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

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, jshots said:

Obviously everyone wants to beat the competition, when you try to beat your competition by means other than providing a better/cheaper product you are bordering on illegal in the USA.

So, again… let's disregard your "better/cheaper" product, because that's just wrong. Plenty of companies will "win" by creating a more expensive product, or a worse product, and sometimes even a worse but more expensive product. Legally.

And there are many, many ways to "beat the competition" which aren't illegal and which have nothing to do with a "better/cheaper product." To name an obvious one… marketing.

Nor do you have any real insight into whether anything the Tour has done is illegal.

24 minutes ago, jshots said:

Doesn't necessarily mean that all players agreed unanimously on them.

They agree to them when they accept PGA Tour membership.

And so what? You're not going to create different rules and terms for everyone who plays a PGA Tour event.

24 minutes ago, jshots said:

PGA Tour is practically synonymous with professional golf at the highest level. My 2 cents is that they shouldn't be able to restrict access to that level of professional golf based on being involved with a competing tour.

We don't let people come on TST and just start promoting things, because that's just "taking" without giving anything back.

So… no.

24 minutes ago, jshots said:

its bad for the game and the players

I disagree.

24 minutes ago, jshots said:

If the PGA Tour tightens its grip I guarantee more players are going to leave.

I'm trying to square this up with the fact that the LIV tour is more restrictive than the PGA Tour.

Nope. Can't do it.

[jefkve]

35 minutes ago, vasaribm said:

Scottie playing mind games...

Scottie Scheffler, Cameron Smith share awkward moment at FedEx St. Jude Championship

---

The Rules of Golf are extensive and can be pretty confusing at times.

 

The Cam Smith, Scottie Scheffler green ‘incident’ in Memphis isn’t what people think it is

---

This morning, Twitter erupted at a supposed slight from Scottie Scheffler to Cameron Smith. In the video , Scheffler walks in Smith’s line of sight while he is reading a putt, which prompts Smith to look quizzically at the current...

 

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, jshots said:

top level golfers don't have a choice on which tour they are going to play.

Wtf are you talking about? Of course they have a choice. Just as top level basketball players have a choice. The NBA is the greatest basket league in the world and if someone wants to try and qualify for it, they can. It just so happens that the PGA TOUR is the strongest tour in the world. So what? It is what it is. So is the NBA doing a disservice by not playing in other countries?

[jshots]

58 minutes ago, Shindig said:

How is that different from any other employer, including those who employ contractors?  I can't go work for the competition and expect to keep my job, even if I could maintain my responsibilities to both on the same schedule. 

Maybe depending on the industry, but I find its pretty common that contractors work for competing companies in software development, and some states have laws preventing non compete clauses for contractors.

 

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

So, again… let's disregard your "better/cheaper" product, because that's just wrong. Plenty of companies will "win" by creating a more expensive product, or a worse product, and sometimes even a worse but more expensive product.

And there are many, many ways to "beat the competition" which aren't illegal and which have nothing to do with a "better/cheaper product."

I'm trying to square this up with the fact that the LIV tour is more restrictive than the PGA Tour.

 

If you aren't simply providing an alternative product you are asking for a lawsuit, I'm talking about any direct action toward preventing competition for example, a contract that uses your position and status as the premiere golf league to hinder another league from establishing itself. How many Golfers would already have signed up for LIV if not for the contract issues and fear of no longer being able to play on the PGA Tour. Yeah... I'm not a lawyer but it seems obvious to me that that is going to raise some eyebrows.

 

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

They agree to them when they accept PGA Tour membership.

14 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Wtf are you talking about? Of course they have a choice. Just as top level basketball players have a choice. The NBA is the greatest basket league in the world and if someone wants to try and qualify for it, they can. It just so happens that the PGA TOUR is the strongest tour in the world. So what? It is what it is. So is the NBA doing a disservice by not playing in other countries?

Right but when did it matter until now? Quite clearly a bunch of players are now not agreeing to those terms, had there been an option of another tour that paid more when they signed would they have ever agreed to sign. It was the only option to play at the highest level for the biggest purses for how long now? 

They don't have a real choice because they want to play with the best and PGA Tour has a monopoly on the best. 

 

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

I disagree.

I'm trying to square this up with the fact that the LIV tour is more restrictive than the PGA Tour.

