Golf
-
Disagree. I like him more because he speaks his mind. And the Tour has hung him out to dry.
I like him because he's not afraid to be polarising. Others hate him, that's fine. Golf needs these people, rather than the hundreds of dreary Americans who have as much character as a brown onion.
-
I'll play devil's advocate here. I understand why this payment is made.
The PGA Tour doesn't pay appearance fees. So the only source of income is prize money. And that's great and egalitarian and all that, but it doesn't recognise one simple fact: players like Tiger, Rory, Jordan etc. are the reason people go to the course or turn on their TV.
So Rory might tie with John Q Nobody for 15th place, and walk away with the exact same amount of cash, even though he brought far more to the event than Mr Nobody. Very few other sports work in this way.
And then LIV came along and said 'hey we will pay you a contract for what you are actually worth to the game (and then triple it)'. No more uncertainty, just dollars dollars dollars baby.
The Tour had to do something to balance that and ensure the top players were compensated better for what they bring to the game. And that's where the PIP comes in. It's about more than social media, it's news coverage, sponsor interest, and a few other things.
I'd much rather the cash go to the players I actually watch than player #115 who I couldn't pick out of a lineup.
@barbarian said in Golf:
I'll play devil's advocate here. I understand why this payment is made.
The PGA Tour doesn't pay appearance fees. So the only source of income is prize money. And that's great and egalitarian and all that, but it doesn't recognise one simple fact: players like Tiger, Rory, Jordan etc. are the reason people go to the course or turn on their TV.
How did Tiger, Rory, Jordan get to the point that millions of people will come to watch them play. Do you think it was because they were constantly finishing 15th - 25th? Or was it because they were winning, which was generating them millions in prize money, and even more in endorsements?
So Rory might tie with John Q Nobody for 15th place, and walk away with the exact same amount of cash, even though he brought far more to the event than Mr Nobody. Very few other sports work in this way.
Well it's a sporting competition. IF Rory wants to earn more money than John Q nobody, then he should finish ahead of him. How about that!
And then LIV came along and said 'hey we will pay you a contract for what you are actually worth to the game (and then triple it)'. No more uncertainty, just dollars dollars dollars baby.
Exactly. If you are worth 100 mill, LIV will now make you worth 300 mill! That seems totally reasonable and is the main reason why so many people absolutely love LIV!!!
The Tour had to do something to balance that and ensure the top players were compensated better for what they bring to the game. And that's where the PIP comes in. It's about more than social media, it's news coverage, sponsor interest, and a few other things.
So the tour agrees with LIV in that winning is such a small percentage of the point of golf now, that they need to make a prize pool of 100mm just to give to players (all worth > 50mm) in order to encourarge them to use twitter.
I'd much rather the cash go to the players I actually watch than player #115 who I couldn't pick out of a lineup.
So winning means nothing to you in sport, and a stronger distribution of cash to the top names, regardless of how they play, means everything.
I literally have not a single ounce of understanding of how you could come to the conclusion that winning is not the be all and end all in sport.
-
I'll play devil's advocate here. I understand why this payment is made.
The PGA Tour doesn't pay appearance fees. So the only source of income is prize money. And that's great and egalitarian and all that, but it doesn't recognise one simple fact: players like Tiger, Rory, Jordan etc. are the reason people go to the course or turn on their TV.
So Rory might tie with John Q Nobody for 15th place, and walk away with the exact same amount of cash, even though he brought far more to the event than Mr Nobody. Very few other sports work in this way.
And then LIV came along and said 'hey we will pay you a contract for what you are actually worth to the game (and then triple it)'. No more uncertainty, just dollars dollars dollars baby.
The Tour had to do something to balance that and ensure the top players were compensated better for what they bring to the game. And that's where the PIP comes in. It's about more than social media, it's news coverage, sponsor interest, and a few other things.
I'd much rather the cash go to the players I actually watch than player #115 who I couldn't pick out of a lineup.
@barbarian said in Golf:
The Tour had to do something to balance that and ensure the top players were compensated better for what they bring to the game. And that's where the PIP comes in. It's about more than social media, it's news coverage, sponsor interest, and a few other things.
I'd much rather the cash go to the players I actually watch than player #115 who I couldn't pick out of a lineup.
Given that Tiger appears to have finished 1st, 1st, 2nd for the past 3 years, would you rather the cash goes to someone who won a lot of golf tournaments 2 decades ago and appears to have played 8 tournaments during that time or to someone who is actually playing?
-
@barbarian said in Golf:
The Tour had to do something to balance that and ensure the top players were compensated better for what they bring to the game. And that's where the PIP comes in. It's about more than social media, it's news coverage, sponsor interest, and a few other things.
I'd much rather the cash go to the players I actually watch than player #115 who I couldn't pick out of a lineup.
