Golf

@Catogrande I don’t know, I didn’t know they weren’t paid to play until this year, and as somewhat uncomfortable as millionaires not being paid might sound, I think he’s right. Lots of people make a killing from this event, why should the players do it for free?

@Dodge said in Golf:

@Catogrande I don’t know, I didn’t know they weren’t paid to play until this year, and as somewhat uncomfortable as millionaires not being paid might sound, I think he’s right. Lots of people make a killing from this event, why should the players do it for free?

I agree. I don't think the fact they earn big money should be a way to justify not paying them, at least to cover costs. Unless the RC is the only invitational team event where individual pros pay for nix. A quick google search suggests Davis Cup players get paid, although at a much lower rate than the players could earn from other sources

@canefan I assume it was originally an amateur competition, that has evolved into picking the best available (although Dechamblowhard would dispute this) which is all pro players.

I couldnt care less if they are paid or not, but I expect given the profile and coverage, someone is making some good coin out of this, so no reason why the players shouldnt get their piece of gold.

Google tells me each US player gets assigned $200K, 100K of which goes to a charity of their choice and the other 100K goes towards PGA nominated charities.

@canefan said in Golf:

US mounting a comeback in the afternoon matches. Comfortably up in two matches, down 1 in each of the other two with plenty of holes to play. If they want to give themselves any chance of getting close enough to compete tomorrow I think they have to win all 4 matches. Spieth has been ice cold in all his matches so far, and he's continued to be a burden to Thomas. If they had an alternative option I think the US should have played them

You mean DJ or Deschambeau?

I like Rory less and less as time goes on. He’s a shit spokesman for the PGA. Just comes across as a fucking whiney prick.

@broughie said in Golf:

@canefan said in Golf:

US mounting a comeback in the afternoon matches. Comfortably up in two matches, down 1 in each of the other two with plenty of holes to play. If they want to give themselves any chance of getting close enough to compete tomorrow I think they have to win all 4 matches. Spieth has been ice cold in all his matches so far, and he's continued to be a burden to Thomas. If they had an alternative option I think the US should have played them

You mean DJ or Deschambeau?

No. Within the actual squad. But both those guys should have been there if the US were serious about winning

@Hooroo said in Golf:

I like Rory less and less as time goes on. He’s a shit spokesman for the PGA. Just comes across as a fucking whiney prick.

Well. I mean. He's Irish

@Dodge said in Golf:

@Catogrande I don’t know, I didn’t know they weren’t paid to play until this year, and as somewhat uncomfortable as millionaires not being paid might sound, I think he’s right. Lots of people make a killing from this event, why should the players do it for free?

I don’t necessarily think that the players should do it for free, but at present it is the purest contest in top level golf and players doing it for the team ethic is, I feel, a significant part of that. Moreover, most players are very happy to play for free and in fact seem to enjoy the completely different environment this brings. If that changes and the RC no longer draws the top players, or ceases to be a competitive event, or even that payment becomes an issue for the majority, then maybe changes would need to be made.

Right now it is just the odd person with a gripe about not being paid for something that he can easily just decline.

@Catogrande said in Golf:

@Dodge said in Golf:

@Catogrande I don’t know, I didn’t know they weren’t paid to play until this year, and as somewhat uncomfortable as millionaires not being paid might sound, I think he’s right. Lots of people make a killing from this event, why should the players do it for free?

I don’t necessarily think that the players should do it for free, but at present it is the purest contest in top level golf and players doing it for the team ethic is, I feel, a significant part of that. Moreover, most players are very happy to play for free and in fact seem to enjoy the completely different environment this brings. If that changes and the RC no longer draws the top players, or ceases to be a competitive event, or even that payment becomes an issue for the majority, then maybe changes would need to be made.

Right now it is just the odd person with a gripe about not being paid for something that he can easily just decline.

I agree that any pay should be token, as opposed to representing a financial incentive to qualify for

@canefan said in Golf:

@Catogrande said in Golf:

@Dodge said in Golf:

@Catogrande I don’t know, I didn’t know they weren’t paid to play until this year, and as somewhat uncomfortable as millionaires not being paid might sound, I think he’s right. Lots of people make a killing from this event, why should the players do it for free?

