the USGA strikes again, this time with Lexus

« **Reply #25 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:01:24 PM »

Lexus has that money pegged to go somewhere. It's already figured into your car...if they don't spend it with the USGA they will do so with the PGA Tour or someone else. Same with AMEX and Cial...oops!

« **Reply #26 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:30:12 PM »

"One other thought: all of the "guardians" of the game are compromised, but is ANGC the least compromised, at least as far as they run their tournament? Minimum of ads, no overselling of tickets, low prices at the concessions, healthy contingent of amateurs..."

Depends what the subject or issue is Mark. Didn't you hear that story about five years or so ago when Hootie was all gung-ho for floating the idea of ANGC and the Masters coming out with a competition ball and how they gave the story to SI to break. SI was just delighted and were about to go to press when the word came down the story was over and by the way it never really even happened. One of my SI writer friends asked me at that time what the hell I thought happened. I told him I wasn't sure but I'd give him about one guess.

« **Reply #27 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:33:32 PM »

I agree with TEPaul that some of this was inevitable and that this is the way money is now obtained.

Nevertheless, the thing that concerns me with these types of sponsorships is that the more dependent an organization becomes on a few major sources of corporate dollars, then the more conservative that organization may become. Now when I use the term conservative, I do not mean Republican verses Democrat. Instead I mean adventurous verses bland.

When the first US Open was played, some pros refused to enter if an African-American entry and a native-American entry were also allowed to play. Although the USGA was founded by men of some financial advantages, who were not exactly the types to be exerting themselves into "civil-rights issues", they nonetheless stood their ground and would not allow others to dictate how the USGA should conduct their tournaments. And of course all of the other pros showed up and played. And the USGA never had a significant problem on this issue again, unlike almost very other sport.

Granted there have been instances when the USGA has been too stuck in its own ways and would have been better to listen to some outsiders, but corporate money will not instigate this type of change of behavior. Instead corporate money may force the USGA to look for the least objectionable course of action. When corporate money can be obtained through tents, TV fees, advertising sold per event, and similar actions, there is less of a risk of the USGA feeling one or a few corporations will be watching how the USGA behaves in all of its affairs.

Why is college radio more fun than Clear Channel? Clear Channel has to satisfy millions. This is done by selecting the good that many like, and avoiding the exciting (some good, some bad) that is loved and detested by different people. But college radio plays music which does at least try to do something different, and that is what keeps music alive and growing.

So do we want a Clear Channel-like USGA or an HBO-like USGA? (Although an HBO-like USGA may be a bit too idealistic.)

« **Reply #28 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:34:08 PM »

Quote from: Mark Bourgeois on January 26, 2007, 03:56:22 PM

Quote from: TEPaul on January 26, 2007, 03:43:09 PM

One other thought: all of the "guardians" of the game are compromised, but is ANGC the least compromised, at least as far as they run their tournament? Minimum of ads, no overselling of tickets, low prices at the concessions, healthy contingent of amateurs...

This, I think, is one of the persistent misapprehensions about the Masters. People seem to think that the club is a benevolent host because you can get a Heineken and a pimento and cheese sandwich for five bucks. Trust me, the club makes plenty off the tournament, even with the limited ad time. Just the soft goods in the concession areas (hats shirts, other logoed items) brings in enough profit to run thirty private clubs.

« **Reply #29 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:42:36 PM »

Quote from: Terry Lavin on January 26, 2007, 04:34:08 PM

Quote from: Mark Bourgeois on January 26, 2007, 03:56:22 PM
Quote from: TEPaul on January 26, 2007, 03:43:09 PM

One other thought: all of the "guardians" of the game are compromised, but is ANGC the least compromised, at least as far as they run their tournament? Minimum of ads, no overselling of tickets, low prices at the concessions, healthy contingent of amateurs...

This, I think, is one of the persistent misapprehensions about the Masters. People seem to think that the club is a benevolent host because you can get a Heineken and a pimento and cheese sandwich for five bucks. Trust me, the club makes plenty off the tournament, even with the limited ad time. Just the soft goods in the concession areas (hats shirts, other logoed items) brings in enough profit to run thirty private clubs.

That is my point exactly. Augusta National is able to maximize their income through their own products. This is what the USGA currently does. The USGA sells hard goods, and delivers consumers to many many advertisers. But these corporate tie-ins have the potential to cause the USGA to lose flexibility. If the USGA does decide to create equipment standards, some of its "corporate-sponsor" may not like being part of an organization suing to prevent product development by other companies. Under the prior system, the USGA could afford this risk. But they may not want to offend AMEX.

