PGA Tour Caddies file class-action suit against PGA Tour for use of likeness, bibs

[Golfingdad]

It isn't ignorant it is a fact. If the Caddies do not like how their contracts are structured. In the end they are basically independent contractors. They should talk to their employer, the golfer and see what they can do. Besides that the PGA Tour doesn't owe the caddies anything. If they don't like it, don't work that job or find a new golfer who gives you a better contract.

[quote name="Pretzel" url="/t/79803/pga-tour-caddies-file-class-action-suit-against-pga-tour-for-use-of-likeness-bibs/30#post_1103110"]It's not ignorant. The caddies wanting a cut of the marketing pie would be the same as if the guy waving the "Homes for Sale" sign demanded a commission for every home sold during his shift. Part of their job is the advertising, it's already baked into their contract. Their contract states they do as the player tells them to, and the player is telling them to wear the bibs because the PGA tells the players it's required. It's that simple. It literally is their job to wear that bib, and that's part of what they get paid for already. [/quote]I do think it's s fair argument that they shouldn't be forced to wear the sponsored bibs though. Just make the bibs blank and be done with it.

[saevel25]

I do think it's s fair argument that they shouldn't be forced to wear the sponsored bibs though.

Just make the bibs blank and be done with it.

The question is PGA Tour is making money off of the Caddies likeness. Is it specifically the caddie that is bringing in the viewing for the advertisements, or is it the golfer and just being a PGA Tour event? Really, I do not think the law suite holds water because I don't think they can quantify how much the caddie actually contributes for it.

Its like College Football right? EA Sports and the NCAA making money off their likeness. Those football players have a bigger case because they can actually quantify how their likeness helps in profits.

I don't think anyone can actually say the caddie contributes to any value other than walking around with those bibs on. You can get some random Joe from the crowd, throw the bib on him, make sure he shows up on TV every once in a while and I don't think the value changes much.

[Golfingdad]

The question is PGA Tour is making money off of the Caddies likeness. Is it specifically the caddie that is bringing in the viewing for the advertisements, or is it the golfer and just being a PGA Tour event? Really, I do not think the law suite holds water because I don't think they can quantify how much the caddie actually contributes for it.  Its like College Football right? EA Sports and the NCAA making money off their likeness. Those football players have a bigger case because they can actually quantify how their likeness helps in profits.  I don't think anyone can actually say the caddie contributes to any value other than walking around with those bibs on. You can get some random Joe from the crowd, throw the bib on him, make sure he shows up on TV every once in a while and I don't think the value changes much.

I'd agree with that. I didn't realize they were suggesting that their likenesses were being used for the pga tours benefit (as that would be a silly argument), I thought it was just about them being used as "ad space."

[joekelly]

Everyone's locked into the demands of the PGA: the venue, the charity, the sponsor, the players, and the caddies.  Are the venue volunteers required to wear sponsor's Logo?  If yes, and volunteer does not want to wear it, fine.  No task for him/her coz he's a volunteer.  But the caddies are employed to immediate supervisors, the players, who also adhere to PGA dictates. Caddy is not like volunteer and will try to keep good job.

I support the caddies in this issue. Offer compensation for the advertising or let caddy choose alternative Logo, etc.  Players may choose various advertisements on bag, hat, shirt, pants, shoes, why not let the player and caddy work out own arrangement?  Or permit multiple adverts on caddy bib so caddy gets something for the TV air time.

[Rick Martin]

[BallStriker]

It's not ignorant.

The caddies wanting a cut of the marketing pie would be the same as if the guy waving the "Homes for Sale" sign demanded a commission for every home sold during his shift. Part of their job is the advertising, it's already baked into their contract.

Their contract states they do as the player tells them to, and the player is telling them to wear the bibs because the PGA tells the players it's required. It's that simple. It literally is their job to wear that bib, and that's part of what they get paid for already.

It isn't ignorant it is a fact. If the Caddies do not like how their contracts are structured. In the end they are basically independent contractors. They should talk to their employer, the golfer and see what they can do. Besides that the PGA Tour doesn't owe the caddies anything. If they don't like it, don't work that job or find a new golfer who gives you a better contract.

