Phil Mickelson Skipping Phoenix to Play in Saudi Arabia

[Double Mocha Man]

3 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

Big fan of the Saudi government, great administration, fair for sure. Great amenities, lovely Haut-Brion, etc. Very pleased with the level of care they give to tour pros as the PGA tour can be a third world gulag at times, especially if you've been grinding for three plus decades like Phil has. Really unfair and frankly, he's suffered enough. I hear women were just allowed to drive by themselves too, which I applaud. It definitely shows they're moving forward and being progressive. They've nearly caught up to the west now for sure IMO. That journalist guy, whatever happened there, seems like a misunderstanding or something. All the facts aren't really out, so it's unfair for us to start jumping to conclusions just yet. Plus Phil's a family man first, a golfer second. He needn't trouble himself with these cause-célèbre-du-jours that seem to pop up everyday now. Also, I'm pretty sure that journalist is fine somewhere, probably sipping Haut-Brion in Dubai as I type this. You don't know.

I equate this to that time Mariah Carey played that four-song set for Muammar Gaddafi's 2009 New Years Eve bash for a cool million bucks... you know, obviously before his people rose up and killed him just a couple years later for decades of atrocities. That totally wasn't tone deaf and was totally her right as a performer. Sure, the audience was filled with murderous generals and various terrorist sponsors yucking it up over Haut-Brion and avocado toast but so what? #hatersgonnahate

Nobody has ever paid me $250,000 to sing a single song.  Much less four.  Though someone once offered $100,000 for me not to sing.

[mchepp]

27 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

Big fan of the Saudi government, great administration, fair for sure. Great amenities, lovely Haut-Brion, etc. Very pleased with the level of care they give to tour pros as the PGA tour can be a third world gulag at times, especially if you've been grinding for three plus decades like Phil has. Really unfair and frankly, he's suffered enough. I hear women were just allowed to drive by themselves too, which I applaud. It definitely shows they're moving forward and being progressive. They've nearly caught up to the west now for sure IMO. That journalist guy, whatever happened there, seems like a misunderstanding or something. All the facts aren't really out, so it's unfair for us to start jumping to conclusions just yet. Plus Phil's a family man first, a golfer second. He needn't trouble himself with these cause-célèbre-du-jours that seem to pop up everyday now. Also, I'm pretty sure that journalist is fine somewhere, probably sipping Haut-Brion in Dubai as I type this. You don't know.

I equate this to that time Mariah Carey played that four-song set for Muammar Gaddafi's 2009 New Years Eve bash for a cool million bucks... you know, obviously before his people rose up and killed him just a couple years later for decades of atrocities. That totally wasn't tone deaf and was totally her right as a performer. Sure, the audience was filled with murderous generals and various terrorist sponsors yucking it up over Haut-Brion and avocado toast but so what? #hatersgonnahate

How is everyone getting all this Chateau Haut-Brion?

[Double Mocha Man]

I would like some Chateau Haut-Brion served in a martini tee, please.

[JetFan1983]

 

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Nobody has ever paid me $250,000 to sing a single song.  Much less four.  Though someone once offered $100,000 for me not to sing.

True, 250K per song is a good rate. Phil's gotta play 36 holes over two days minimum for what amounts to just a couple mil or thereabouts. So if you think about it, he's giving them an amazing deal and is arguably getting lowballed, especially when adjusted for inflation. 

38 minutes ago, mchepp said:

How is everyone getting all this Chateau Haut-Brion?

Likely they were drinking 1983 Pessac-Leognan. A touch of the ethereal to be sure, but hardly what one comes to expect from that magical estate.

Edited December 4, 2019 by JetFan1983

[iacas]

 

[DeadMan]

Tiger turned this down:

Report: Woods declined Saudi appearance fee

---

Tiger Woods has reportedly turned down seven-figure appearance fees to play in the controversial Saudi International.

Remember when he played Torrey with a bad back, then took a 14ish hour flight to Dubai to cash an appearance fee check the next week? 