I don’t necessarily think that the players should do it for free, but at present it is the purest contest in top level golf and players doing it for the team ethic is, I feel, a significant part of that. Moreover, most players are very happy to play for free and in fact seem to enjoy the completely different environment this brings. If that changes and the RC no longer draws the top players, or ceases to be a competitive event, or even that payment becomes an issue for the majority, then maybe changes would need to be made.

Right now it is just the odd person with a gripe about not being paid for something that he can easily just decline.

I agree that any pay should be token, as opposed to representing a financial incentive to qualify for

In a way that’s the position now, the players and their entourages get well looked after and they’re given money to donate to charities. Someone mentioned a figure of £200k?

@Catogrande said in Golf:

@canefan said in Golf:

@Catogrande said in Golf:

@Dodge said in Golf:

@Catogrande I don’t know, I didn’t know they weren’t paid to play until this year, and as somewhat uncomfortable as millionaires not being paid might sound, I think he’s right. Lots of people make a killing from this event, why should the players do it for free?

I don’t necessarily think that the players should do it for free, but at present it is the purest contest in top level golf and players doing it for the team ethic is, I feel, a significant part of that. Moreover, most players are very happy to play for free and in fact seem to enjoy the completely different environment this brings. If that changes and the RC no longer draws the top players, or ceases to be a competitive event, or even that payment becomes an issue for the majority, then maybe changes would need to be made.

Right now it is just the odd person with a gripe about not being paid for something that he can easily just decline.

I agree that any pay should be token, as opposed to representing a financial incentive to qualify for

In a way that’s the position now, the players and their entourages get well looked after and they’re given money to donate to charities. Someone mentioned a figure of £200k?

If that's the case, if you don't want to play for whatever reason, just opt out

@taniwharugby

I never really took to Koepka not sure why, but seeing him and a few others on Swing (Netflix), they came across very well and that clip sort of confirms it.

Patrick Reed, not so much.

@Catogrande I was the same, used to think he was a twat until that series.

@Catogrande said in Golf:

@taniwharugby

I never really took to Koepka not sure why, but seeing him and a few others on Swing (Netflix), they came across very well and that clip sort of confirms it.

Patrick Reed, not so much.

I’m the opposite. Liked Brooks but didn’t like him on Netflix

@taniwharugby Exactly the same as me. Really wasn't a fan but doesnt appear a bad guy at all

@mariner4life said in Golf:

@Hooroo said in Golf:

I like Rory less and less as time goes on. He’s a shit spokesman for the PGA. Just comes across as a fucking whiney prick.

Well. I mean. He's Irish

Yeah same island, just not the same Ireland.

WTF do they do to their sportspeople? I've never met a whiney Irishman in person, but BOD, Sexton, McIlroy all come across as whingers.

I like Rory. Has the stones to put himself out there, and has been hung out to dry by Jay Monahan and the PGA tour brass.

I'll take the ups and downs of Rory ahead of the bland nothingness brought by Cantlay, Schauffele and Scheffler any day of the week.

Rory's just been handed 15mm from the PGA for generating interest.

Yes, all of the above is correct.

I have to say I actually find professional golf quite sickening now. The levels of money are absolutely fucking stupid. Rory's just been handed more money than 99.999% of the worlds population will earn in their entire lifetime as some sort of a bonus for being on twitter.

My last sporting fan goal in life (US Masters) has pretty much so evaporated since LIV. Shit like this, doesn't help.

hypocritical little irish fluffybunny

but but but moi traditions! way to make the ultimate sacrifice there Rory.

The only golfer i have any time for is that guy from Full Swing who doesn't give a shit.

@mariner4life oh for the days when Tiger was nailing it (on, and off the course...)

WTAF, a prize for not playing golf FFS...more so when PGA used him as thier mouthpeice in the battle v LIV, made him unlikeable to many (I love watching him hit a golf ball though)

LIV & PGA need to pull thier heads out thier arses and let them all play fucking golf.

I had no idea there was such a thing - so Tiger has been getting a cool 10 million or so every year since his car crash without actually having to play.

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.

I have no problems with the prize existing

But it's just another nail in the "Rory choosing tradition over money" coffin. Rory chose both, because he can. Good on him, but shut the fuck up.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@KiwiPie said in Golf:

@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'?

Well other sports have central contracts where this sort of thing is factored in to what you are paid.

Think this is the 3rd one. And it's ratcheted up with the rise of LIV.

@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.

@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.