The language I quoted makes two basic arguments..........I am paraphrasing, but the first is " If you don't like it, find another job "......I really hope nobody would actually think this is a legitimate argument in an employment setting.....this argument applies to ANY job and if you buy into this reasoning, well then you might as well just eliminate all labor laws, right......wow, that would just SO great for our society.

The second argument is that " they shouldn't be complaining because hey have endured these conditions in the past "......do I really even need to explain this further?  Seriously folks??????  Does anyone think this is a legitimate argument for ANY condition they think is unfair (see slavery, anti-gay laws, etc.)......

C'mon man..........

[saevel25]

The language I quoted makes two basic arguments..........I am paraphrasing, but the first is "If you don't like it, find another job"......I really hope nobody would actually think this is a legitimate argument in an employment setting.....this argument applies to ANY job and if you buy into this reasoning, well then you might as well just eliminate all labor laws, right......wow, that would just SO great for our society.

...

Why would you eliminate labor laws? PGA Tour isn't violating labor laws at all with this advertisement stuff. Caddies are required to wear bibs while they play. If the bibs happen to have advertisements then so what? It isn't the caddie that is bringing in the viewing, its the golfer. If anything the golfer should be getting a cut of the money not the caddies. If the caddies want a cut, talk to the golfer.

Telling someone, if you don't like the job then go find another isn't violating labor laws. It is the truth. No one is saying go become unemployed. Go seek new employment. It isn't that hard of a concept.

[Shindig]

On the note of lost sponsorships: what companies would sponsor a caddie? No offense, but they aren't that recognizable to anyone outside the hardcore fans.

IIRC, Woods fired Fluffy because the latter accepted a sponsorship. At one point, Stevie Williams -- when he was with Tiger -- got permission from his boss to accept a sponsorship... Valvoline I think it was? But both of these sponsorship deals were offered to an active caddy to Tiger Woods, who was playing quite well and was quite popular at the time.

[Golfingdad]

This is kind of how it seems. The caddies would need to go through the players, who the ones paying them and requiring the bibs be worn, not the PGA Tour. On the note of lost sponsorships: what companies would sponsor a caddie? No offense, but they aren't that recognizable to anyone outside the hardcore fans.

Probably the same companies that would sponsor a bag. Without logos, bags are a lot less recognizable than some of the caddies.

[turtleback]

I like the part about a caddy being a "walking billboard". When I was running my own business, I remember I paid $60K a year for billboards advertising my business. If a caddy is considered a walking billboard, then they need to be paid. Now that I think about it, my oldest grandson's first job was standing on a corner, waving a banner/sign for $10 an hour. He was some what of a walking billboard.

As I posted before, this will be interesting to watch, and see how it pans out.

Except in those cases being a billboard was the very reason that thing existed.  It had no function it was being paid for other than being a billboard.  Just like the sign-dancers - their sole function is to attract attention to that sign.  In the case of caddies a) any attention they get has NOTHING to do with them personally, b) they are being paid to do a job already, and c) there is no added burden to the caddies to wear the logo.

Your opinions are usually well-reasoned, but this statement is simply ignorant.

Hard to disagree with such a comprehensive argument that marshals facts and logic so effectively.  But it is kind of mean of you to make iacas continue to wallow in his ignorance instead of enlightening him.

IIRC, Woods fired Fluffy because the latter accepted a sponsorship. At one point, Stevie Williams -- when he was with Tiger -- got permission from his boss to accept a sponsorship... Valvoline I think it was?

But both of these sponsorship deals were offered to an active caddy to Tiger Woods, who was playing quite well and was quite popular at the time.

Neither Fluff, not Steve, nor La Cava, not Bones, nor any other caddy would ever get a nickel of any kind of endorsement without the reflected fame and glory of their employer.   How many people in the general public or even the golf tournament attending public can name, for example, Chris Kirk's caddy?  Yet he was #6 on the money list and won 2 events.  Heck, among the general public more people probably know who Steve Williams is (because of the Tiger connection) than know who Chris Kirk is, let along Chris's caddy.  I mean, is one single person going to change their plan to go to, or even watch, an even because they will not get to see their favorite when  player fires his caddy?

Seriously, tournament organizers are not going around saying "Oh crap" when a player fires his caddy and gets another.  All the event and the tour care about is having a body to put the bib on not who is in the bib or what the appeal of the person in the bib is.  There is NO VALUE to the caddies' likenesses except for a very few.  And provided that they do not violate their own deal with their player they are free to exploit that notoriety OUTSIDE the bounds of actual events.