This is a horrible look from Phil, and frankly, any other player that doesn't need this money. It's literally put on by the Saudi government. I totally understand why a middling European Tour pro would decide to play in this event. I don't get why Phil or DJ would play in this event. I would feel differently if it was sponsored by a company, but it's sponsored by the government.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I would feel differently if it was sponsored by a company, but it's sponsored by the government.

Right, an event being held IN a country run by murderers is a different beast than an event HOSTED BY those murderers.

[dsc123]

14 hours ago, mchepp said:

How is everyone getting all this Chateau Haut-Brion?

A place near my office has a bunch.  Want me to grab a 1959 for you? 

Haut Brion | 1959 | 750ml | Cellar.com

---

Sale Price: $2,499.99. Free Ground Shipping on this item(Free shipping does not apply on mixed items). Château Haut Brion Cabernet Sauvignon...

 

I'm surprised how many to players are going.  Even more surprised by Phil's flippant tweet about it. 

[Double Mocha Man]

24 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

A place near my office has a bunch.  Want me to grab a 1959 for you? 

Haut Brion | 1959 | 750ml | Cellar.com

---

Sale Price: $2,499.99. Free Ground Shipping on this ..

 

 

Sure, I'll take a bottle. Send it to James, c/o Washington State, USA. Just put it on Erik's tab.

[ncates00]

Tiger Woods defends Phil Mickelson’s decision to play in Saudi Arabia | Sport | The Guardian

---

Tiger Woods turned down $3m to play in Saudi Arabia but defended Phil Mickelson’s decision to play there

 

Not everyone is being self-righteous about it; some see some potential benefit.

Dustin Johnson was among several top golfers who played in the tournament this year, and before winning the event he said, “Obviously, that was a concern with our team. I’m going over there to play a sport I’m paid to play. It’s my job to play golf. Unfortunately, it’s in a part of the world where most people don’t agree with what happened, and I definitely don’t support anything like that. I’m going to play golf, not support them. I’m not a politician. I play golf.”

 

I guess not everyone sees it this way.

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

I guess not everyone sees it this way.

Nobody's said "everyone" sees it that way. Just most people.

Dustin Johnson's quote is tone deaf. Tiger danced around it, but basically did what he could do to not condemn Phil and the others. What did you expect him to say: "Oh, I don't want to go play for the murderers and terrorists running that country and that event and shame on those who do?"

That'd be criminally stupid of Tiger to do that.

I watched that question and answer live. He didn't "defend" Phil in the least. He just opted not to throw him under the armored tank.

[ncates00]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

What did you expect him to say: "Oh, I don't want to go play for the murderers and terrorists running that country and that event and shame on those who do?"

Apparently you do!  If this is so cut and dry, Tiger should have, right? 

That's my whole point.  It's a close call (and I think you intimated as much in your OP when you said that the "line" may be in different places for different people), and therefore, live and let live.  Unless you have more compelling evidence for an actual endorsement, besides your belief that merely playing is endorsement enough, I think leave Phil (and others) alone.

[Sandy Divot]

DJ could have said it was his job to take money for showing up. He could have stayed here to play golf. He didn't have to go play in a state sponsored tournament, and, basically become an employee of a government with one of the worst human rights records in the world.

[dsc123]

11 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Tiger Woods defends Phil Mickelson’s decision to play in Saudi Arabia | Sport | The Guardian

---

Tiger Woods turned down $3m to play in Saudi Arabia but defended Phil Mickelson’s decision to play there

 

Not everyone is being self-righteous about it; some see some potential benefit.

Dustin Johnson was among several top golfers who played in the tournament this year, and before winning the event he said, “Obviously, that was a concern with our team. I’m going over there to play a sport I’m paid to play. It’s my job to play golf. Unfortunately, it’s in a part of the world where most people don’t agree with what happened, and I definitely don’t support anything like that. I’m going to play golf, not support them. I’m not a politician. I play golf.”

 

I guess not everyone sees it this way.

 

I suppose reasonable minds can differ on whether he should play, or whether we should care if he does.   But its not debatable that he is participating in SA's PR campaign and helping that PR campaign achieve success.  There isn't room for different perspectives on that.

