O.T. Phil Mickelson on International Politics and Human Rights

[cary lichtenstein]

I'm almost finished reading the unauthorized biography of Phil and I don't understand what terrible thing Phil did to warrant the punishment. In this WOKE World, he should be allowed freedom of speech and there is probably alot of truth in what he said. He is very charitable, does that not count?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'm almost finished reading the unauthorized biography of Phil and I don't understand what terrible thing Phil did to warrant the punishment. In this WOKE World, he should be allowed freedom of speech and there is probably alot of truth in what he said. He is very charitable, does that not count?

He is allowed freedom of speech. Sometimes there are consequences to one’s speech, as he found out. No one is the worst thing he ever said or did but good works do not nullify the other things we say or do.

[Niall C]

Tommy


Nice sermon but you didn't really answer Cary's question which was what did Phil do to deserve how he was treated, by which I presume Cary means being banned by the Tour and being dropped by his sponsors.


Let me suggest that he sinned against the Tour by threatening their power which is based on their near monopoly position. The Tour sanctioned him as a warning to others, a bit like the way Mexican drug cartels kill the competition and leave the dead bodies on the street, except with less blood obviously.


As for the sponsors, well Phil has suddenly lost a good bit of exposure which makes him a much less attractive proposition, allied to the fact that he described a section of their client/customer base with in plain and stark terms, none of which was complimentary.


Niall

[Kalen Braley]

Niall,

I believe you answered the question in your last post.

1)  Its obvious why the Tour sanctioned him, he was a clear and present threat, and VERY vocal/public in how he went about it.  Of course there was going to be consequences.

2)  His sponsors are ultimately the ones who made the decision to drop him.  Not you, or me, or the other endless masses who follow golf.  So if you want an answer as to the why, you will have to ask them.

P.S.  I don't understand why people struggle to understand the concept of being accountable to the consequences of free speech.  No one is saying he can't call a press conference right now and speak his mind, hell at this point it may do him some good.

[Niall C]

Kalen


It was Cary who asked the questions, I just attempted to answer them. Yes I agree that it is naive to assume that there might not be some consequences for voicing opinions, but then I'm not sure anyone is actually suggesting otherwise. However that doesn't mean there isn't some validity in the points made by Mickelson irrespective of how anyone might regard him personally.


Niall

[Mike Hendren]

Let me dumb it down for you intellectuals:  Don’t crap where you eat.


Mike

[Niall C]

Let me dumb it down for you intellectuals:  Don’t crap where you eat.


Mike

Or to finish the quote - "don't crap where you eat, particularly when there is only one restaurant in town"


Niall

[A.G._Crockett]

Without getting into the thicket that is constitutional law, I don't think it's an overstatement to say that PM's situation is in NO way a constitutional issue of any sort, free speech or otherwise.  This situation is NOT what Madison had in mind when he wrote the First Amendment, and I think a court would dismiss any case coming out of the lost sponsorships or a Tour suspension (if in fact there even is one, which we do NOT know!) as not "justiciable".  There is no legal question here; just business decisions.


But putting that aside, it is probably impossible to calculate the dollars PM has lost BECAUSE he exercised his "right" to freedom of speech.  Far better for him had he been able to just keep his mouth shut and take the Saudi money as others are doing, but that's not who he is.  And he never has been.

[Sean_A]

Tommy


Nice sermon but you didn't really answer Cary's question which was what did Phil do to deserve how he was treated, by which I presume Cary means being banned by the Tour and being dropped by his sponsors.


Let me suggest that he sinned against the Tour by threatening their power which is based on their near monopoly position. The Tour sanctioned him as a warning to others, a bit like the way Mexican drug cartels kill the competition and leave the dead bodies on the street, except with less blood obviously.


As for the sponsors, well Phil has suddenly lost a good bit of exposure which makes him a much less attractive proposition, allied to the fact that he described a section of their client/customer base with in plain and stark terms, none of which was complimentary.


Niall

Deserve has nothing to do with it. These days if you don't tow whomever's line you are the enemy. There is virtually no live and let live. People with money and hard line views will sooner kick you in the teeth than buy you a drink and jabber for a spell. It's pathetic and petty.