I get it.  The Tour is a gravy train and the caddies want a bigger slurp.  But let's not make believe that there is some kind of principle at stake here.

[ay33660]

Everyone's locked into the demands of the PGA: the venue, the charity, the sponsor, the players, and the caddies.  Are the venue volunteers required to wear sponsor's Logo?  If yes, and volunteer does not want to wear it, fine.  No task for him/her coz he's a volunteer.  But the caddies are employed to immediate supervisors, the players, who also adhere to PGA dictates. Caddy is not like volunteer and will try to keep good job.

I support the caddies in this issue. Offer compensation for the advertising or let caddy choose alternative Logo, etc.  Players may choose various advertisements on bag, hat, shirt, pants, shoes, why not let the player and caddy work out own arrangement?  Or permit multiple adverts on caddy bib so caddy gets something for the TV air time.

Seems to me the logo on the bibs are tournament sponsors and the pro's are bound to adhere to the sponsors requirements as part of their entry into the tournaments?

This is between the pro and the caddy.

If it is the pro's job to play in a tournament and it is the caddy's job to carry the bag for the pro in that tournament. The caddy would be required to wear what ever his employer (the pro) is required to as part of playing in the tournament.

It is not the PGA's issue.

[Rick Martin]

agree - I'd start making caddies pay for drinks I see them scarfing up and all the snacks I see them hoarding at the tees, at the range, and at the clubhouse....pay what the patrons pay $5 for every bottle of h20....I know, it's for the players -

[Pretzel]

The language I quoted makes two basic arguments..........I am paraphrasing, but the first is "If you don't like it, find another job"......I really hope nobody would actually think this is a legitimate argument in an employment setting.....this argument applies to ANY job and if you buy into this reasoning, well then you might as well just eliminate all labor laws, right......wow, that would just SO great for our society.

No, my argument is that it's a part of the job that it is completely fair, unlike the things that labor laws prevent. They are being paid (quite handsomely in some cases) to carry a bag and the bib is part of their uniform. You're not asking them to work 18 hours a day, or in unsafe conditions. All you're doing is specifying a uniform.

Is it any different than when, say, Dairy Queen asks its employees to wear a Dairy Queen hat to work (though I admit this isn't on national television)? Or when a News reporter is told that their microphone must have the news station's logo on it and visible during their broadcast (this is more relevant)? The uniform has the logo of the company that's ultimately paying them (through the intermediary of the player). I see nothing wrong with them being asked to wear the logo of the company that is handing out the checks that week, the same as I don't see anything wrong with companies requiring employees to wear a uniform.

The employer (in this case, the player) has a set of rules that their bosses (in this case, the PGA Tour) has issued. They can follow them, and ensure that their employees (the caddies) follow them as well, or they can be fined. It's no different than if I owned a franchise and employed people to work for me, but told them to wear a company uniform. The fact that they may appear on TV is part of the job, and can actually be a bonus to the caddy's pay depending on the contract structure (if only because the TV likes to show people who do well, and the better a golfer places the more a caddy makes).

To look at it another way, wearing the sponsored bibs is a rule. The players that employ caddies do so with the expectation that the caddies follow the rules. Why would you include a bonus to the contract just because they followed the rules provided from the onset of their employment? It's like saying, "I'm going to pay you extra money because you didn't 'steal' from me by causing me to incur a fine".

TLDR: It's a fair part of the job, they need to get over it or renegotiate their contracts with the players. The PGA owes the caddies nothing, and I doubt any player would hire a caddy who isn't willing to wear the bibs or wants some crazy extra amount for wearing them.

[The Recreational Golfer]

First of all, wearing an advertising bib is NOT part of a caddy's job. Caddies work for their player, not the PGA Tour or the week's corporate sponsor. The caddy didn't sign on with a player to be a billboard for a company that has no business relationship with the player.

And look at the players. They advertise. Players have logos all over their shirts. Some of them almost look like a NASCAR vehicle, and get paid huge bucks for each one.

If they can be compensated, why should caddies be forced to advertise and GET NOTHING FOR IT?

This suit is dripping with merit and the caddies deserve to be compensated fully.