Nope. Can't do it.

Imagine hypothetically 2 years from now 50% of the PGA Tour is playing for LIV and not allowed to play on the PGA Tour, is that good for the game of golf?

I'm not saying LIV is less restrictive at all just that the PGA Tour in its position should not be restricting how their players are using their talents. Those players make the PGA Tour what it is. Figure out how to give them what they want or watch out.

2 hours ago, Friz said:

These seem like contradictory statements.  Its already established LIV isn't worried about being profitable or self-sustaining, so they can throw enough money out there to outspend the PGA Tour in prize money.  If the PGA Tour let players play different tours, they could lose more top guys week in and week out as they go play somewhere else, knowing they can come back any time.  By banning top players who break the rules, they lose SOME top guys ALL the time, rather than losing ALL the top guys SOME of the time.  And right now, they haven't lost anywhere near enough relevant players to simply open those floodgates for everyone to go some of the time.

PGA Tour has every right to do what is best for them.  They didn't prevent LIV from forming, they didn't forcibly prevent players from joining LIV, all they did was say if you go play there, you can't play here.  They'd be hurting themselves a lot more if all the top guys were playing somewhere else half the time.  Their fields would be weaker overall.  Keeping most of the top guys in PGA Tour events by banning the ones who left are going to lead to better fields more often than the alternative.

This is basically admitting though that the PGA Tour has a bunch of tournaments that no one really cares about enough to play in. The Players, The Memorial, Arnold Palmer, Wells Fargo are always going to draw a big field because they are good tournaments.

Edited August 11, 2022 by jshots

[Hardluckster]

39 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm trying to square this up with the fact that the LIV tour is more restrictive than the PGA Tour.

Nope. Can't do it.

To begin, I'm not trying to be argumentative (sometimes that is tough to discern simply from text). 

As I understand it LIV is very restrictive in that players must compete in every LIV event (8 this year, 14 next, and ??? after that). The PGAT requires 15 total events, but allows players the right to choose (at least to some degree) the events which they will participate.

The point where the PGAT becomes more restrictive than LIV is in playing other events (at least as I read things). LIV, it seems, places no restrictions on where/when these players compete outside of the LIV event weeks. As we know, the PGAT must grant waivers for members to compete in most non-PGAT events. Am I missing something? I'm genuinely interested in understanding if I am ignorant of the facts. 

[Friz]

10 minutes ago, jshots said:

This is basically admitting though that the PGA Tour has a bunch of tournaments that no one really cares about enough to play in. The Players, The Memorial, Arnold Palmer, Wells Fargo are always going to draw a big field because they are good tournaments.

Always?  Even if they're opposite an LIV tournament with their precious $25 million purse (not to mention LIV's requirement that their contracted guys play in all their events....)?  If the PGA Tour didn't ban players, it opens up the ability for those fields to get watered down as the top players may split where they play, or be forced to play in their contracted LIV event.  If a player didn't have to stop and think "do I want to lose access to all PGA Tour events?" before leaving for LIV, then thats exactly what would happen.  Its much better the PGA Tour bans 5 top guys from those events than risk 20 deciding to play somewhere else.

We're not just talking about the 3M or the John Deere or other historically weaker fields, setting that precedent for any one event opens up that possibility in the future for all events.  LIV may not be opposite one of those bigger tournaments this year, but they're expanding to 14 events next year, and possibly more in the future, so action taken by the PGA Tour right now is going to protect them in the future.

15 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

To begin, I'm not trying to be argumentative (sometimes that is tough to discern simply from text). 

As I understand it LIV is very restrictive in that players must compete in every LIV event (8 this year, 14 next, and ??? after that). The PGAT requires 15 total events, but allows players the right to choose (at least to some degree) the events which they will participate.

The point where the PGAT becomes more restrictive than LIV is in playing other events (at least as I read things). LIV, it seems, places no restrictions on where/when these players compete outside of the LIV event weeks. As we know, the PGAT must grant waivers for members to compete in most non-PGAT events. Am I missing something? I'm genuinely interested in understanding if I am ignorant of the facts. 

