LIV Tour Discussion Thread (*** NO POLITICS ***)

[pingbling23]

2 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

If LIV is so great, how is a player going to LIV going to result in "absolute ruin in professional golf"?

 

If LIV is so great, what is so bad about no longer being able to play on the PGA Tour? 

 

They wanted to be paid more money to play less golf. They got their wish. Now they want to play more golf? 

 

I thought the PGA Tour was stale, and didn't treat their players properly, and these players were happy to move to friendlier shores. Now they're upset that they can't go back to the place that they were running away from?

1. The ruin comes from the pga tour trying to influence sponsors to drop or to not do business with LIV players, preventing LIV players from earning ranking points, doing what they can to keep them out of majors, etc.

 

2. independent contractors should have the freedom to move around.

 

3. some may want to play less but some may not.  We can’t lump everyone together.  These legal battles ensure future players have freedom of movement.

 

 

[Hardluckster]

29 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I personally doubt that the initial plan was a stand alone series with no membership. If that was the case why would anyone object ? 

I have no idea if such a plan was ever proposed of considered, but if it was then it would seem that any PGAT refusal would most likely be because they wanted control. 

 

I suppose there are other possibilities but I don't know what they could be. Anyone have any other hypotheses?

[bscinstnct]

25 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Perfect post. It is indeed a microcosm of this entitled attitude.  
 

they all want tiger money.  But nobody putting I tiger work. And nobody has tiger skills. they’re like a facsimile of a facsimile.   We want an original copy. 
 

they don’t deserve more.  They’re proving to not deserve what they have.  
 

 

 

I wonder if people claiming liv guys, who are guaranteed 150MM or who make 3MM for shooting 80, will still practice and grind their hearts out

 

Also were saying that the pga tour pro who makes 3MM in a full season for “only” shooting a couple of top-10s and making some cuts is unmotivated, spoiled, and too lazy to put in hard work ; )

[pingbling23]

11 minutes ago, tatertot said:

There can't be 2 major tours ... the current model for LIV is non-sustainable, there has to be ad revenue to continue with the purses they're offering. There is a finite amount of ad revenue available in the sports world, not to mention the golf world. LIV's plan is to crash in, crush the PGA Tour, and take their ad space. That's how this works. Offer something cheaper than the competition, drive the competition out, raise your prices. In this case, replace "prices" with "commercials". The idea of the 2 co-existing is Pollyannaish to say the least. 

So your solution is to keep the monopoly and not allow any competition?  

[doctorbloor]

10 minutes ago, pingbling23 said:

1. The ruin comes from the pga tour trying to influence sponsors to drop or to not do business with LIV players, preventing LIV players from earning ranking points, doing what they can to keep them out of majors, etc.

 

2. independent contractors should have the freedom to move around.

 

3. some may want to play less but some may not.  We can’t lump everyone together.  These legal battles ensure future players have freedom of movement.

 

 

They do.  What they do not have, however, is any right to play in any particular organization that does not welcome them per their bylaws.

 

Professional golfers--bless their pampered little hearts--seem to believe that being an "independent contractor" is a one-way street that allows them to do whatever they want.  Those of us who make our daily bread as 1099 contractors, however, know that being an IC entitles you to nothing.

[Simpsonia]

2 minutes ago, doctorbloor said:

They do.  What they do not have, however, is any right to play in any particular organization that does not welcome them per their bylaws.

 

Professional golfers--bless their pampered little hearts--seem to believe that being an "independent contractor" is a one-way street that allows them to do whatever they want.  Those of us who make our daily bread as 1099 contractors, however, know that being an IC entitles you to nothing.

 

Maybe to them it's like the Michael Scott bankruptcy rule. If you just declare that you're independent contractor, then any company in the world is forced to hire you when you deign to go work for them. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Simpsonia

[Krt22]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I wonder if people claiming liv guys, who are guaranteed 150MM or who make 3MM for shooting 80, will still practice and grind their hearts out

 

Also were saying that the pga tour pro who makes 3MM in a full season for “only” shooting a couple of top-10s and making some cuts is unmotivated, spoiled, and too lazy to put in hard work ; )

Ah come on, of course they will practice and play hard. Don't forget, they aren't just playing for themselves, they are also playing for their team mates. Even though some publicly said one of the main draws was playing less and spending more time with family, I am sure that guaranteed money won't at all impact their practice habits or motivation to elevate their game to be top LIV dog.