[Abu3baid]

I was thinking about it and these points popped into my head. 1. What's the purpose of the bibs? To identify who they are caddying for? Well they can be required to do so without advertisement if that is the case? 2. Are they forced to wear them by the pga via contractual agreement with player? Well, if there is any money to be made from the advertisement on the bib then the players should demand that they get compensated a percentage of that revenue and some of it goes to the caddy.. If all the players said screw you to the pga the pga will fold (although the chance of them to do that over bibs is highly unlikely) 3. It seems like this has been going on for a long time, so going forward all caddies should just start adding this issuein the negotiations with the player. The problem is that they don't really have any pull because you have a line of people willing to caddy for less probably (and thus the lack of power to change the status quo) strikes usually only work when if the workers went on strike the company stands to lose a lot in terms of revenue and losses, but in this case if the caddies ever striked or tried to hold out they can get replaced over night!

[Patch]

If I am not mistaken, I think "some" caddies get endorsements from various golf companies. I know Steve Williams received some when he was Woody's bag man. With that, I would imagine other caddies of the more popular players probably get something. They wear caps with logos on them, that have nothing to do with the PGA/USGA.

[turtleback]

First of all, wearing an advertising bib is NOT part of a caddy's job. Caddies work for their player, not the PGA Tour or the week's corporate sponsor. The caddy didn't sign on with a player to be a billboard for a company that has no business relationship with the player.

And look at the players. They advertise. Players have logos all over their shirts. Some of them almost look like a NASCAR vehicle, and get paid huge bucks for each one.

If they can be compensated, why should caddies be forced to advertise and GET NOTHING FOR IT?

This suit is dripping with merit and the caddies deserve to be compensated fully.

That makes no sense.  Companies go to the players and pay them individually for wearing their stuff.  When did you ever hear of a company going to Chris Kirk's caddie?  (I am using Chris Kirk as an example solely because he is a top 10 players with victories whose caddie is virtually anonymous to 99%+ of the people who follow the tour, let alone the general public)

The caddies DO get something for it, they get to have their job.

But this is the economic of envy.  The players can command advertising endorsements on their own merit.  The caddies are envious, but NO ONE would ever pay more than a couple of the most visible.

And this is not the real issue anyway.  The tour has been said to get $50 million for that sponsorship.  What percentage should go to the "billboards"?  How much of the $50 million is for the providing a venue that will attract millions of eyeballs to that logo and how much is based on the personal likenesses of the caddies?  Well, corporations pay big bucks for eyeball exposure in every field.  How many are paying PGA tour caddies for wearing their logos OFF the golf course?  So is it the wearing of the logo or is it the venue where it is worn that provides the value?

In a situation where hardcore golf fans could not pick caddies out of a lineup?  How much of the value of the advertising is based on WHO is wearing the bib and how much is based on WHERE the bib is worn.  Looking at these factors, the caddies maybe provides 1% of the value, tops?  So 500,000 split among about 30 events, is $16,667 per event, split among 144 caddies.  So for an extra $100 bucks a week they are doing this?

This isn't the real issue, IMO, this is the nose in the tent.  The caddies WANT to be deemed employees of the tour because then they can effectively use their union.  As employees of the players they have no leverage whatsoever.  The fact that they actually ARE employees of the player is something to overcome, not something to acknowledge, for them.  IMO the lawyers are blowing smoke and in the end will cost some of the lower status caddies their jobs, in all likelihood.

[newtogolf]

Based on my understanding, the PGA Tour is the organizer of the events and determines who is active and may participate in the organizations events.  Pro golfers are members (loosely employees) who subcontract services to caddies.  The pro golfers and caddies are subject to the terms and conditions the PGA Tour imposes on those who participate in PGA Tour events.

The players are required to wear collared shirts and long (non denim) pants.  Caddies are typically required to wear bibs.  The PGA Tour and tournament sponsors have full discretion as to what is printed on the bibs so long as the caddies are not required to pay for the bibs.  It is within the rights of the PGA Tour to mandate they be worn during tournaments without any additional compensation to the caddies for wearing them.    Everyone understands the caddies are representing the PGA Tour event and aren't personally endorsing these companies that are printed on the bibs.

With the exception of a few, caddies have zero marketing value beyond the fact they are present on a golf course with television coverage which they'd have no access to if they weren't working for a professional golfer who was a member of the PGA Tour and participating in a PGA Tour event.