The PGA Tour also does not restrict when/where players play outside of PGAT event weeks, those restrictions are only when there is an event they could be playing on Tour.  Yes the PGA Tour has a lot more active weeks, but the restrictive piece in place is actually the same.  LIV would not grant releases to go play in a PGA Tour event during an LIV week if it were allowed, those guys are required to play in all LIV events.  The PGA Tour does not require players to play every single week, but an agreement made by all PGA Tour members states if you want to golf in a particular week, and a PGA Tour event is happening, you need to golf there or get a release to play somewhere else

[Vinsk]

28 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

To begin, I'm not trying to be argumentative (sometimes that is tough to discern simply from text). 

As I understand it LIV is very restrictive in that players must compete in every LIV event (8 this year, 14 next, and ??? after that). The PGAT requires 15 total events, but allows players the right to choose (at least to some degree) the events which they will participate.

The point where the PGAT becomes more restrictive than LIV is in playing other events (at least as I read things). LIV, it seems, places no restrictions on where/when these players compete outside of the LIV event weeks. As we know, the PGAT must grant waivers for members to compete in most non-PGAT events. Am I missing something? I'm genuinely interested in understanding if I am ignorant of the facts. 

I may be wrong but I think it has to be considered that it was the PGAT that made it possible for the players that are whining to be where they are. It’s not like the PGAT is Ike Turner and these guys had to go on their own to make a name for themselves after years of abuse.  The PGAT allowed them to take their talent and create a luxurious lifestyle from it. So to turn around and go to this half-assed Norman dream charade is absolutely ridiculous. They’re biting the hand that fed them, them suing them for not giving them a bigger portion when they’re already stuffed to the gills.

[jshots]

21 minutes ago, Friz said:

Always?  Even if they're opposite an LIV tournament with their precious $25 million purse (not to mention LIV's requirement that their contracted guys play in all their events....)?  If the PGA Tour didn't ban players, it opens up the ability for those fields to get watered down as the top players may split where they play, or be forced to play in their contracted LIV event.  If a player didn't have to stop and think "do I want to lose access to all PGA Tour events?" before leaving for LIV, then thats exactly what would happen. 

I mean doesn't that basically amount to a threat?? Should the best players in the world be deciding where they play based on a threat? The players are what make the PGA Tour, not the other way around. IMO if those tournaments stop attracting players, then so be it. The best tournaments should get the most viewers, biggest sponsors, and biggest purses, will naturally attract the best players.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, jshots said:

Maybe depending on the industry, but I find its pretty common that contractors work for competing companies in software development, and some states have laws preventing non compete clauses for contractors.

Cool.

Thing is, the waiver system, etc. is not a "non-compete." They granted waivers for players to play in Saudi Arabia just this year.

1 hour ago, jshots said:

If you aren't simply providing an alternative product you are asking for a lawsuit

You've said a lot of things that just deserve the    emoji. There's another of 'em.

1 hour ago, jshots said:

a contract that uses your position and status as the premiere golf league to hinder another league from establishing itself.

Nobody on the PGA Tour has a contract, and again, the fact that the LIV Tour has been created and is succeeding goes to proving that the PGA Tour does not have a monopoly.

Plus, monopolies are not illegal just because they're a monopoly.

1 hour ago, jshots said:

How many Golfers would already have signed up for LIV if not for the contract issues and fear of no longer being able to play on the PGA Tour.

Again, that's not a contract issue!

That's a choice they're able to make: choosing ONE Tour over the others.

1 hour ago, jshots said:

Yeah... I'm not a lawyer but it seems obvious to me that that is going to raise some eyebrows.

You should have just stopped after the word "lawyer."

A sports league can make rules for itself, and the players can willingly agree to abide by them. That's what's happened here.

The rules aren't requiring the players to sacrifice their first-born on a pyramid of Pro V1s.

You wanna play the PGA Tour? Here are the rules. You don't want to? Okay, bye.

I play in a weekly SOCCER league that has rules and regulations, and I agree to them every 14 weeks or so when a new "season" starts. If I violate them, as some people have in the past, guess what? They kick them out of the league!

1 hour ago, jshots said:

Right but when did it matter until now? Quite clearly a bunch of players are now not agreeing to those terms, had there been an option of another tour that paid more when they signed would they have ever agreed to sign.

I don't think you realize how bad an argument you're making here.