[hunterdog]

3 hours ago, Purple Toupee said:

And that was my point.  It’s not a special invite if everyone is already invited.

If the top 48 said to GN, “we want to play the next event”, would GN let them play? Mickelson out? Stenson out? Westwood out? And so on?

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 minutes ago, pingbling23 said:

1. The ruin comes from the pga tour trying to influence sponsors to drop or to not do business with LIV players, preventing LIV players from earning ranking points, doing what they can to keep them out of majors, etc.

 

2. independent contractors should have the freedom to move around.

 

3. some may want to play less but some may not.  We can’t lump everyone together.  These legal battles ensure future players have freedom of movement.

 

 

1 - The players' filing claimed a lot about the PGA Tour trying to "influence" sponsors, but was light on evidence. Many of the sponsors dropping players could be explained by someone becoming toxic (Phil), the sponsor actually being more than a golf sponsor but hosting PGA Tour events, especially some that their sponsored players skipped (DJ/Graeme), or simply the fact that they didn't want to sponsor players that would only show up on YouTube. No majors to date have announced they will disallow LIV players entrance, so that's speculation. And LIV currently has not existed long enough, and does not meet the criteria needed, to be awarded OWGR points. So until/unless the LIV application is denied, the idea that the PGA Tour is stopping them from getting points is also speculative. 

 

2 - Legally there are tons of examples of independent contractors having exclusivity agreements. The PGA Tour's filing in the TRO case for the three players spelled it out quite well. The members of the PGA Tour (i.e. the players) benefit from having pooled media rights which make for larger and more valuable TV contracts. Allowing top players to play in events that are directly competing with the Tour reduces the value of the pooled rights for all of the members who are trying to make their living on the Tour. That's the basis for the Competing Events and Media Rights release clauses. PGA Tour players moonlighting on another tour harms the players trying to play that week.  

 

3 - Players have freedom of movement. The PGA Tour didn't stop them from participating in LIV events. They were perfectly free to move. They just don't get to continue to benefit from the PGA Tour if they leave. 

[pingbling23]

1 minute ago, doctorbloor said:

They do.  What they do not have, however, is any right to play in any particular organization that does not welcome them per their bylaws.

 

Professional golfers--bless their pampered little hearts--seem to believe that being an "independent contractor" is a one-way street that allows them to do whatever they want.  Those of us who make our daily bread as 1099 contractors, however, know that being an IC entitles you to nothing.

We will see, should be an interesting court case.

[tatertot]

6 minutes ago, pingbling23 said:

So your solution is to keep the monopoly and not allow any competition?  

There are what ... 3-5 major tours across the globe? A couple additional minor leagues in the USA alone? There is no monopoly. And competition is fine ... what this is a COUNTRY funding a 1 man's vendetta against a longstanding sports entity that many people enjoy and nobody was asking for a competitor against. It's not like the AFL where NFL players had serious issues they wanted addressed. Prior to LIV, I don't remember PGA players have gripes. It was just an excuse for Norman and the Saudis to start throwing around outlandish amounts of money.

[betarhoalphadelta]

11 minutes ago, pingbling23 said:

So your solution is to keep the monopoly and not allow any competition?  

 

The PGA Tour is not a monopoly, and there is competition, as LIV has already proven. The PGA Tour could not, and did not, stop LIV from existing and being a competitor. LIV has now had three tournaments (two in the US) and so far nothing I've seen from the PGA Tour is trying to stop them from hosting the additional five tournaments they have planned for 2022. 

 

[pingbling23]

2 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

1 - The players' filing claimed a lot about the PGA Tour trying to "influence" sponsors, but was light on evidence. Many of the sponsors dropping players could be explained by someone becoming toxic (Phil), the sponsor actually being more than a golf sponsor but hosting PGA Tour events, especially some that their sponsored players skipped (DJ/Graeme), or simply the fact that they didn't want to sponsor players that would only show up on YouTube. No majors to date have announced they will disallow LIV players entrance, so that's speculation. And LIV currently has not existed long enough, and does not meet the criteria needed, to be awarded OWGR points. So until/unless the LIV application is denied, the idea that the PGA Tour is stopping them from getting points is also speculative. 