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Not sure why people here are focussed on freedom of speech.  If he is suspended from the pga tour the main reason why would be that he got his lawyers to draw up legal documents for a new tour that would poach players from the pga tour.


No person would escape consequences in their workplace for actively organising a competing business to poach other workers.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm almost finished reading the unauthorized biography of Phil and I don't understand what terrible thing Phil did to warrant the punishment. In this WOKE World, he should be allowed freedom of speech and there is probably alot of truth in what he said. He is very charitable, does that not count?

What punishment?

• If you're talking about his likely suspension from the PGA Tour, he hired people to draft paperwork to start a rival league to the PGA Tour. Duh. Kinda violates the terms of his membership.
• If you're talking about his lost sponsorships, he became far less attractive as a sponsored athlete by making stupid comments and they decided to part ways or at least "pause" with him.
• If you're talking about fan reaction, well, they don't like that he was exposed as a phony who was happy to take almost literally blood-stained money. They find his justification of "once in a lifetime opportunity to re-shape the PGA Tour" to be bullshit, revisionist, whatever.
• If you're talking about the reactions of his fellow Tour players, as one player put it, Tiger puts money into their pockets, while Phil was looking to take money out of their pockets. Many of them think he's a twat, anyway.

As others said, it's got nothing to do with "freedom of speech." Phil was not prevented from saying what he said. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from any repercussions.

P.S.  I don't understand why people struggle to understand the concept of being accountable to the consequences of free speech.  No one is saying he can't call a press conference right now and speak his mind, hell at this point it may do him some good.

Seriously.

[Craig Sweet]

Phil can speak all he wants, but nobody has to give him a platform for his speech. 

[Phil Burr]

I read Shipnuck's book and my takeaway was, meh.


If you're a Phil fan, there's nothing in there that you didn't already know, or at least have heard, and the book is unlikely to alter your fandom.


If you're not a Phil fan, there's nothing that's going to bring you into his camp.


For me, the best part of the book was one of the opening chapters that were point/counterpoint anecdotes from familiar names that seemed intended to contrast Good Phil/Bad Phil.


Perhaps the author is hedging his bets to avoid being forever ostracized from covering Phil or the entire tour.

[Steve Salmen]

Does the PGA Tour have strong legal footing when they dictate that it's OK to play in European or Asian events but not Saudi sanctioned tournaments?  I'd be very interested in knowing how the tour would defend lifetime bans in court if players play in Saudi sponsored events and get punished.


Is it normal for not for profit organizations to act so heavy handed? 

[A.G._Crockett]

Does the PGA Tour have strong legal footing when they dictate that it's OK to play in European or Asian events but not Saudi sanctioned tournaments?  I'd be very interested in knowing how the tour would defend lifetime bans in court if players play in Saudi sponsored events and get punished.


Is it normal for not for profit organizations to act so heavy handed?

I don’t think the word “normal” can be applied to any of this.  And from what I read, most expect this to end up in court sooner or later.




I don’t think PGA Tour members need waivers to play Euro Tour events; they can ask for up to three waivers a year from the Tour for other events. But the Saudi thing isn’t an event; it’s a rival Tour. 




Legally, it’s pretty murky water, at least to me. The players are independent contractors, but also voluntarily have memberships in the PGA Tour, and the Tour’s bylaws were at least nominally written by players. Courts don’t like restraint of trade, but they also don’t like lawsuits concerning organizational bylaws brought by members who joined that organization voluntarily and agreed to the bylaws they now want to contest.




All of this is why good lawyers make good money, and REALLY good lawyers make REALLY good money!

[Niall C]

THE PRINCIPAL MISSION OF PGA TOUR, INC. IS THE PROMOTION OF THE SPORT OF PROFESSIONAL GOLF AND THE COMMON INTERESTS OF THE TOURING PROFESSIONAL GOLFER AS WELL AS GROWTH OF THE GAME.

It seems to me that Jay Monaghan and his colleagues are conflating their own organisations dominance and growth with that of the common interest of touring professional golfers and indeed growing the game. Surely it would be in the common interests of touring professionals to have more opportunities to play and additional money being available as prize money ?

Niall

[David_Tepper]

On the subject of free speech.