1 hour ago, jshots said:

Imagine hypothetically 2 years from now 50% of the PGA Tour is playing for LIV and not allowed to play on the PGA Tour, is that good for the game of golf?

Thing is… neither LIV nor the PGA Tour should really be concerned about "the game of golf." They should be concerned with LIV and the PGA Tour, basically. Professional golf and the product that they put out, and those directly associated with that.

If the PGA Tour thought they could make more money for their players by requiring everyone to wear clown suits, and the members agreed and wrote that into the rules — you seem to keep missing that the players created the rules for themselves and their peers — then guess what? We'd see PGA Tour events where everyone was dressed up like a clown.

1 hour ago, jshots said:

I'm not saying LIV is less restrictive at all just that the PGA Tour in its position should not be restricting how their players are using their talents.

If we just get to make declarative statements like they're fact, then okay.

Yes, they should. It's in their best interests and, often, in the best interests of the membership of the PGA Tour members as a whole.

1 hour ago, jshots said:

Figure out how to give them what they want or watch out.

Yeah, cuz the PGA Tour was just going to magically "figure out" how to throw billions of dollars they don't have to compete against an irrational "competitor." Dude.

54 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

To begin, I'm not trying to be argumentative (sometimes that is tough to discern simply from text). 

Yes you are, and there's no problem with that. People are so f***ing scared of "arguing." So what? It's just golf, and if everyone can have perspective, and realize that though we might argue about which flavor of ice cream is the best, it's still just ice cream.

54 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

As I understand it LIV is very restrictive in that players must compete in every LIV event (8 this year, 14 next, and ??? after that). The PGAT requires 15 total events, but allows players the right to choose (at least to some degree) the events which they will participate.

Yes, so, more restrictive, even if that's all you consider. Oh, and the PGA Tour counts WGCs and majors, while LIV does not. So that 14 required specific events almost becomes 18 versus the 15 "whenever you want to play them" events on the PGA Tour (which includes majors).

18 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I may be wrong but I think it has to be considered that it was the PGAT that made it possible for the players that are whining to be where they are. It’s not like the PGAT is Ike Turner and these guys had to go on their own to make a name for themselves after years of abuse.  The PGAT allowed them to take their talent and create a luxurious lifestyle from it. So to turn around and go to this half-assed Norman dream charade is absolutely ridiculous. They’re biting the hand that fed them, them suing them for not giving them a bigger portion when they’re already stuffed to the gills.

Yup.

It's a bad look.

15 minutes ago, jshots said:

I mean doesn't that basically amount to a threat?? Should the best players in the world be deciding where they play based on a threat? The players are what make the PGA Tour, not the other way around. IMO if those tournaments stop attracting players, then so be it. The best tournaments should get the most viewers, biggest sponsors, and biggest purses, will naturally attract the best players.

It's not a threat, it's the policy the player agreed to, and it's the policy for good reasons, and it's the policy the Tour players themselves created.

---

@jshots, look, you're so all-over-the-place with your posts, and making so many -worthy comments, that I'm going to ask this of you: In one fairly brief paragraph, what is your point? Please clearly label what you feel is opinion and what you feel is fact.

You don't have to do it, and I can't make you, and I won't punish you if you don't, but I think rather than fracturing away as has happened into a bunch of multi-quotes, it'll help get back to your core statement/belief/whatever.

[imsys0042]

4 hours ago, jshots said:

 

Regardless of how it plays out in the short term with the bans, if the PGA Tour can't provide the players what they want then they will lose players and deservingly so, whether LIV or something else. 

The PGA Tour does everything but hire someone to wipe the ass of players in the field.  In response to Mickelson’s (and others) complaining about how they should make more money they gave a lot of players even more money.   The Tour has thrown so many perks and money at even people in the middle and the bottom it’s obscene if you think about it.   
 

if you want bigger checks for doing less, fine.  I know people who got those deals in IT, my field, and more power to them.   But if you are going to chase the money, be honest.

1 - don’t claim it’s a business decision or it’s for your family when you are already so high in the 1% it’s just pathetic

2 - don’t bad mouth the Tour, the person that enabled you to make millions on the way out

3 - don’t repeat (badly) talking points about growing the game or other nonsense to justify what is a money grab.  People will think more of you if you say it’s a money grab!