 

2 - Legally there are tons of examples of independent contractors having exclusivity agreements. The PGA Tour's filing in the TRO case for the three players spelled it out quite well. The members of the PGA Tour (i.e. the players) benefit from having pooled media rights which make for larger and more valuable TV contracts. Allowing top players to play in events that are directly competing with the Tour reduces the value of the pooled rights for all of the members who are trying to make their living on the Tour. That's the basis for the Competing Events and Media Rights release clauses. PGA Tour players moonlighting on another tour harms the players trying to play that week.  

 

3 - Players have freedom of movement. The PGA Tour didn't stop them from participating in LIV events. They were perfectly free to move. They just don't get to continue to benefit from the PGA Tour if they leave. 

The pga tour runs tournaments during majors and runs multiple tournaments at the same time. Maybe the players should sue the tour for damages?  Since it causes harm, is the tour acting in good faith for its members?  To your last point, isn’t that what a monopoly does.  Yeah you’re free to leave but we will destroy you and the company you’re going to work for and you won’t be allowed back.

[jgonz69]

4 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Speak for yourself.  I thoroughly enjoyed the Wyndham …. Seeing a new standout win is always good. Only thing they need to change is commercials. 
 

we don’t want to see mediocrity on the weekend.  

No it was totally boring watching a 20 year old kid shoot 61 and win the tourney after making a quad on the 1st hole on Thursday. It’s much more exciting watching a fat mulleted blowhard from Arizona shoot 80 and collect mad stacks of Benjamins. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 minute ago, pingbling23 said:

The pga tour runs tournaments during majors and runs multiple tournaments at the same time. Maybe the players should sue the tour for damages?  Since it causes harm, is the tour acting in good faith for its members?  To your last point, isn’t that what a monopoly does.  Yeah you’re free to leave but we will destroy you and the company you’re going to work for and you won’t be allowed back.

 

The PGA Tour runs only one tournament during a major that I'm aware of, and that's during The Open Championship, because that major is played in a time zone 5 hours in advance of US Eastern Time so they know each round of the Open will conclude before mainstream broadcast TV starts broadcasting the PGA tour event. They put this tournament on to help their members, particularly those far enough down the pecking order that they can't get into the Open and so it gives them a valuable opportunity to earn points when they are unable to secure a spot in a Major's field. 

 

There are only a couple of other instances where they run competing events on the same weekend. Another is the Scottish Open, where it has the same time zone disparity that exists for The Open Championship. Others are the Arnold Palmer and the WGC Match play. Both have reduced fields (although the Palmer is 120 while the Match Play is 64) and so it allows players who can't make it into those fields into an event that weekend. In addition, those alternate field events are in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, so the goal is to extend interest in golf in those areas. 

 

The Tour is doing this in each of those cases because they know that those events will not appreciably harm their premier events that weekend, but will benefit PGA Tour members down the pecking order. 

 

Absolutely nothing in any of these is remotely comparable to letting their top players go play in LIV events that directly compete with their own events. 

 

And again, you're not understanding "monopoly" here. The PGA Tour has done nothing to destroy players who have left nor have they done anything to destroy the company those players left to go work for. All they've done is enforce their own regulations on players who want to simultaneously remain PGA Tour members (i.e. haven't resigned membership like DJ) and at the same time are trying to make a competitor to the PGA Tour successful. It doesn't make you a monopoly just because you won't let your own members work for the competition.

[Krt22]

16 minutes ago, pingbling23 said:

The pga tour runs tournaments during majors and runs multiple tournaments at the same time. Maybe the players should sue the tour for damages?  Since it causes harm, is the tour acting in good faith for its members?  To your last point, isn’t that what a monopoly does.  Yeah you’re free to leave but we will destroy you and the company you’re going to work for and you won’t be allowed back.

Oh yeah, giving their members options to play in tournaments, secure points, possibly win $1m+, when they would otherwise be riding the pine (ie not eligible to play in the major/WGC event) certainly sounds like it causes their members harm

 

Are you even thinking about the stuff you say before you type it?

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Krt22

[Dutch1008]

1 minute ago, pingbling23 said:

So your solution is to keep the monopoly and not allow any competition?  

Who's been hurt by this "monopoly"?

 

The players? Prize money has consistently gone up. The 100th ranked player today has a much higher quality of life than the 100th ranked player in 2012/2002/1992/1982/etc. There are more paths to the main tour than ever (KFT, Canada, Latin America). There are late career opportunities through the senior tour. 

