1. I don't think it will last. I would give it about 5 years. A business model of plucking PGA pros who may not be as competitive as they used to be isn't one that is going to get a lot of interest in the tournaments. Saudi dollars will only go so far. They will need TV time, sponsors, etc.
More I think about it, and after talking to Robert, I agree with this. They need the best golfers. They threw a ton of money and got Dustin Johnson but they need more. Are people going to watch glorified exhibitions without the best?
What do you mean by this?
Precious Roy wrote:
As long as players have an option to compete, there really isn't an anti-trust issue.
The PGA tour is saying you can not compete anywhere else (except for the Majors)
They are going to go broke in a hurry. It is one thing to spend a couple billion building a brand but for how many years are you going to do that? They need tv money and sponsors and right now they have neither. Playing for a ton of money is exciting for the players not the fans and most of the list are guys 10-20 years past their prime.
And I don't blame a guy like Westwood taking 25m. When you are 47, you are unlikely to make money like that from sponsors and the upcoming senior tour run.
I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia but the people freaking out are hypocrites because they are silent about China. China is literally committing genocide as we speak, yet the NBA, Disney, and everyone else loves to take China's money.
2
0
"Comfort must not be expected by folks that go a pleasuring."
More I think about it, and after talking to Robert, I agree with this. They need the best golfers. They threw a ton of money and got Dustin Johnson but they need more. Are people going to watch glorified exhibitions without the best?
What do you mean by this?
The PGA tour is saying you can not compete anywhere else (except for the Majors)
They are going to go broke in a hurry. It is one thing to spend a couple billion building a brand but for how many years are you going to do that? They need tv money and sponsors and right now they have neither. Playing for a ton of money is exciting for the players not the fans and most of the list are guys 10-20 years past their prime.
And I don't blame a guy like Westwood taking 25m. When you are 47, you are unlikely to make money like that from sponsors and the upcoming senior tour run.
With gas at $6/gallon and Europe needing to replace 40% of its energy requirements Saudi Arabia is not going broke anytime soon. They'll get a TV deal to offset some of the costs but I don't think they care.
Travelling for a PGA player sucks and if you can make more guaranteed money by travelling a third as much why would you say no?
I do think the level of play in the Saudi league would drop but if they all get worse who really knows? Sort of akin to a tree falling in the forest. No doubt the level of play on the PGA tour would drop as well.
If I was the PGA I'd be worried about their tour turning into a minor league/developmental type event. Once you get good enough time to move on to the Big Dance.
As long as players have an option to compete, there really isn't an anti-trust issue.
The PGA tour is saying you can not compete anywhere else (except for the Majors)
The PGA Tour would have to have some sort of monopolistic power in order for the antitrust argument to work. The PGA Tour is just saying, "you either play on our tour only, or you go find somewhere else to play." That could be problematic if there weren't other places to play, but as evidenced by the mere existence of LIV, there are plenty of other places to play.
This is a little simplistic -- the PGA Tour certainly does have a lot of power, and any decision they make that could limit someone's ability to make a living could be subject to scrutiny -- but when guys want to break the Tour's rules to go make millions elsewhere and then come back as if nothing happened, they're not the most sympathetic victims.
Financial security can be fleeting for pro players, even those who have wins and are ranked high. I think there is a lot of fear out there of becoming the next David Duvall. Duvall was winning everything in the late 1990s. But then he had injuries and personal problems and all but disappeared as a competitive golfer for the remainder of his career. On paper, Duvall had over $18 mil in career earnings. But the actual take home money is less than half when you take out taxes and expenses (caddie, trainer, coach, etc.). Spread over a 30 year career and suddenly that money isn't enough to be financially secure, which is important for golfers who can't really go back to school and do something different. So, the thinking is that the PGA needs to distribute more of its income to top players in order to give them financial security so they can have the ability to retire from the sport if they have bad injuries or just want to spend more time with their family. Right now, PGA players really have to play until their arms fall off unless they can really capitalize on sponsorship dollars and invest their money well.
If this is the case, then it's worse for mid-pack players whose careers are cut short by injuries. And the top guys want to make it even worse for them by shifting money from mid-pack players to top guys?
BTW, if I am not mistaken, the PGA Tour has the best pension plan for all pro sports.
To be clear, these guys are not ending up in the poor house. But they are not getting the same kind of financial security that other professional sports figures get when they break through. If you go to a PGA tournament, you will know by the size of the crowds which groups have the star players. I saw a crowd of at least 2,000 following Mickelson at a tournament even though he was spraying it all over the course and on his way to missing the cut by a half dozen strokes. Then, I followed a group with Scott Stallings and Sunjae IM. There were maybe 8 people following them. It is hard for the players who bring in thousands of fans to tournaments to show up week in and week out and see PGA reap all the cash they generate.
And the theory is that PGA has the cash it needs to pay top players more without having to sacrifice prize money down the leaderboard. PGA put $520 mil into a new headquarters and golf development in Frisco, TX. Mickelson would probably tell you that the PGA has enough cash to pay top players more and bump up prize money on the bottom end of the leader board.
As long as players have an option to compete, there really isn't an anti-trust issue.
The PGA tour is saying you can not compete anywhere else (except for the Majors)
Anti-trust would be an issue if the PGA would not release players at all. PGA does let players out to go do DP events like Dubai as long as they can keep their commitments to the PGA tour. Players are having to resign because they will not be able to meet their PGA commitments and play the LIV tour. Thus, there is competition between the PGA and LIV. Players get to choose. If the PGA did not release players, that would be anti-competitive.
- The USA , current government just executed a 10 Billion dollar military hardware sale , listing the Saudi Royal Family as buyers .