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/20/if-you-think-free-speech-is-defined-by-your-ability-to-be-an-asshole-without-consequence-you-dont-understand-free-speech-but-you-remain-an-asshole/

[John Kavanaugh]

Phil won the media battle this weekend. He just may be as smart as he always posed to be. How many of us this weekend wished he was playing? Only 10 dudes showed up for the Champions dinner. Both Brady and Barkley were talking about Phil in a positive light. Genius marketing.

[A.G._Crockett]

Phil won the media battle this weekend. He just may be as smart as he always posed to be. How many of us this weekend wished he was playing? Only 10 dudes showed up for the Champions dinner. Both Brady and Barkley were talking about Phil in a positive light. Genius marketing.

John, only you could spin this to be in ANY way favorable to Mickelson.

[Kalen Braley]

AG,

I'm curious why you think the situation with independent contractors on Tour is unique?

I've seen similar in my 20+ years in the tech biz. Independent contractors are hired to work for a firm, they sign an agreement that they won't work for anyone else (in a related field) until the contract is over/ended.  Very common.

I've even heard of construction contracts for high profile jobs who are restricted to working on that project until completion...

In general, as long as two parties agree to terms and the work/service is legal, I would consider it binding

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,

I'm curious why you think the situation with independent contractors on Tour is unique?

I've seen similar in my 20+ years in the tech biz. Independent contractors are hired to work for a firm, they sign an agreement that they won't work for anyone else (in a related field) until the contract is over/ended.  Very common.

I've even heard of construction contracts for high profile jobs who are restricted to working on that project until completion...

In general, as long as two parties agree to terms and the work/service is legal, I would consider it binding

Kalen,


I don’t know enough about contract law to answer, and don’t pretend to know if the status of Tour players as independent contractors is in any way different from any other industry.  I do know that from the beginning of this, litigation has been viewed as inevitable.


My point was that courts often take a dim view of lawsuits over bylaws when the suit is brought by a party who joined an organization voluntarily, and agreed to those bylaws as part of the joining process AND is free to leave at any time.


A good example of this is the NCAA, which is a voluntary non-profit that member institutions join voluntarily, and are free to leave at any time. (State high school athletic associations, fwiw, are typically the same.)  Suits by members of such organizations typically don’t get far.  The players are independent contractors who joined the Tour voluntarily, and are completely free to walk away at any moment.  (That the door will lock behind them is another issue, yet to be resolved.)


At the same time, we have a long history of courts also not being tolerant of restraint of trade, which is a likely argument by the players, and a good one.  I think that’s why so many people were surprised when the Tour announced that there would be NO waivers for the Saudi Tour events.  That said, I’m guessing the Tour has really really good attorneys, and must think they are on solid legal ground.


It will be interesting, lengthy, and expensive.

[Kalen Braley]

I think we certainly agree in principle AG.

And it seems like the following "should" bear weight as well:

1) The PGATour isn't a publicly assessible entity like getting a library card or joining AARP.  Its an extremely small group with very stringent acceptance criteria and upfront agreed upon bylaws to remain a member.  Don't like it, don't play there.

2)  Its not like Players don't have anywhere else to play, Euro Tour, Asian Tour, Korn Ferry...or even the Saudi Tour. 

Closest sports comparison I can think of is the USFL vs NFL suit, and we know how that turned out.  $1

[Tim Leahy]

I'm almost finished reading the unauthorized biography of Phil and I don't understand what terrible thing Phil did to warrant the punishment. In this WOKE World, he should be allowed freedom of speech and there is probably alot of truth in what he said. He is very charitable, does that not count?

He is allowed freedom of speech. Sometimes there are consequences to one’s speech, as he found out. No one is the worst thing he ever said or did but good works do not nullify the other things we say or do.

+1

[cary lichtenstein]

Thanks everyone, very interesting discussion, to sum it up, you are free to speak but live with the consequences.


Now for this question: What should Phil do now? He's 52, he can't really make significant money on the senior tour, his $50 million per year from sponsors is gone, should he sign with the Saudi Tour for $100 million and make a complete break or should he eat humble pie, beg for forgiveness, and try to get his fans and sponsors to rally around him?

[Cal Carlisle]

Gotta love it when "living with the consequences" entails playing golf around the world for $100 million.