« **Reply #30 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:45:12 PM »

Bill,

I kind of looked at it the other way with regards to any potential future litigation. Could these "corporate partners" leverage their relationships with the equipment manufacturers to sort of help iron out a deal?

« **Reply #31 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:45:33 PM »

TEP -

I'm having trouble reading your facial expression from down here in ATL

, but I don't think they nixed the tournie ball thing for monetary reasons. If anyone doesn't have to worry about where their next range ball is coming from, it's ANGC.

I suspect, but don't know, that the article was killed because they were persuaded to keep things nice nice with the USGA.

Bob

« **Reply #32 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:48:02 PM »

Bill -

I had the same thought. What if BMW wants to be a TV sponsor and the ABC cameras pick up the Lexus logo on all the bunting?

I assume they have figured how to dance around the issue. But it has to be a pain in the neck.

Bob

« **Reply #33 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:50:13 PM »

Quote from: JES II on January 26, 2007, 04:45:12 PM

Bill,

I kind of looked at it the other way with regards to any potential future litigation. Could these "corporate partners" leverage their relationships with the equipment manufacturers to sort of help iron out a deal?

JES,

I think your point is a possibility. However, I would guess that most companies, already being very wary of any litigation, would prefer to not participate in another party’s litigation, especially when that corporation has nothing or very little to gain.

Perhaps some of the corporate attorneys on this site could chime in on this matter.

« **Reply #34 on:** January 26, 2007, 05:03:24 PM »

Quote from: JES II on January 26, 2007, 04:45:12 PM

I kind of looked at it the other way with regards to any potential future litigation. Could these "corporate partners" leverage their relationships with the equipment manufacturers to sort of help iron out a deal?

Sully - I wouldn't think that's likely. You might flip it around. It's as likely that the corporate partners would welcome litigation for the additional exposure it would give.

But I think both are pretty unlikely reasons for the deals.

Bob

« **Reply #35 on:** January 26, 2007, 05:03:45 PM »

Quote from: BCrosby on January 26, 2007, 04:48:02 PM

Bill -

I had the same thought. What if BMW wants to be a TV sponsor and the ABC cameras pick up the Lexus logo on all the bunting?

I assume they have figured how they can dance around that issue. But it has to be a pain in the neck.

Bob

Bob,

ABC has a show in which they rebuild a home for a family in need. They go to a lot of trouble to block out the names of companies that are not sponsors of this show. It seems a bit silly as these names may just be in the background and on screen for seconds, yet the picture is fuzzy where the name would be.

It does show what happens when a corporation begins to "own" an organization's output. Now I do not care if ABC's show is "owned" by Sears, Southwest, and Disney. But I do not want the USGA to be "owned" by a company.

As another example museums often have corporate sponsored exhibits. That itself can create some issues, but in today's budgets it works OK. Also, this then gives the museum some financial stability and allows it to do other exhibits which may not be attractive to corporate money, but which adds to the museum’s mission. But, if that corporation then becomes the full-time sponsor of everything that museum does, then EVERY exhibit needs to be "corporate friendly"

« **Reply #36 on:** January 26, 2007, 05:16:36 PM »

Bob and Bill,

You guys are probably right about the "partners" weighing in on any legal issues that may arise if the USGA moves that way with equipment, but at the same time I don't think these companies have put themselves in a position of "ownership" with these agreements. Do we know the length of the "partnership agreement"?

« **Reply #37 on:** January 26, 2007, 05:31:26 PM »

Bill -

Yes, in the arts world conflicting sponsorships can be a huge pain in the arse. I've been involved with a couple. Trust me, some of the work-arounds are beyond goofy.

But arts orgs are happy to deal with these conflicts because they desperately need the sponsorship money.

The USGA is nothing like as desperate, which is why I don't understand their decision. Because it really can create some weird conflicts.

Bob

« **Reply #38 on:** January 26, 2007, 05:37:14 PM »

Ford has had a more negative impact on golf than Lexus. A company that lost more than 12 billion dollars in one year has to lay off a lot of employees, who then won't be able to afford golf. The golf business doesn't suck in Michigan because of the USGA or Lexus.

Maybe I just don't like Ford for how they have made professional football in Michigan such a joke.

Joe

« **Reply #39 on:** January 26, 2007, 05:38:10 PM »

"I suspect, but don't know, that the article was killed because they were persuaded to keep things nice nice with the USGA."

With the USGA?

I don't either, that's one possibility but I suspect it was probably to keep things nice with the manufacturers, essentially with the world of commercialism.

