LIV Golf (Saudi PIF), "Mergers," and More

[iacas]

6 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Edit: Whoops! Jumped the gun and didn't read that the same information had been posted already.

😄

[Vinsk]

Garcia checks all of the traits common among players associated with the Saudi bid to hijack professional golf: best days are in the rearview, has accomplished all that seems likely in major championships, not playing well enough consistently to benefit from increased purses on the PGA Tour, not sufficiently well-liked to reap fan engagement bonuses, endowed with a stout sense of entitlement, and consumed with petty grievances (mostly imaginary).
 

From an article…

[jbishop15]

I have less than zero love for Sergio and am zero percent surprised he’d be a Saudi guy

[phillyk]

PGA Tour denies players permission to play Saudi-funded event in June

---

It had been expected that the PGA Tour would grant waivers for the LIV Golf Invitational event near London.

Here we go!

[boogielicious]

[woodzie264]

6 minutes ago, phillyk said:

PGA Tour denies players permission to play Saudi-funded event in June

---

It had been expected that the PGA Tour would grant waivers for the LIV Golf Invitational...

Here we go!

Ahhhh - you beat me to it! 

[saevel25]

Quote

“Sadly, the PGA Tour seems intent on denying professional golfers their right to play golf, unless it’s exclusively in a PGA Tour tournament. This is particularly disappointing in light of the Tour’s non-profit status, where its mission is purportedly ‘to promote the common interests of professional tournament golfers,'” said LIV Golf CEO Greg Norman via a statement. “Instead, the Tour is intent on perpetuating its illegal monopoly of what should be a free and open market.  The Tour’s action is anti-golfer, anti-fan, and anti-competitive. But no matter what obstacles the PGA Tour puts in our way, we will not be stopped. We will continue to give players options that promote the great game of golf globally.”

Yea, Greg's comments to me are devoid of reason here. 

1. NBA, NFL, MLB would never let their players go join another league and still be apart of their league. 
2. It isn't anti Free Market because LIV is not being stopped from forming. PGA TOUR is not telling them they can't run their league. It is trying to stop them from poaching players. This would be more similar with a corporation head hunting another competitors employees. Guess what, the LIV can go find golfers not on the PGA TOUR, and create a league to try to compete against the PGA TOUR in our free market. Just because one entity has the history, and offers enough incentives to keep the best talent, doesn't make it against a free market. Honestly, the world doesn't run on free markets anyway. This ideological talk is just rubbish. 
3. If players want to jump ship to LIV, then go ahead. There is consequences with doing such things, like not being able to participate in PGA TOUR events. 

[sjduffers]

12 hours ago, saevel25 said:

This would be more similar with a corporation head hunting another competitors employees. Guess what, the LIV can go find golfers not on the PGA TOUR, and create a league to try to compete against the PGA TOUR in our free market.

I don't care for Greg Norman and his Saudi league, but if this was true it would indeed mean that Tour players are employees but they are not: they are contractors who are self-employed, but can't only work for one client, the PGA Tour.

Sure, that's a condition of their working on that tour, and it's probably passing mustard, legally (IANAL), but is it truly a free market then?

[iacas]

@DeadMan, any insight? I know it’s not your area but…

[Darkfrog]

I worked as an independent contractor for about 5-6 years doing consulting/contracting, and frankly I know very little about the legal aspects of my own employment during this time. I never had to deal with any issues so I was blissfully ignorant I guess. I took jobs, did the jobs, and then moved on to other jobs (sometimes with the same client, and sometimes with a new client).

I think a lot of this depends on what kind of legal agreements the PGA Tour and its players have. I know in my case, my client(s) were under no obligation to hire/re-hire me if I completed a project. If I did a terrible job, or had terrible integrity (like stealing trade secrets), or whatever, I'm sure they could fire me and ban me from working for their organization in the future.

I guess I am thinking that the "independent contractor" mentions by some tour players seems like a talking point meant to make their position relatable, but it really feels like an oversimplification of a deeper subject that maybe they don't fully understand.

[DeadMan]

59 minutes ago, iacas said:

@DeadMan, any insight? I know it’s not your area but…

It's definitely not my area. I don't have a ton of insight on how this plays out, but there will absolutely be a lawsuit filed by LIV or one of the players under the Sherman Act. I would not be surprised if it happens this week. The players or LIV golf will assert that the PGA Tour has engaged in anti-competitive behavior in violation of the Sherman Act. If the judge agrees, they would likely get an injunction against the PGA Tour. Whether that would happen is an open question, and I have no idea. I've read articles that go both ways on it. This one says the PGA Tour would likely win:

Can players be banned legally from the PGA Tour for joining the Super Golf League? | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

---

We asked antitrust experts whether the PGA Tour have the legal authority to permanently ban individuals for aligning with the SGL or another rival golf league

This one equivocates, but seems more skeptical:

Could the PGA Tour legally sanction players who defect to a rival tour?

