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

[Sharpee]

2 hours ago, tatertot said:

Why would the PGA Tour want to be a part of that? Why should the PGA Tour, or anybody, be forced to do something they don't want just because Greg has rich "friends"?

 

^this^.

 

The argument that the PGA had the chance to work with the Saudis and declined, therefore should roll over is ridiculous.  They are entitled to defend their business against competition as any other business would.    Make no mistake, there isn't room for more tours with limited OWGR talent.  The product they sell is limited (top golfers), no different than the NHL, MLB, NFL etc.    Norman is trying to close either DP or PGA down mid-term - LIV will not survive otherwise.

 

The Saudis started this war with the PGA and DP for whatever reasons they have (I think vanity) and so far the PGA is still the place to find the best competition.  Maybe if team golf becomes a thing, LIV will create something but for golf in its fundamental form (individual), the PGA is winning.

[Isaac_Newton]

5 minutes ago, CaseyC said:

 

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

Ok????

[CaseyC]

5 minutes ago, Isaac_Newton said:

Ok????

 

So the Tour is essentially doing what exactly?

[Purple Toupee]

1 hour 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?

 

The point is he got in based on his world ranking, not because of some special GN invite that you keep bringing up.  

[idrive]

7 hours ago, physasst said:

https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/contributors/2022/08/08/watching-liv-not-me-pga-tour-offers-real-talent-intrigue-opinion/10209775002/

 

 

For anyone that didn't see it or skipped over it.

 

4 hours ago, oikos1 said:

This exactly.  GN's original concept was a limited field of the Top players playing around the world for large purses.  PGA Tour could have been a part of that.

 

It has evolved to a full fledged tour with connections to the Asian Tour and an international feeder Tour for young talent and relegation for the LIV Tour.

 

Wonder why that happened?

 

Greg Norman?

 

1 hour ago, Htk084 said:

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

 

Share the list here for everybody. I think you've officially listed 75 guys now who were signing... how can you miss?

 

1 hour ago, Htk084 said:

Justin Harding has played in every event 

 

Anyone else?

Edited August 9, 2022 by idrive

[CaseyC]

One of the many things I found interesting in the Tour's response is the reference to Heldman vs United States Lawn Tennis Assoc.

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

7 minutes ago, Isaac_Newton said:

 

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.

 

 

 

They plan to exclude players from competition based on those players violating the guidelines they agreed to. The lawsuit alleges that the guidelines that they agreed to are unlawful and not legally binding. But there is no argument that the players in question violated their agreed-to guidelines. 

 

Supposedly, DJ was [quietly] suspended a few years ago for drug use. You wouldn't argue that despite his drug use (which violates tour guidelines) he should be able to compete despite violating guidelines, right? So why argue that any other player should be able to continue to play after violating guidelines? 

 

 

Quote

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.

 

Ford is reportedly putting restrictions on F-150 Lightning buyers not allowing them to resell the vehicle in the first year. Ferrari and Ducati have been known to have special edition releases of cars/motorcycles that are only available to previous owners and carry limits on resale. The idea of restrictions on sales are not unknown. 

 

Re: the tire example, I'm not entirely sure that's even illegal... I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to wade into that which isn't really relevant to the PGA Tour vs LIV situation. 

[Htk084]

8 minutes ago, idrive said:

 

For anyone that didn't see it or skipped over it.

 

 

Greg Norman?

 

 

Share the list here for everybody. I think you've officially listed 75 guys now who were signing... how can you miss?

 

 

Anyone else?

I can private message this list if you’re interested

[lowndes]

21 minutes ago, Purple Toupee said:

The point is he got in based on his world ranking, not because of some special GN invite that you keep bringing up.  

Chase Koepka is taking one of the 48 spots due to his awesome world ranking as well.

[Krt22]

6 minutes ago, lowndes said:

Chase Koepka is taking one of the 48 spots due to his awesome world ranking as well.

Don't bring facts into a hand waiving exhibition 

[Frankensteins Monster]

2 hours 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. LOL and the exhibition golfers chose to go somewhere there's no world ranking points. They made that conscious decision.

 

2. They have freedom to move around. They moved around to a shotgun exhibition.

 

3. They can't play "less" anymore. They're contracted to play 14 events next year. Just one more required than the PGA Tour which counted majors and WGCs. They all said they wanted to play less. Them wanting to play on the PGA Tour in addition to their blood contract that forces them to play 14 events next year, and more in 2024, goes completely against them claiming they wanted to play "less" and spend more time with their spawn.

[CasualLie]

4 hours ago, pingbling23 said:

I apologize, I did not think that was a complex statement.  The pga tour is comprised of professional golfers and executives that manage the tour.  And my boldened comment, as I said the tours have benefited from these players, a lifetime ban is unreasonable.