I mean come on Bob, you know most of us on here only live in a semi-real world in this area. Do you really think many of us are aware of what the world of golf equipment business is capable of? I doubt it.

If ANGC did not get them totally on board in all kinds of ways just think what a mess it could be. Who's gonna spec it? Are all the manufacturers going to be involved? If not what's that going to do? What about the players? Where is this going to leave them with their contracts, their play, whatever? What about the Rules of Golf? I doubt many are even aware of that wrinkle (I doubt there is a local rule ANGC could use to require this kind of thing. The R&A/USGA will have to come up with one probably). All those kinds of things we on here don't really even think about because we don't have to and we don't even realize it all.

I think there will be reign-in anyway on the part of the R&A/USGA. Then the question becomes what will the manufacturers and even the golfing public do about it as the whole thing plays through?

Did you realize in the 1930s there actually was a form of a reign in on the golf ball? It lasted about one year and got dropped. Do you know why? Basically because the golfing public didn't accept it. They didn't want it. Will history repeat itself?

« **Reply #40 on:** January 26, 2007, 05:49:23 PM »

"I kind of looked at it the other way with regards to any potential future litigation. Could these "corporate partners" leverage their relationships with the equipment manufacturers to sort of help iron out a deal?"

Sully:

What kind of a "deal" are you thinking about there? A "deal' to accomplish what?

« **Reply #41 on:** January 26, 2007, 06:03:42 PM »

I haven't the faintest idea where the money is going to go or how much of it there will be, but if some of it goes to rewarding the players of the game, I would be happiest. I would love to see some of the extra money go to juniors that have parents that could use a little help getting them to the US Junior in style. If they had a hotel partnership, I think that would make the most sense. These tournaments cost a lot of money and if some of that burden were eased at all levels, I think it would be a good thing. Bring in better speakers, better food at the dinners, open bars at the parties, better gifts and things to remember the tournament by,lunch for players and parents and wives and stuff like that. I think there are a lot of ways to make the national championships a little better for the families and the participants. Money would help do all of this. I wouldn't want it to become the US Amateur presented by Lexus or have Lexus on the trophy, but short of that, I can see a use for some of this cash at the tournaments. Also, some more payment to the clubs, so the best clubs continue to host these great events. This has become a concern on the state level, maybe money can help stop this at the national level in the future.

« **Reply #42 on:** January 26, 2007, 06:10:17 PM »

Glenn,

One of the last things I'd want to donate money to is an open bar at any event that includes children.

Joe

« **Reply #43 on:** January 26, 2007, 06:14:18 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on January 26, 2007, 06:10:17 PM

Glenn,

One of the last things I'd want to donate money to is an open bar at any event that includes children.

Joe

Right, I am talking about the amateurs and seniors when I say that. Not the Junior.

« **Reply #44 on:** January 26, 2007, 06:24:40 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 26, 2007, 05:49:23 PM

"I kind of looked at it the other way with regards to any potential future litigation. Could these "corporate partners" leverage their relationships with the equipment manufacturers to sort of help iron out a deal?"

Sully:

What kind of a "deal" are you thinking about there? A "deal' to accomplish what?

Tom,

I have conceeded that my thought process was likely not at its sharpest when I wrote that, but I will draw it out for you.

There is speculation (just speculation, and not from any source connected with the USGA) that the USGA acould draw down equipment standards effectively instituting a "roll-back". The problem with doing so would be fear of litigation from the manufacturers as happened with Ping 15 or so years ago. My speculation was that a collection of corporate partners could lobby on behalf of the USGA with those manufacturers to help facilitate an agreeable "roll-back" that would not be viewed as a uni-lateral strike. That's all, just a little wishful thinking...

« **Reply #45 on:** January 26, 2007, 06:30:32 PM »

Bill Shamleffer mentioned ABC.

This move by the USGA reminds me of something the ABC would do - ABC = American Bowling Congress.

Besides, doesn't the USGA have enough money already? I thought they had a big surplus - certainly enough for a not-for-profit.

Oh well.. Next thing we'll see is the Dallas Cowboys with Pepsi patches on their uniforms.

I guess I'm a social luddite on this one.

« **Reply #46 on:** January 26, 2007, 06:53:28 PM »

"Tom,

I have conceeded that my thought process was likely not at its sharpest when I wrote that, but I will draw it out for you.

There is speculation (just speculation, and not from any source connected with the USGA) that the USGA acould draw down equipment standards effectively instituting a "roll-back". The problem with doing so would be fear of litigation from the manufacturers as happened with Ping 15 or so years ago. My speculation was that a collection of corporate partners could lobby on behalf of the USGA with those manufacturers to help facilitate an agreeable "roll-back" that would not be viewed as a uni-lateral strike. That's all, just a little wishful thinking..."

