I doubt that such anti-competitive practices are enforceable in perpetuity.


As to Mr. Allen's Pepsi/Coke example- I worked in that industry for a number of years and the competition was fierce and at times personal- the independent contractors/bottlers had a reasonable choice as to whose products to carry in a protected geography.  It is my understanding that other Tours which routinely benefit from exemptions to US PGA Tour members have likewise (colluded?) imposed similarly draconian penalties on pros wanting to play a limited LIV schedule.  BTW, PepsiCo is frequently sued for much more lenient restrictions on its bottlers.  And my then employer, a very aggressive, marketing and sales driven company, always fought mightly for shelf space, but NEVER, to my knowledge, asked a grocer to ban a competitor.