 

The fans? The tournaments are broadcast for free. You don't need a cable subscription or pay for a streaming service. With an antenna and a TV you can watch CBS/NBC/Fox from just about anywhere. There are more tournaments to watch than ever and more ways to watch them. 

 

If the PGAT is a monopoly, it been a monopoly managed for the benefit of many and with some consideration of the long term health of the sport. Norman's objective is far more monopolistic. His goal is to capture all of the economics the PGAT and their legacy of players have created, and reallocate those economics to himself, the Saudi PIF, future "franchisees/investors", and a select pool of 48 players. 

 

LIVs goal is to destroy a benevolent monopoly and replace it with a tyrannical one.  

[Htk084]

@idrive Hi brother, I have an updated list if you would like to see it.  Let me know if you’re interested 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Htk084

[Stevens24]

54 minutes ago, tatertot said:

There can't be 2 major tours ... the current model for LIV is non-sustainable, there has to be ad revenue to continue with the purses they're offering. There is a finite amount of ad revenue available in the sports world, not to mention the golf world. LIV's plan is to crash in, crush the PGA Tour, and take their ad space. That's how this works. Offer something cheaper than the competition, drive the competition out, raise your prices. In this case, replace "prices" with "commercials". The idea of the 2 co-existing is Pollyannaish to say the least. 

I just do not think you have comprehension of just how much money the Saudi PIF is worth/generates on a daily basis. If they commit 5 billion dollars to LIV that is 1 week of oil earnings. They do not need ad revenue at all. Big bag vs little bag is the term and the tour is the little bag. And there are other ways of having ads besides the endless stream of commercial the tour networks do. Look at the Masters 2 minutes an hour. Have a banner on the bottom of the screen and mention them 4 times an hour. I am not going to guess how this turns out, but the tour made a serious miscalculation early in regards to LIV and are on the back foot right now. 

[bscinstnct]

18 minutes ago, Stevens24 said:

I just do not think you have comprehension of just how much money the Saudi PIF is worth/generates on a daily basis. If they commit 5 billion dollars to LIV that is 1 week of oil earnings. They do not need ad revenue at all. Big bag vs little bag is the term and the tour is the little bag. And there are other ways of having ads besides the endless stream of commercial the tour networks do. Look at the Masters 2 minutes an hour. Have a banner on the bottom of the screen and mention them 4 times an hour. I am not going to guess how this turns out, but the tour made a serious miscalculation early in regards to LIV and are on the back foot right now. 

 

Then why they only got like

 

Bubba?

 

🤣

 

Just sayin ; )

[jgonz69]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Then why they only got like

 

Bubba?

 

🤣

 

Just sayin ; )

And how toxic is John Daly if he begged GN on his knees to join but got rejected😂😂

[bscinstnct]

1 minute ago, jgonz69 said:

And how toxic is John Daly if he begged GN on his knees to join but got rejected😂😂

 

Daly, Bubba, Anthony Kim, and Robert Allenby

 

Now that would be a team I’d watch!

[idrive]

5 hours ago, Purple Toupee said:

You keep saying that, but it doesn’t appear to be true.  Justin Harding said he got in based on his world ranking, and that he has no contract with LIV.  He isn’t even in the top 100, so anyone ranked higher than him could have played if they wanted to.  I don’t know how many they would have taken, but it didn’t require a special invite from GN.

 

One guy that got to play in the first tournament when they didn't have enough guys, got to play. He didn't get a contract because GN had no intentions of keeping him. Would appreciate the link to that story.

 

Anyone else?

 

[tiderider]

1 hour ago, pingbling23 said:

So your solution is to keep the monopoly and not allow any competition?  

nobody said they can't go to liv ... 

 

they just can't come back to the pgat ... that's not a monopoly ... 

[Htk084]

3 minutes ago, idrive said:

 

One guy that got to play in the first tournament when they didn't have enough guys, got to play. He didn't get a contract because GN had no intentions of keeping him. Would appreciate the link to that story.

 

Anyone else?

 

Justin Harding has played in every event 

[Krt22]

24 minutes ago, tiderider said:

nobody said they can't go to liv ... 

 

they just can't come back to the pgat ... that's not a monopoly ... 

It's not even that they can't come back, they are suspended, not banned for life. They just can't play both tours simultaneously, which is pretty reasonable and common in multiple other sports/economic sectors.  Once they are done LIVing it up, it seems like they can reapply for membership. 