Given that Tiger appears to have finished 1st, 1st, 2nd for the past 3 years, would you rather the cash goes to someone who won a lot of golf tournaments 2 decades ago and appears to have played 8 tournaments during that time or to someone who is actually playing?
@KiwiPie you'd have to think Nicklaus probably features higher than many of the top 100 players.
-
@barbarian said in Golf:
I'll play devil's advocate here. I understand why this payment is made.
The PGA Tour doesn't pay appearance fees. So the only source of income is prize money. And that's great and egalitarian and all that, but it doesn't recognise one simple fact: players like Tiger, Rory, Jordan etc. are the reason people go to the course or turn on their TV.
How did Tiger, Rory, Jordan get to the point that millions of people will come to watch them play. Do you think it was because they were constantly finishing 15th - 25th? Or was it because they were winning, which was generating them millions in prize money, and even more in endorsements?
So Rory might tie with John Q Nobody for 15th place, and walk away with the exact same amount of cash, even though he brought far more to the event than Mr Nobody. Very few other sports work in this way.
Well it's a sporting competition. IF Rory wants to earn more money than John Q nobody, then he should finish ahead of him. How about that!
And then LIV came along and said 'hey we will pay you a contract for what you are actually worth to the game (and then triple it)'. No more uncertainty, just dollars dollars dollars baby.
Exactly. If you are worth 100 mill, LIV will now make you worth 300 mill! That seems totally reasonable and is the main reason why so many people absolutely love LIV!!!
The Tour had to do something to balance that and ensure the top players were compensated better for what they bring to the game. And that's where the PIP comes in. It's about more than social media, it's news coverage, sponsor interest, and a few other things.
So the tour agrees with LIV in that winning is such a small percentage of the point of golf now, that they need to make a prize pool of 100mm just to give to players (all worth > 50mm) in order to encourarge them to use twitter.
I'd much rather the cash go to the players I actually watch than player #115 who I couldn't pick out of a lineup.
So winning means nothing to you in sport, and a stronger distribution of cash to the top names, regardless of how they play, means everything.
I literally have not a single ounce of understanding of how you could come to the conclusion that winning is not the be all and end all in sport.
@MajorRage said in Golf:
So winning means nothing to you in sport, and a stronger distribution of cash to the top names, regardless of how they play, means everything.
You used to be one of my favourite posters. What happened? This is just straw man nonsense.
The vast majority of money is still distributed as event prizemoney. If a top player isn't winning they will fall down the pecking order as fast as anyone else. And by and large that's how it should be.
But faced with the existential threat of LIV they upped their contribution to the top players, and this was how they decided to do it.
-
@barbarian said in Golf:
The Tour had to do something to balance that and ensure the top players were compensated better for what they bring to the game. And that's where the PIP comes in. It's about more than social media, it's news coverage, sponsor interest, and a few other things.
I'd much rather the cash go to the players I actually watch than player #115 who I couldn't pick out of a lineup.
Given that Tiger appears to have finished 1st, 1st, 2nd for the past 3 years, would you rather the cash goes to someone who won a lot of golf tournaments 2 decades ago and appears to have played 8 tournaments during that time or to someone who is actually playing?
@barbarian said in Golf:
The Tour had to do something to balance that and ensure the top players were compensated better for what they bring to the game. And that's where the PIP comes in. It's about more than social media, it's news coverage, sponsor interest, and a few other things.
I'd much rather the cash go to the players I actually watch than player #115 who I couldn't pick out of a lineup.
Given that Tiger appears to have finished 1st, 1st, 2nd for the past 3 years, would you rather the cash goes to someone who won a lot of golf tournaments 2 decades ago and appears to have played 8 tournaments during that time or to someone who is actually playing?
I think that misrepresents how important Tiger still is to the game. He's not some old has been. Take the coverage around the Hero this weekend as an example. It's the most nothing tournament and yet because he's playing there is significant interest. No other player carries that weight, even after all these years.
While he's not short of a quid, I don't object to him still being rewarded for the interest and coverage he generates, playing or not.
-
@barbarian said in Golf:
The Tour had to do something to balance that and ensure the top players were compensated better for what they bring to the game. And that's where the PIP comes in. It's about more than social media, it's news coverage, sponsor interest, and a few other things.
I'd much rather the cash go to the players I actually watch than player #115 who I couldn't pick out of a lineup.
Given that Tiger appears to have finished 1st, 1st, 2nd for the past 3 years, would you rather the cash goes to someone who won a lot of golf tournaments 2 decades ago and appears to have played 8 tournaments during that time or to someone who is actually playing?
I think that misrepresents how important Tiger still is to the game. He's not some old has been. Take the coverage around the Hero this weekend as an example. It's the most nothing tournament and yet because he's playing there is significant interest. No other player carries that weight, even after all these years.
While he's not short of a quid, I don't object to him still being rewarded for the interest and coverage he generates, playing or not.
