LIV Golf Now Closed?

[ChetlovesMer]

[jshots]

We've got LIV vs PGA Tour match play on right now and its getting intense

[boogielicious]

6 minutes ago, jshots said:

Lol I'm not even going to argue with someone who asks about another's profession as some weird condescending ego stroke. Its incredibly clear that there is prior precedent for sports leagues and anti trust violations in this exact type of situation. The density it takes to be this sure of yourself about the righteousness of the PGA Tour here is incredible. Its not black and white.

What precedent? You keep saying this but you haven’t cited examples of where a rival league won a suit against a major league for anti-trust in the US. Name the sport, the leagues involved and cite the lawsuit. Right now your devils advocacy seems just like arguing for argument sake. But you haven’t provided any concrete facts just your disdain for the PGAT.

 

[GolfSwami]

39 minutes ago, jshots said:

Lol I'm not even going to argue with someone who asks about another's profession as some weird condescending ego stroke. Its incredibly clear that there is prior precedent for sports leagues and anti trust violations in this exact type of situation. The density it takes to be this sure of yourself about the righteousness of the PGA Tour here is incredible. Its not black and white.

You aren't saying anything unreasonable. For some reason this is a very emotionally charged topic and it brings out people who want things to be a certain way regardless of the law.  Five minutes on Google reading law blogs shows the players have at least pretty good anti-trust case.   The Supreme Court ruled against the NFL in the 1950s,  when they blacklisted players who played in a rival league. 

The PGA Tour colluding with the European Tour, World Golf Rankings, the entities that organize majors and Ryder Cup and potentially going against their charter as a non-profit are all going to be brought up.

 I am sure the PGA Tour has consulted with lawyers and will have counterpoints. A lot of it will probably depend on judges. I would guess the current administration would be more amenable to the player's suit than most as they are already pursuing companies over non-competes and collusion.

29 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

What precedent? You keep saying this but you haven’t cited examples of where a rival league won a suit against a major league for anti-trust in the US. Name the sport, the leagues involved and cite the lawsuit. Right now your devils advocacy seems just like arguing for argument sake. But you haven’t provided any concrete facts just your disdain for the PGAT.

 

You shouldn't even need Google for at least one example.  Trump and the USFL vs the NFL.  They won but weren't awarded damages. Otherwise you could Google and find this case as the first thing listed.

Radovich v. National Football League :: 352 U.S. 445 (1957) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

---

Radovich v. National Football League

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by GolfSwami

[jshots]

28 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

What precedent? You keep saying this but you haven’t cited examples of where a rival league won a suit against a major league for anti-trust in the US. Name the sport, the leagues involved and cite the lawsuit. Right now your devils advocacy seems just like arguing for argument sake. But you haven’t provided any concrete facts just your disdain for the PGAT.

 

I mentioned Radovich vs NFL - Radovich seeking compensation after having joined another league and was forever banned from the NFL in any form, even later in life trying to join as a coach or something. SC sides with Radovich

The article I linked mentions the fairly recent NCAA vs Alston - on restricting college player compensation: "the NCAA is acting in violation Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits any “contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.”"  

NCAA v. Alston: The Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning?

---

In its unanimous 9-0 decision in NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that struck down NCAA caps on student-athlete academic...

How about LA Colliseum vs NFL, when the raiders were blocked from moving to LA in the 80s due to a rule that required 3/4 vote of teams in the NFL. LA Colliseum wins saying rule was violating Sherman Anti Trust

There are dozens more.

 

The common thing here to me is that, it doesn't matter if there is a "rule" even if it was agreed to if the rule is illegal.

[Aguirre]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

 

It's an "investment" fund, though, so I would argue that they expect it to be profitable at some point. They don't just spend money from it, they're actively trying to "invest" it to get a return.

I don't believe the "they don't expect to make a profit" angle. Not in the short term, but if it's just going to be a money hole they may just pull the plug at some point in a few years.

I suppose they could be delusional and feel as if they will turn a profit. But I believe they are willing to run it in the red for the sports washing motive. And it won't work, and will continue to lose money, and they will eventually do exactly what you suggested. 

[iacas]

13 hours ago, Bucki1968 said:

Not sure if this information is noted somewhere else on this topic (I've been going back looking but 90+ pages is a lot)

You can search the topic, and yes, it has been mentioned. Recently.

8 hours ago, jshots said:

Thus still no meaningful choice to them.

Not the PGA Tour's fault that there's no "meaningful choice." Plus the word "meaningful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. They have a choice. They have several choices.

8 hours ago, jshots said:

Most PGA Tour players are not making a ton of money, especially compared to other US sports.

PGA Tour players make about the same percentage of what their sport creates as players in other sports.

Golf is a niche sport. It's not the freaking NFL. It's not even the NHL.

3 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

You aren't saying anything unreasonable. For some reason this is a very emotionally charged topic and it brings out people who want things to be a certain way regardless of the law.

The law hasn't spoken on this. So, no, not "regardless of the law."

---

And, let's remember, the TRO was denied. If the judge felt the suspensions were not legal, that would have played a role in her granting the TRO.

[boogielicious]

4 hours ago, GolfSwami said:

You aren't saying anything unreasonable. For some reason this is a very emotionally charged topic and it brings out people who want things to be a certain way regardless of the law.  Five minutes on Google reading law blogs shows the players have at least pretty good anti-trust case.   The Supreme Court ruled against the NFL in the 1950s,  when they blacklisted players who played in a rival league. 

The PGA Tour colluding with the European Tour, World Golf Rankings, the entities that organize majors and Ryder Cup and potentially going against their charter as a non-profit are all going to be brought up.