His explanation is not persuasive.  He tries to relate to a working man who just does his job.  But he is not a working man.  He is not an employee who is told what his job is.  He chooses which jobs to take. 

Like anyone else in that position, he weighs the pros and cons and makes a decision.  That's the subjective part.  He decided its okay to participate in the PR campaign if they pay him enough money.  But to claim that his playing isn't supporting SA is not true.  That's not a matter of opinion.   

Maybe he truly believes that playing does not support SA, but if so, he's wrong.  Or maybe he knows its does but says this because he also knows that his decision is odious to some and he wants to minimize damage to his image. 

 

13 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

live and let live.  Unless [you're a journalist critical of the regime.]

FTFY

[Double Mocha Man]

8 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

 

I suppose reasonable minds can differ on whether he should play, or whether we should care if he does.   But its not debatable that he is participating in SA's PR campaign and helping that PR campaign achieve success.  There isn't room for different perspectives on that.

His explanation is not persuasive.  He tries to relate to a working man who just does his job.  But he is not a working man.  He is not an employee who is told what his job is.  He chooses which jobs to take. 

Like anyone else in that position, he weighs the pros and cons and makes a decision.  That's the subjective part.  He decided its okay to participate in the PR campaign if they pay him enough money.  But to claim that his playing isn't supporting SA is not true.  That's not a matter of opinion.   

Maybe he truly believes that playing does not support SA, but if so, he's wrong.  Or maybe he knows its does but says this because he also knows that his decision is odious to some and he wants to minimize damage to his image. 

 

FTFY

... and maybe his agent wrote that...

[ncates00]

4 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

But its not debatable that he is participating in SA's PR campaign and helping that PR campaign achieve success.  There isn't room for different perspectives on that.

It is completely debatable.  You saying that is merely your assessment of the situation.  PR campaign it may be, but that doesn't mean that the participant supports the regime.  You're making a faulty assumption.  People do things for different reasons all the time.  You're assuming Phil's motive and it is not easily inferred by these circumstances, i.e., merely playing golf for money.

 

6 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

His explanation is not persuasive.  He tries to relate to a working man who just does his job.  But he is not a working man.  He is not an employee who is told what his job is.  He chooses which jobs to take. 

Again, you're assuming that was his theme for his message.  Yes, he is an independent contractor, but a person has the freedom to take the jobs they want.  He need not explain himself to you or anyone, but choose to do so.  If you don't like it, fine.  He'd probably echo Phil and say "you'll be ok."  You don't have to agree with them for their choices.

 

9 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

But to claim that his playing isn't supporting SA is not true.  That's not a matter of opinion.   

It completely is.  That's a dumb assertion.  So if you wear Nike's do you support child labor in Asia or other corporate wrongs?  Do you buy oil for your vehicles?  Come on man.

 

10 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

20 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

live and let live.  Unless [you're a journalist critical of the regime.]

FTFY

Not my quote and you didn't fix anything.  You have the burden of proving that Phil supports the regime.  I'll wait.  And try to use other evidence besides your belief that playing golf for money is support enough.  You and @iacas are off base on that point.  Otherwise, you're a hypocrite anytime you buy a product from a corporation that has shady business practices.  Stand on your soapbox all you want and look down your self-righteous nose if you want, but you're no better than Phil if you do.

22 minutes ago, Sandy Divot said:

DJ could have said it was his job to take money for showing up. He could have stayed here to play golf. He didn't have to go play in a state sponsored tournament, and, basically become an employee of a government with one of the worst human rights records in the world.

Taking money doesn't make you an employee.  He's an independent contractor.

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Apparently you do!

f*** no, Tiger shouldn't have come out with that. He's captaining the Presidents Cup team in a week, and a few of those guys are playing this week in an event that benefits his charity.

25 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

If this is so cut and dry, Tiger should have, right?

In case it's not obvious, no. He should've done something like what he did.

And to say it again… he didn't "defend" anything. He danced around it and said nothing controversial.