 

The fact is, as described in the court documents, there is no lifetime ban.  It's a moot point.  It appears the PGAT is going with suspensions in line with each LIV event played.  The suspensions presumably will end at some point and at that time the player can apply for reinstatement.  It may be years, it may result in different criteria for different players.  And likely, for some of the older players, they may be told to go re-qualify and good luck.  

 

We are very likely to find in a few days when the sell outs are not going to get their injunction that LIV has over played their hand. Good luck to those players, they are getting exactly what they asked for.

Edited August 9, 2022 by CasualLie

[Dutch1008]

15 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Re: the tire example, I'm not entirely sure that's even illegal... I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to wade into that which isn't really relevant to the PGA Tour vs LIV situation. 

The tire situation isn't illegal. Manufacturers and suppliers negotiate exclusives all the time. The manufacturer is trying to lock up some competitive differentiation and the supplier is locking up volume and pricing stability. It's potentially win/win and as along as there are alternatives and the consumer isn't getting squeezed, there is no anti-trust claim. RE the PGAT, the existence of the DP, Asian, Japan, and LIV itself are proof of alternatives. The alternatives don't need to be equal, just exist. 

 

Also, the PGAT is well within its rights to go to every sponsor they have and tell them that if they wish to keep their place as a flagship sponsor, they cannot financially support a competitor. If Fed Ex, Charles Schwab, Mastercard, CBS, etc believe that LIV is the future, they have every right to call the PGAT on their bluff and make a deal with Mr. Norman. So far, it appears as though the sponsors and broadcast partners have chosen to stick with the PGAT.  

[Krt22]

6 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

The tire situation isn't illegal. Manufacturers and suppliers negotiate exclusives all the time. The manufacturer is trying to lock up some competitive differentiation and the supplier is locking up volume and pricing stability. It's potentially win/win and as along as there are alternatives and the consumer isn't getting squeezed, there is no anti-trust claim. RE the PGAT, the existence of the DP, Asian, Japan, and LIV itself are proof of alternatives. The alternatives don't need to be equal, just exist. 

 

Also, the PGAT is well within its rights to go to every sponsor they have and tell them that if they wish to keep their place as a flagship sponsor, they cannot financially support a competitor. If Fed Ex, Charles Schwab, Mastercard, CBS, etc believe that LIV is the future, they have every right to call the PGAT on their bluff and make a deal with Mr. Norman. So far, it appears as though the sponsors and broadcast partners have chosen to stick with the PGAT.  

What we really need lawyers to look into, is why it's nearly impossible to find a restaurant that serves Pepsi in Georgia.

[Dutch1008]

2 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

What we really need lawyers to look into, is why it's nearly impossible to find a restaurant that serves Pepsi in Georgia.

🤣 Same reason you can't get a Pepsi at McDonalds. Ol' Jon P. Cocacola IV signed a blood oath with Ronald J. McDonald Jr many a fortnight ago. Northerners be damned.  

[CasualLie]

1 hour ago, Isaac_Newton said:

 

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. 

 

Seriously??? Jeez, Brad can just go buy tires from the Koreans, or lots of other suppliers.  Why would Brad risk supply issues doing business with one of Ford's biggest customers in the whack scenario they have 90% market share??? 

 

Suspended players do not get to play, regardless of the so called previous merit.  It's called suspension for a reason.

 

 

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, Isaac_Newton said:

 

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. 

 

The fedex cup events are…pga tour events. The players suspended were were suspended from playing in all pga tour events. They had pga tour cards that they “earned” but are now suspended from all of them for violating a bunch (I assume) of rules that they were, according to the tour, fully aware of.

 

The defectors joined a competitive golf tour for greater compensation guarantees and/or potential than the pga tour. 
 

The ease and speed with which LiV organized a tour, acquired the venues, leadership/management, media and production support, and players 

 

Demonstrates very clearly the the pga tour had basically ZERO monopoly power in the marketplace.  Contrary to the usual negative characteristics of a monopoly, the players consistently earned larger and larger incomes over the decades and there are dozens of examples of tour players extolling their “dream lives” on tour. The pga tour has provided an international infrastructure and support/org for thousands to participate and work their way to heights as high as they can go. 
 

The liv is going to have a heck of a time proving that the pga tour hasn’t been an exceptional organization for the game.
 

Much less the equivalent of 19th century coal mine mine paying children in potatoes for 16 hour days. 

 

Look at Greg Norman himself. Where would he be without the pga tour? ; )

Edited August 9, 2022 by bscinstnct

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, Isaac_Newton said:

 

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. 

Stick to physics bud

[gsrjc]

What happened to the rumors of Charles Barkley and TNT or whatever else?  I see it as all rumors to stir the pot. 