---

If the PGA Tour takes a strong stance, lawyers say, an antitrust claim could be filed by an individual player, multiple players or the rival tour itself.

And this one says a lifetime ban would not fly under antitrust law (written by the former general counsel of the FTC, so I'd imagine he knows what he's talking about):

Calling the PGA Tour’s Bluff – InsideSources

---

Bluffing and misdirection are commonplace in professional sports. Bill Belichick’s defenses are famous for making quarterbacks see ghosts. Countless

I don't know enough about this to know what will happen. All I know is that the PGA Tour better have some really good lawyers, because the lawsuits are coming.

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by DeadMan

[GolfLug]

Thanks for the articles @DeadMan. I find it hard to justify how this falls under anti-trust laws. The PGA Tour has done or attempted to do nothing like out-compete, price fix, hinder venue participation, etc. to break LIV. PGAT is also not technically preventing any players directly from joining LIV. 

They are simply saying to the players that benefit from them that they can't have both, and I see that they are acting within their god given rights. Like, ya' know, a wife who doesn't guarantee her husband a certain amount or any 'action' at all (wink.. heh) but can still threaten to cut him off for life if he wants action from the hotter neighbor across the street 😜. 

Joking aside, this is def the most intrigued I have been by a high profile institutional drama in a while.. 

 

[imsys0042]

This is nuts.  

 

[Double Mocha Man]

Greg Norman should not be discoursing in the arena of politics.  He knows little about it and seems to be a rank amateur.  Stick to what you know best, Greg.  Golf and wine.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Double Mocha Man

[Darkfrog]

Quote

We've all made mistakes and you just want to learn from those mistakes and how you can correct them going forward.

I'm sure MBS has learned from his mistake of having a US resident and journalist murdered and dismembered with a bone saw, and corrected it going forward.

Norman is such a f'ing knob.

[DeadMan]

6 hours ago, GolfLug said:

The PGA Tour has done or attempted to do nothing like out-compete, price fix, hinder venue participation, etc. to break LIV.

They have probably just done that by not releasing players for the event in London. There is a Supreme Court case that is a strong fit for the facts here. it's Lorain Journal v. US:

Lorain Journal Co. v. United States - Wikipedia

What happened there was that a newspaper that had a monopoly in a town. A radio station started, but the newspaper refused to advertise with anyone who was also advertising with the radio station. The Supreme Court found that this violated US antitrust laws. That case is a very strong fit for here. The PGA Tour is saying, or will be saying, that you if you play for a competing tour, you can no longer play with us. Very similar to that case. 

That doesn't mean any case against the PGA Tour would be a slam dunk, though. The biggest hurdle may be defining the market. In that case, the market was a town. Here, is the market US professional golf tours (where the PGA Tour undoubtedly has a monopoly)? Or is it worldwide (may be a tougher sell with the European Tour and others)?

Also, a lot of things are anti-competitive but legal. Non-compete clauses in employment contracts are anti-competitive, but usually not illegal under antitrust law.

Bottom line, it's complicated, but the PGA Tour might have a problem here.

[Indy-Archer]

On 5/6/2022 at 6:41 AM, ChetlovesMer said:

I imagine Sergio being announced and his entrance music playing as he steps out under the Titon-Tron. 

 

[GolfLug]

Thanks again for the precedent case @DeadMan. I can see there are parallel although at an enormously different scale. 

It does seem that it will boil down to purpose regardless of what they define as the market.. whether the PGAT is trying maintain/establish monopoly for profit (not good/legal) or simply trying to protect it's fair interests, employees, sponsors, and most importantly avoid damage to the very fabric of it's mission,. i.e., grow the game (universally) via sharing of the players that make it happen. 

I remain intrigued and this has all the makings of a very historic setting of a new precedence if it indeed goes to litigation.

I hope I am not digressing too much on this thread but also interested how in the world could the court rule in favor of LIV that is supported by the Saudis, who by all indications can be considered a state that sponsors terrorism. Can that aspect alone supersede any other arguments in favor of LIV?