25 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

That's my whole point.  It's a close call (and I think you intimated as much in your OP when you said that the "line" may be in different places for different people), and therefore, live and let live.

As it relates to Phil, I clearly said it was well across the line for me. The line is also different if you're the 130th ranked player on the European Tour and you're not even from the U.S.

25 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Unless you have more compelling evidence for an actual endorsement, besides your belief that merely playing is endorsement enough, I think leave Phil (and others) alone.

He's playing. That's the endorsement.

15 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

I suppose reasonable minds can differ on whether he should play, or whether we should care if he does.   But its not debatable that he is participating in SA's PR campaign and helping that PR campaign achieve success.  There isn't room for different perspectives on that.

Agreed.

2 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

PR campaign it may be, but that doesn't mean that the participant supports the regime.

No.

They're supporting it by taking part in it. By taking their money.

2 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

You and @iacas are off base on that point.

Stating it like it's a fact doesn't make it one.

He's supporting the PR campaign by taking their money and playing in the event.

[dsc123]

12 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

It is completely debatable.  You saying that is merely your assessment of the situation.  PR campaign it may be, but that doesn't mean that the participant supports the regime.  You're making a faulty assumption.  People do things for different reasons all the time.  You're assuming Phil's motive and it is not easily inferred by these circumstances, i.e., merely playing golf for money.

 

You're confusing his intention with the result.  His intention is the subjective part.  I don't know his intention beyond what he said.  But the result is the objective part. 

SA starts a PR campaign and asks DJ to participate in exchange for $.  He agrees.  He is then participating in and supporting the campaign.  That's true regardless of his reason for doing it.  That's not an opinion.  

17 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Again, you're assuming that was his theme for his message.  Yes, he is an independent contractor, but a person has the freedom to take the jobs they want.  He need not explain himself to you or anyone, but choose to do so.  If you don't like it, fine.  He'd probably echo Phil and say "you'll be ok."  You don't have to agree with them for their choices.

I'm not assuming anything.  I just read his words.  That's the message he gave.  I don't dispute his right to play.  I never said he is required to explain.  All I said is that his explanation is not persuasive.  He says he's doing it because its his job.  But its only his job because he is doing it.  🤯 

19 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

It completely is.  That's a dumb assertion.  So if you wear Nike's do you support child labor in Asia or other corporate wrongs?  Do you buy oil for your vehicles?  Come on man.

First, I'm not using "support" to mean "express agreement."  Support = help.  Second, I did not say he supports murdering journalists.  By playing, he helps SA in its PR campaign.  That's what I'm saying is not debatable.

And yes, when I buy gas for my car I am indirectly supporting, i.e., helping, SA.  I mean, I think our gas is mostly produced domestically, but it still adds to overall demand and helps SA.  I don't think that's an earth shattering idea.  It sounds like you agree with me.  That's the objective part.  There's not really room for debate.

The subjective part is whether I should buy that gas despite the fact that it helps SA.  Just like the subjective part is whether DJ should play despite the fact that it helps SA.  But its false to say that me buying gas, or DJ playing in this event, does not "support" SA.  Of course it does.

44 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Otherwise, you're a hypocrite anytime you buy a product from a corporation that has shady business practices.  Stand on your soapbox all you want and look down your self-righteous nose if you want, but you're no better than Phil if you do.

No, my point was that the subjective part--whether he should play--is open to debate.  It was literally the first sentence of my post.  

But me buying gas and DJ/Phil playing this event are not apple to apple.  They're both subjective and reasonable minds can differ on whether its the right decision.  But where you fall on one does not determine where you fall on the other.  My subjective decision is that buying gas for my car is worth the support that it provides to SA.  I need it and the benefit to SA is pretty small.  Some people will disagree with that decision and that's fair.  I hope to be able to buy an electric car soon.  When judging DJ's decision the calculus is different.  The benefit to SA is a lot greater than me buying gas.  That's why they sell me the gas for a couple dollars a gallon and pay him millions to play.  And he doesn't need that event like as much as I need gas in the car.  So no, its not hypocritical to buy gas for my car and still think DJ/Phil should decline the invite.