I am unaware of any company or individual who welcomes competition with "open arms and full assistance". The PGA Tour's reaction is the opposite of encouragement, a betrayal, IMO, of its own insecurity and perhaps a fear that the gravy train its bureaucracy lives on explendidly may be less bountiful.
So you'd like the PGA Tour to be the first?!? ok...
What would be the "right" comp package for Jay Monahan? Better yet, what level executive would that role attract if the comp package were say, $1.2M, just to pick a number?
Bizarre to me that you're focused on executive comp inflated by something less than $20M considering all the numbers bouncing around this issue.
If you were a PGA Tour member, or other stakeholder, would you want to feel like you've got top line talent running the ship right now? Or would you want to wing it?
The Name/Image/Likeness issue will be interesting to see develop. Are the Saudi's putting up their billions to hand that over to the players?
On #1, all organizations (and organisms) have two primary, allied drives, survival and reproduction. Meeting the competition, better yet, holding it at bay, is integral. I would have liked the PGA Tour to be more receptive to what I consider the legitimate requests of one of its biggest stars over the last 20 or so years. Having shown little interest in sharing the wealth, the work product of those who generate it, I think it would have been prudent for the Tour to take a more conciliatory approach, say by giving a few exemptions and evaluating what this portends to the future. Unlike Jim, I have not consulted with an antitrust lawyer, but have read quite a bit to know that the landscape is changing away from the effects on consumers. I do suspect that his contacts are right at least over the near term and the Tour would likely prevail.
On #2, 3, I have no beef with what Monahan makes- I'm assuming that the Tour governing group is qualified to evaluate those things and he is fairly paid. I am saying that whatever it is, it puts him up there within the Top 50 money winners, you know, the men who generate the revenues and are paid based on their performance. If the Tour had a meager balance sheet and the compensation for the executives and staff was market-based, then I could more easily understand its rebuffal of Phil's position. Ditto for the burr up my ass regarding its pension system leaving out hard-working journeymen who did not set the world on fire, but were still an integral part of the Tour.
Not that it is relevant, I am curious about other sports- how many baseball and basketball players make more than the commissioners of their leagues? How many team owners make less, especially when considering the increase of franchise values? Are Asian baseball players prohibited from returning home after playing in the U.S.? Those who come here certainly dilute the product of their domestic teams. Perhaps the PGA Tour might have been able to negotiate a sizable signing fee with the Saudis and provided for an orderly return to those players who took advantage of the opportunity. But I digress.
#4, if I was a Tour player I'd want a smart, energetic, person with the requisite skills and PR demeanor to run things with competent staff, all paid based on market levels of compensation and objective performance evaluations. I would also want to have a system in place that recognizes my contributions to the Show and has sufficient safety nets in the event that my career is cut short by injury from the job. I would also not underestimate the value of sponsors, host clubs, and the thousands of volunteers who actually pay a fee ($50 is not atypical) to work for a week gratis.
#5, had the Tour acted fairly in this regard, maybe most of the rest would have been moot. I suspect that the Saudis are more attuned to the issue of who owns the rights to their own image than perhaps we are. I would also be very surprised if they short the players on the commitments that drew them to that tour.