[Isaac_Newton]

45 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

The PGA Tour runs only one tournament during a major that I'm aware of, and that's during The Open Championship, because that major is played in a time zone 5 hours in advance of US Eastern Time so they know each round of the Open will conclude before mainstream broadcast TV starts broadcasting the PGA tour event. They put this tournament on to help their members, particularly those far enough down the pecking order that they can't get into the Open and so it gives them a valuable opportunity to earn points when they are unable to secure a spot in a Major's field. 

 

There are only a couple of other instances where they run competing events on the same weekend. Another is the Scottish Open, where it has the same time zone disparity that exists for The Open Championship. Others are the Arnold Palmer and the WGC Match play. Both have reduced fields (although the Palmer is 120 while the Match Play is 64) and so it allows players who can't make it into those fields into an event that weekend. In addition, those alternate field events are in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, so the goal is to extend interest in golf in those areas. 

 

The Tour is doing this in each of those cases because they know that those events will not appreciably harm their premier events that weekend, but will benefit PGA Tour members down the pecking order. 

 

Absolutely nothing in any of these is remotely comparable to letting their top players go play in LIV events that directly compete with their own events. 

 

And again, you're not understanding "monopoly" here. The PGA Tour has done nothing to destroy players who have left nor have they done anything to destroy the company those players left to go work for. All they've done is enforce their own regulations on players who want to simultaneously remain PGA Tour members (i.e. haven't resigned membership like DJ) and at the same time are trying to make a competitor to the PGA Tour successful. It doesn't make you a monopoly just because you won't let your own members work for the competition.

 

I seriously have no idea how this is going to work out. There are valid arguments on each side here. 

 

You stated the PGA Tour has done nothing to destroy players who have left but that is not true. They plan to exclude 3 players from an event they earned their into, based on their own merit. PGA Tour membership is merit based, as supported by the recent R&S statement about professional golf (I realize the R&A does not run the Tour but certainly supports the logic of high level golf officials). So the PGA Tour is denying three members who earned a spot in the FedEx field the opportunity to win a significant amount of money, one of which has a very good chance of winning. 

 

Those on both sides of this argument claim the players are independent contractors, which is true, and both sides seem to cite that as a reason why they can or cannot play on the Tour. The difference, is that the Tour is merit based. These players earned their tour cards or, in the case of Mickelson, earned lifetime membership. Does that outweigh the Tour's interest in protecting itself from outside competition? I have no idea. I am not a monopoly lawyer but I am interested in the outcome. 

 

Speaking of monopolies I think we can envision a similar but non-golf related scenario where most of us would agree that similar actions are monopolistic. Imagine Ford Motor Co currently has 90-95% market share of all light duty trucks in America (predominant truck manufacturer as the PGA Tour is the predominant golf tour in the US) and you start the Beta Rho Alpha Delta (let's call it Brad for short) truck company. Ford would obviously have contracts in place with most tire manufacturers. Ford now informs each of those manufacturers that if they sell a single tire to Brad then the contract with Ford is immediately canceled (cancelled for my British friends). Ford is certainly protecting its economic interests but stifling competition at the same time and this would most certainly be considered monopolistic by a US court (Standard oil actually did something very similar with railroad contracts). Essentially what the Tour is doing.

 

Again, I don't know how it will turn out but it is not as clear as those on both sides believe. 

[CaseyC]

6 minutes ago, Isaac_Newton said:

 

....Ford now informs each of those manufacturers that if they sell a single tire to Brad then the contract with Ford is immediately canceled (cancelled for my British friends). Ford is certainly protecting its economic interests but stifling competition at the same time and this would most certainly be considered monopolistic by a US court (Standard oil actually did something very similar with railroad contracts). Essentially what the Tour is doing....

 

 

 

Accusations have been made, but no evidence provided that the Tour has threatened any supplier...

[Isaac_Newton]

2 minutes ago, CaseyC said:

 

Accusations have been made, but no evidence provided that the Tour has threatened any supplier...

Right. The example used supplier as analog for player. Those who supply the talent. 

[CaseyC]

1 minute ago, Isaac_Newton said:

Right. The example used supplier as analog for player. Those who supply the talent. 

 

And no evidence has been supplied that the Tour pressured sponsors.