 I am sure the PGA Tour has consulted with lawyers and will have counterpoints. A lot of it will probably depend on judges. I would guess the current administration would be more amenable to the player's suit than most as they are already pursuing companies over non-competes and collusion.

You shouldn't even need Google for at least one example.  Trump and the USFL vs the NFL.  They won but weren't awarded damages. Otherwise you could Google and find this case as the first thing listed.

Radovich v. National Football League :: 352 U.S. 445 (1957) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

---

Radovich v. National Football League

 

 

3 hours ago, jshots said:

I mentioned Radovich vs NFL - Radovich seeking compensation after having joined another league and was forever banned from the NFL in any form, even later in life trying to join as a coach or something. SC sides with Radovich

The article I linked mentions the fairly recent NCAA vs Alston - on restricting college player compensation: "the NCAA is acting in violation Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits any “contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.”"  

NCAA v. Alston: The Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning?

---

In its unanimous 9-0 decision in NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that struck down NCAA caps on student-athlete academic...

How about LA Colliseum vs NFL, when the raiders were blocked from moving to LA in the 80s due to a rule that required 3/4 vote of teams in the NFL. LA Colliseum wins saying rule was violating Sherman Anti Trust

There are dozens more.

 

The common thing here to me is that, it doesn't matter if there is a "rule" even if it was agreed to if the rule is illegal.

And yet the NFL and NCAA exist and the others do not. So who really won? No damages awarded? Pyrrhic victory at best. LIV only exists to try and take the PGAT down. They will fail as the others did. Your argument is still very weak.

[Hardluckster]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Not the PGA Tour's fault that there's no "meaningful choice." 

I agree. 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

And, let's remember, the TRO was denied. If the judge felt the suspensions were not legal, that would have played a role in her granting the TRO.

I think the reason that the TRO was denied was because there was no real basis for irreparable injury/damage. I'm no lawyer, and don't claim to be, but from what I've read that was the problem with the TRO as far as those 3 golfers were concerned. 

Temporary restraining order

 

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Hardluckster said:

I agree. 

I think the reason that the TRO was denied was because there was no real basis for irreparable injury/damage. I'm no lawyer, and don't claim to be, but from what I've read that was the problem with the TRO as far as those 3 golfers were concerned. 

Temporary restraining order

 

Yes, which is why I said it would have played a role.

I didn’t say it was the sole factor.

[GolfSwami]

13 hours ago, boogielicious said:

 

And yet the NFL and NCAA exist and the others do not. So who really won? No damages awarded? Pyrrhic victory at best. LIV only exists to try and take the PGAT down. They will fail as the others did. Your argument is still very weak.

The AFL was a result of the lawsuit. 10 of the 32 current NFL teams are from AFL and NFL merger.   The NFL discriminated against black players while the AFL actively recruited them and played a big role in fully integrating football.   Seems like a pretty significant impact on the history of the game. So to answer your question,  the fans and players won.

The PGA Tour isn't going to fold.  The most likely result is some sort of merger or agreement between the tours. The competition is already having a positive impact on player payouts. 

[Vinsk]

49 minutes ago, GolfSwami said:

The NFL discriminated against black players while the AFL actively recruited them and played a big role in fully integrating football. 

Yes. But this has nothing to do with what’s taking place between LIV and PGAT. This is not racial discrimination. 

[Hardluckster]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

Yes, which is why I said it would have played a role.

I didn’t say it was the sole factor.

From what I've read it seems that legality plays no role in the result of a TRO, but then again I'm no lawyer. 

[iacas]

42 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

From what I've read it seems that legality plays no role in the result of a TRO, but then again I'm no lawyer. 

No, and the lawyers with whom I spoke said that if they had been disbarred/suspended in an illegal way the judge could rule that way too.

@DeadMan could share his thoughts too, but it tracks for me that if they shouldn’t have been suspended to begin with, they’d be eligible to play.

But maybe because they didn’t take that angle the judge couldn’t consider it. Or maybe it’s too big a thing.

[turtleback]

21 hours ago, jshots said:

Lol I'm not even going to argue with someone who asks about another's profession as some weird condescending ego stroke. Its incredibly clear that there is prior precedent for sports leagues and anti trust violations in this exact type of situation. The density it takes to be this sure of yourself about the righteousness of the PGA Tour here is incredible. Its not black and white.

'exact type of situation'??  Team sport where the players are unionized employees vs. individual sport where players are independent contractors are the exact type of situation?  Legal analysis thrives on much smaller distinctions than this, which is why having a nodding acquaintance of how law works is important.

 

I never said anything is black and white.  I am essentially saying that you are spewing legal nonsense.

[jshots]

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

'exact type of situation'??  Team sport where the players are unionized employees vs. individual sport where players are independent contractors are the exact type of situation?  Legal analysis thrives on much smaller distinctions than this, which is why having a nodding acquaintance of how law works is important.

 

I never said anything is black and white.  I am essentially saying that you are spewing legal nonsense.

I'm spewing legal nonsense? Are you a lawyer? I'm basically using the exact arguments in claims from gigantic law firms representing LIV players, stuff that I'm reading all over the place from actual lawyers. Its not as if I just came up with this shit on my own.

So the ad hominem attack on my profession seems undeserved to me.

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, jshots said:

I'm basically using the exact arguments

You’re not.

[Zippo]

38 minutes ago, jshots said:

I'm spewing legal nonsense? Are you a lawyer? I'm basically using the exact arguments in claims from gigantic law firms representing LIV players, stuff that I'm reading all over the place from actual lawyers. Its not as if I just came up with this shit on my own.

So the ad hominem attack on my profession seems undeserved to me.

I don’t think you can have an ad hominem attack against a profession, by definition.