Edited August 9, 2022 by gsrjc

[Purple Toupee]

1 hour ago, lowndes said:

Chase Koepka is taking one of the 48 spots due to his awesome world ranking as well.

No, they needed warm bodies.  If more top players had joined, Chase would have been kicked to the curb.  Has nothing to do with my original point though.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, Krt22 said:

What we really need lawyers to look into, is why it's nearly impossible to find a restaurant that serves Pepsi in Georgia.

You have to go north of the Cumberland gap for Pepsi to be every Where .  😂.   Mr pib or RC are the only off brands in GA or South Carolina  ! 

Edited August 9, 2022 by bladehunter

[mannyvizcaya]

On 8/2/2022 at 2:35 PM, BottleCap said:

I don't think any of the guys that jumped ship for a signing bonus care enough to return, they'd probably be fine retiring in a year or two.

 

Maybe James Piot, after he pockets enough money may want to play on another tour

Maybe a few of the guys. Maybe.

Money aside, most of these guys just love to play golf. 

I know a few are missing the PGAT grind.

In a few years I believe we'll hear a LIV player admit it was a mistake leaving the PGAT.

[mannyvizcaya]

I'm curious to see where Liv golfers play to keep sharp. 

Not too many options....

Edited August 9, 2022 by mannyvizcaya
Comment was wrong

[Htk084]

6 minutes ago, mannyvizcaya said:

I'm curious to see where Liv golfers play to keep sharp. 

Not too many options....

International series on the Asian tour 

[hacker101]

I spend a bunch of time on the road listening to the radio and hearing arguments from both sides.  I say that I side with the home team, but what if I was in one of defectors shoes? I’ve tried to come up with an analogy that makes sense to me. The money associated with Liv is not something I can put in perspective. It may not be completely to financial scale, but here it goes.

 

I’m in the construction and ag equipment sales business. Very competitive market, unpredictable schedule and hours, but if I perform well, it can be a good living. For the sake of argument and simple math, say I make $100k per year. A competitor comes along with a new product. They offer me a five year contract plus $1m signing bonus. 

The product is good and so cheap that there is no possible way it’s profitable. Doesn’t matter…..I can’t  lose. They are still going to pay me at least double or more than what I was making with my old job and I work 1/3 less hours.  All life changing stuff. Seems like that would be very hard to turn down. Good for me and my family. Nothing illegal about it. 
 

The catch is, I only sell to the farms that have been recently purchased and are now operated by foreign countries right next to all my friends, neighbors and former customers. Would taking the easy money be worth losing what credibility and good name that I had earned among my peers and possibly hurting the local farmers ability to compete? 
 

I’d like to say I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror.

[tiderider]

11 hours ago, Purple Toupee said:

The point is he got in based on his world ranking, not because of some special GN invite that you keep bringing up.  

no, it was because of of gregory's invite ... there's nothing in place in the liv process that guarantees participation based on a ranking ... gregory had to invite him ... 

[bscinstnct]

Cam Percy said this last week.

 

But for some reason it’s going a bit viral just now.

 

CSmith gonna get hammered with questions by the media this week!

 

 

[Greg_B]

40 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

Cam Percy said this last week.

 

But for some reason it’s going a bit viral just now.

 

CSmith gonna get hammered with questions by the media this week!

 

 

 

I can't think of anyone who has won a couple of big events who would be missed less on Tour than Smith. Zero personality, zero charisma, zero star power. He can win every single event if he leaves and nobody will notice.

[aus10KC]

8 minutes ago, Greg_B said:

 

I can't think of anyone who has won a couple of big events who would be missed less on Tour than Smith. Zero personality, zero charisma, zero star power. He can win every single event if he leaves and nobody will notice.

 

I disagree, I like watching him play and like his style. He will be missed but I guess I'll only see him in the majors(maybe) because I'm not into watching LIV. 

[Purple Toupee]

48 minutes ago, tiderider said:

no, it was because of of gregory's invite ... there's nothing in place in the liv process that guarantees participation based on a ranking ... gregory had to invite him ... 

It’s an invitational so of course there has to be an invite.  But they invited everyone at least up to the 124th ranked player.  My point was that players didn’t need something special from Gregory.  He was inviting everyone.

 

There is a certain poster who keeps making it sound like Norman was standing on a mountaintop declaring which players are good enough to play in his tournament and only inviting the lucky ones.  It wasn’t like that at all.  Norman was inviting anyone he could because he needed warm bodies to fill up the roster.  He wanted the best players, but instead he got #124.

 

This isn’t a defense of LIV, it actually makes them look bad.  But if I see nonsense, I’m still going to point it out.