@barbarian said in Golf:
I don't object to him still being rewarded for the interest and coverage he generates, playing or not.
but thats where his sponsorship deals come in isnt it, getting paid for his name?
Also, if Tiger has won 3 of the last 4 years, this pre-dates the whole LIV issue? Has this payment simply increased with the threat of LIV? Right now, is there really anyone other than Rory or Tiger likely to win the 'prize'?
That said, do other sports have this type of 'prize'?
-
@MajorRage said in Golf:
So winning means nothing to you in sport, and a stronger distribution of cash to the top names, regardless of how they play, means everything.
You used to be one of my favourite posters. What happened? This is just straw man nonsense.
The vast majority of money is still distributed as event prizemoney. If a top player isn't winning they will fall down the pecking order as fast as anyone else. And by and large that's how it should be.
But faced with the existential threat of LIV they upped their contribution to the top players, and this was how they decided to do it.
@barbarian said in Golf:
@MajorRage said in Golf:
So winning means nothing to you in sport, and a stronger distribution of cash to the top names, regardless of how they play, means everything.
You used to be one of my favourite posters. What happened? This is just straw man nonsense.
You had bad taste in posters then.
I hate the LIV model and it brings out the worst in me. And your comment was you’d rather your cash went to the player you came to watch, not the bloke you don’t know. Is that a path of winning not being relevant? I think it is.
The vast majority of money is still distributed as event prizemoney. If a top player isn't winning they will fall down the pecking order as fast as anyone else. And by and large that's how it should be.
I don’t think it is. Majority yes, but not vast. Does any tournament pay 15mm to the winner? Did Rory even win 15mm in money this year.
But faced with the existential threat of LIV they upped their contribution to the top players, and this was how they decided to do it.
Actually they merged with them.
I find the whole thing sickening. Sad but true given I used to watch probably 20 tournaments a year on Sunday nights. Since all this, I’ve watched the Masters and that’s it.
-
Probably the only golf I have watched is LIV, the Majors and the Ryder Cup. Haven't watched a PGA tour event in years. I think most of the tournaments are boring. LIV is a new model and it will be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming year. I know the new demographics of golfers are less country club like and more average guy in the street type and I suspect they would be more attracted to the tunes, entertainment and beer holes that LIV provides. Recruitment is the big thing for LIV but taking golf around the world is a big positive. All in all I would rather play than watch anyway.
PS. Rory is annoying.
-
I don't disagree broughie.
I hate LIV though. There's a good idea in there somewhere - I like team golf, I like taking the game out of the US - but the product on TV is unwatchable. There's no juice. It's an exhibition.
Looks like a tonne of fun to be at the course, but realistically that's not going to sustain it long term.
-
@barbarian said in Golf:
@MajorRage said in Golf:
So winning means nothing to you in sport, and a stronger distribution of cash to the top names, regardless of how they play, means everything.
You used to be one of my favourite posters. What happened? This is just straw man nonsense.
You had bad taste in posters then.
I hate the LIV model and it brings out the worst in me. And your comment was you’d rather your cash went to the player you came to watch, not the bloke you don’t know. Is that a path of winning not being relevant? I think it is.
The vast majority of money is still distributed as event prizemoney. If a top player isn't winning they will fall down the pecking order as fast as anyone else. And by and large that's how it should be.
I don’t think it is. Majority yes, but not vast. Does any tournament pay 15mm to the winner? Did Rory even win 15mm in money this year.
But faced with the existential threat of LIV they upped their contribution to the top players, and this was how they decided to do it.
Actually they merged with them.
I find the whole thing sickening. Sad but true given I used to watch probably 20 tournaments a year on Sunday nights. Since all this, I’ve watched the Masters and that’s it.
@MajorRage said in Golf:
Actually they merged with them.
I find the whole thing sickening. Sad but true given I used to watch probably 20 tournaments a year on Sunday nights. Since all this, I’ve watched the Masters and that’s it.
Yeah no disagreement here. The whole thing is a mess and the PGA Tour are hypocrites of the highest order for pursuing a merger.
The only loser in all of this are the fans.
-
@canefan $600m US, hard to knock back...even if you likely already have 10s of.mill in the bank
-
@canefan anyone would take that money, especially considering he can still play in the majors.
-
It just makes me sad. How much money is enough to people? I can't be happy for Rahm, or anyone here.
The real losers, as always, are golf fans. As the landscape fractures further and for the worse.
@barbarian more so with the ball roll back rule...
It's much like many elite sport though isnt it, obscene sums of money on offer.
-
@barbarian more so with the ball roll back rule...
It's much like many elite sport though isnt it, obscene sums of money on offer.
@taniwharugby said in Golf:
It's much like many elite sport though isnt it, obscene sums of money on offer.
At least with other sports the obscene sums are somewhat commensurate with added global interest.
Golf's pay packets are now so wildly out of sync with the actual popularity of the athletes its insane.
-
The facts...money talks.