Ultimately there will be an American Network that purchases media rights to these LIV events, then the commentary will change .
Yeah, Joe Biden just sold a huge amount of war weapons to the Saudis and the PGA is whining about playing golf in Saudi Arabia? Why isn't the PGA attempting to cancel Joe Biden for providing an enormous amount of weapons to the Saudis? This would be like if Roosevelt sold weapons to the Nazis.
Most part the players , are republicans . The PGA of america pulled a major from a Trump golf course and replaced with a golf course owned by a heavy Democratic supporting family. This did not sit well with the rank and file . The PGA started the calling of the LIV golf league as “ financed by violent savages” . The Golf channel person walked that comment back. I think by the end of the year , the LIV league will acquire 15 of the top 25 players in the world . There are talks to include some women and Mexicans mixed events , where prize money is 8 times more than a normal lpga event.
For those of you not in the know it's a new pro golf tour that the Saudi's are throwing hundreds of millions if not billions of $ at it.
The PGA Tour has said if you play in any of the tournaments you will be sanctioned on their tour (presumably kicked out).
The 4 Majors are all held outside of the PGA Tour so players in the LIV Tour may still be able to play the majors (not sure how they will qualify).
The criticism of the PGA tour was it was paying the mid range players too much and the stars not enough. Appearance fees aren't allowed on the PGA Tour.
1) Will this thing last? I'm starting to think it might. A few weeks ago it looked dead.
2) I used to wonder if from an anti-trust perspective if the PGA Tour really could prevent people from playing it. That seems like less an issue if they can play the majors. The bigger issue is will all the Majors will let these golfers play and how will they qualify from what is a lesser tour?
3) Are any of the tournaments actually in Saudi Arabia? How do the Saudi's think this will improve their image? Sort of like how no one in the NBA will criticize China?
Or do they think this will be profitable long term? This looks sort of like the propose Super League in Soccer.
4) Do PGA Tour golfers have to get permission to play things like "The MATCH"? Seems like the top golfers have always had other ways to make money.
Sometimes people are right but don't express themselves very well. I think we're reluctantly starting to see that Phil michaelson had a point. How exactly is the PGA going to argue its case in court that it insists on its players being independent contractors and not employed, but it's going to keep them from playing golf where they want? PGAs pretty smart, I think theyll make a comeback but they've really got off to a horrible start with this thing. They pay their stars nothing for flying halfway across the world to play in events if they don't make the cut, and they want to keep them from working but not treat them as employees. No way they'll ever win that argument in court. In the end if you really think about it the masters doesn't have to listen to the PGA, nor the British open, nor the us open, nor any other tournament in the world except a couple they run. Us open already had announced its letting live tour guys in!
The US Open statement was what was expected . There is a very specific procedure and path to qualify . They will honour what they put forward . Expect the British open and Masters to follow. This is business politics , don’t expect any organization give up any control voluntarily to the PGA tour.
Roosevelt set up the US Saudi relationship after WW2. Saudis (bin Saud monarchy) guarantee us supply of oil, and keep close to neutral on Israel, US provides security for Saudi Arabia. Many bumps and bruises over the years, but still functioning.
Saudi Arabia, like Morocco, Tunisia, uae has invested a ton of money to make their countries the Florida of Europe for winter golf. (as part of diversifying economy from oil) The funding for the Liv golf tour comes from the Saudi government in support of golf tourism (and image laundering). They will be very patient investors, and will not be looking for any traditional break even, or ROI anytime soon. Let's see how they are doing in 2025.
The Saudi tour will end up being the 40 and over tour.
Golfer's will play on the PGA tour for 10 - 20 years. Once they get to the point where they feel they can no longer be competitive on the PGA tour, then they will take a bunch of money to move to the Saudi tour.
lifelong golfer and runner. Current 10HC, play 1-2x wk.
This will excite nobody after a few weeks. Golf is generally a niche, boring sport to watch. The best tournaments currently are mostly boring. Occasionally we get a good one. Sometimes Tiger chips in on 16. Or van de Velde or Norman collapses, or whatever but even most majors are ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
This LIV stuff will be no different. Its not more exciting b/c they throw money at players.
Yes, the Saudis can throw endless money without a care about profit. That won't make the golf exciting. Its up to them entirely how much they throw for how long. This will NOT be a money maker for the Saudis though and I doubt that is even a consideration. They just want to buy something.
The US Open statement was what was expected . There is a very specific procedure and path to qualify . They will honour what they put forward . Expect the British open and Masters to follow. This is business politics , don’t expect any organization give up any control voluntarily to the PGA tour.
The other issue would be qualifying for the majors then. A lot of the field at majors is filled through being in the top 50 in the Official World Golf Rankings (OWGR). LIV tour is not part of that system and even if it wanted to be, needs to be a 72 hole event. Players would fall out of the top 50 and not be eligible for majors potentially.
Its unclear if the Majors would massively shift their qualifying criteria to accommodate LIV players.
This is going somewhere and the PGA's hand is going to be forced. Brooks is making the move, Rickie is jumping, supposedly Rahm, and rumor that Spieth and a few others will be going as well.
If they get this they would seem to have most of the top players. This seems more like a Super League in soccer but the problem with golf is the players age and how would they select the next round of stars?
If the stars can play this and make way more money, with no cuts, and less travel and still play the majors I think a lot will sign up. What leverage does PGA tour have then? Almost none right? PGA Tour woold become almost a feeder for this thing. Sounds nuts but if the stars all jump, what can PGA Tour do?
The Saudi money seems to be the only thing holding this back and creating it at same time. And are the players getting the checks upfront? I'd be weary of signing some long-term deal and not getting paid.