4 - again, don’t be a Cam Smith mega anal douche.  Cam Smith seems to be definitely going.  I don’t think office analogies work 100% with golf. But this one does.   Cam Smith is the guy who says for weeks he’s leaving to go somewhere else, but waits until his Christmas bonus and gets in the way of people who are more committed to the company until he leaves.   No one likes that guy because he’s sucking up the bonus pool AND getting a huge bonus at his new place.   Total douche!

5 - don’t, dont, don’t (this is for you @Shindig ),  claim it’s for more time with your family like you are somehow deprived like the hoi polli who get a couple of weeks a year and then sue to play more than your sweetheart deal with LIV states for any number of reasons.

I’m with @Vinsk 120% on this.  So much so, I feel like somehow there is quantum entanglement.   I’ll say this, with Mickelson there is quantum entitlement.  Mickelson is also a douche. 

[jshots]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

@jshots, look, you're so all-over-the-place with your posts, and making so many -worthy comments, that I'm going to ask this of you: In one fairly brief paragraph, what is your point? Please clearly label what you feel is opinion and what you feel is fact.

You don't have to do it, and I can't make you, and I won't punish you if you don't, but I think rather than fracturing away as has happened into a bunch of multi-quotes, it'll help get back to your core statement/belief/whatever.

The PGA Tour is guilty of anti-trust behavior (my opinion). I have no idea if its at the level of being illegal, but regardless of what the law is, I think it ought to be illegal. They are basically using their position/power/monopoly to hamstring a potential competitor. I don't like LIV Golf though.

[jmanbooyaa]

Liv golfs ability to get players and put on a show is actually hurting their argument. 

[Hardluckster]

1 hour ago, Friz said:

The PGA Tour also does not restrict when/where players play outside of PGAT event weeks, those restrictions are only when there is an event they could be playing on Tour.  Yes the PGA Tour has a lot more active weeks, but the restrictive piece in place is actually the same.  LIV would not grant releases to go play in a PGA Tour event during an LIV week if it were allowed, those guys are required to play in all LIV events.  The PGA Tour does not require players to play every single week, but an agreement made by all PGA Tour members states if you want to golf in a particular week, and a PGA Tour event is happening, you need to golf there or get a release to play somewhere else

Thanks for the response, Fritz. I thought that players needed exemptions whenever they played events other than on the PGAT, regardless of whether it was opposite another PGAT tournament. 

57 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes you are, and there's no problem with that. People are so f***ing scared of "arguing."

You are wrong, on both counts. If you knew me you would know that. 

I'm most certainly not afraid of an argument, although it's an exercise in futility on internet message boards in almost all circumstances.

Now, we could argue about which is more restrictive but I'll refrain from that debate as it would be fruitless. I can see both sides of this 'restrictive' debate and will leave it there. 

[Hardluckster]

I just read a post on another site which claimed that the 15 tourney minimum only applies to golfers who wish to have voting privileges on the PGAT.

Does anyone know if that is indeed accurate?

If that's true, could a player compete in less that 15 events and, if he earned enough points, still maintain their PGAT card for the next season and compete in the FedEx playoffs?

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, jshots said:

They are basically using their position/power/monopoly to hamstring a potential competitor.

They’ve acquired the #2 ranked player in the world and have held three tournaments with previously ranked ( DJ #18) PGAT players. How have they hamstringed LIV exactly?

[turtleback]

 

1 hour ago, imsys0042 said:

 

5 - don’t, dont, don’t (this is for you @Shindig ),  claim it’s for more time with your family like you are somehow deprived like the hoi polli who get a couple of weeks a year and then sue to play more than your sweetheart deal with LIV states for any number of reasons.

 

And:

6 - don’t, dont, don’t claim you need to do this to feed your family.

[Vinsk]

8 minutes ago, turtleback said:

 

And:

6 - don’t, dont, don’t claim you need to do this to feed your family.

Hey, chartering a private jet to Portugal for some fried cuddle fish gets expensive….

[jshots]

36 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

They’ve acquired the #2 ranked player in the world and have held three tournaments with previously ranked ( DJ #18) PGAT players. How have they hamstringed LIV exactly?

They've gotten only a handful of top players, I think that number would be significantly higher if it wasn't for the PGA Tour barring players.