Sully:

I see. Well, what the hell happened to you today? What made you turn into the optimist regarding a real live rollback in our future? I thought that was my roll on here as everyone taunts and mocks my mercilessly as a out-of-control Pollyanna?

Interesting you say that though. Unfortunately, I guess I'm at a place where I suspect almost the opposite for some reason. If the USGA makes a partnership deal with a corporation, any corporation, even an auto manufacturer like Lexus, what in the world is in Lexus's interest to go fight the USGA's I&B battles against equipment manufacturers? Why would they even consider such a thing? And where is the USGA going to draw the line with what kind of corporation they partner with? What might we have twenty years from now---The Titleist US Open? Where does one draw the line once an amateur organization like the USGA crosses the old "no-cross" line and makes a partnership deal with a commerical corporation?

Dont you think it's more likely that a Wally U calls up Lexus and says; "Hey look, Lex, why don't you just use your newfound leverage with the USGA and tell them to just forget about this distance control crap and persuade them like we try to that everybody will just have more fun, and we all know the public has an orgasim when Tiger unloads one 359 yards----rather than Lex telling Wally U to stop saber rattlin' the lawsuit thing?

That's the kind of combined commercial leverage I'm concerned about Sully. Those commercial people all speak the same damn language---think the same thoughts---You know the old cliche---"What's good for GM is good for....". What do they really care about what the good of the game is all about in the long run? That's what the USGA is supposed to be about, and that's why they used to be on the other side of that Chinese Wall from ALL commercialism, period.

« **Reply #47 on:** January 26, 2007, 07:08:15 PM »

Well, how about if Mr. Lexus called Wally U and told him what the USGA was going to do Re: a "roll-back" three or so years from now? And then amazingly Fortune Brands is absent when roll call comes for the big GOLF MANUFACTURERS UNITED AGAINST THE USGA suit?

I don't know, just thinking aloud...or thinking through my keyboa...now I'm tired...

« **Reply #48 on:** January 26, 2007, 07:10:32 PM »

Love 'em or hate 'em, the USGA does have quite a bit of money, yet so what!?!

What is always forgotten in discussions like this that the ONLY championship, and what are they up to now 14 or so, that they don't LOSE MONEY on is the OPEN. Every single other championship loses money and some quite a bit.

An example of how this affects what they would like to do. They want to see the Men's Amateur contested only on sites that have or will hosted Opens. To this end they have offered a future Amateur to bethpage with both the Red and Black courses being used.

Bethpage turned them down because the revenues lost to the state by shutting down the park for a couple of weeks and both courses for several more would create a massive financial problem for the NY State Park System. Yet the USGA can't budget money to reimburse the park for the revenue loss.

That is a shame because it would be a most successful and exciting Amateur played there and showcase the Red Course for just how very challenging it is.

Corporate sponsorship will help bring USGA Championships to many great courses, both old and new that otherwise would not be doable.

« **Reply #49 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:52:04 PM »

"Well, how about if Mr. Lexus called Wally U and told him what the USGA was going to do Re: a "roll-back" three or so years from now?"

Sully:

Again, I love your optimism but honestly if Wally U heard from an automobile manufacturer, even this new asshole buddy auto manufacturing partner of the USGA, Lexus, I can pretty much guarantee you the USGA will have what some call a major league problem on their hands.

If and when Wally U hears the R&A/USGA will be coming in with some new ball rules and regs in some rollback effort he damn sure better get the phone call first from the technical director of the USGA's tech Dept. That's what they do and that's what they're there for and if they aren't the ones who make the first phone call to Wally U it's going to be a real problem.

Lexus:

"Hi, Wally, how you doing? Look, we'd like to offer you a real sweet deal on a new Lexus because we hear you're gonna have a real problem with the new USGA I&B rules and regs on the future rollback of the golf ball. Do you want to hear what those new I&B distance rollback rules and regs are going to be from us right now or do you want to talk sweet deal on a 2008 Lexus first?"

News:

JESII

TEPaul

Bill Shamleffer

tlavin

Bill Shamleffer

JESII

BCrosby

BCrosby

Bill Shamleffer

BCrosby

Bill Shamleffer

JESII

BCrosby

Joe Hancock

TEPaul

TEPaul

Glenn Spencer

Joe Hancock

Glenn Spencer

JESII

Dan Herrmann

TEPaul

JESII

Phil_the_Author

TEPaul