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

[Friz]

11 minutes ago, jshots said:

Playing devils advocate here because I can't comprehend what its like to be a millionaire and want to be a zillionaire - but I think the point is there is no competition in LIV just money. Thus still no meaningful choice to them. LIV can pay but can't provide competition, PGA Tour has the competition but doesn't pay that well. Most PGA Tour players are not making a ton of money, especially compared to other US sports.

Oh man, I would LOVE for one of those guys to say that under oath.

But at the end of the day, not one of those guys in that lawsuit said they were leaving for money.  They were leaving for a "better schedule", to "spend more time with their families", or "to grow the game of golf."  They were also aware that LIV was an international organization, the LIV website literally calls themself an "International Golf Series."  They were aware of the format at the time they joined, they were aware of the schedule.  They were also made very aware of what the penalty would be from the PGA Tour if they joined.  They had all of that information in advance, and made a choice.  Now to come back and say that?

Understand you're playing devils advocate, but that argument coming from these professionals should have no legs to stand on in a legal setting.

[Golfingdad]

7 hours ago, boogielicious said:

It’s a rival tour and the players want to be able to play both tours. That’s the ludicrous part. Pick one. I could not have worked for Gillette and for SC Johnson at the same time. And no one in their right mind would have thought I should have been able too.

 

6 hours ago, iacas said:

Once again… is there anywhere else in North America to play "meaningful" hockey besides the NHL/AHL? How about "meaningful" basketball besides the NBA or it's developmental league? "Meaningful" football outside of the NFL? How about baseball?

And if there were, as @boogielicious points out, would it be reasonable to expect anybody to be able to play both at a time?

Of course not - that idea is absurd.

[The Flush]

I doubt it was really intentional, but...

 

 

[jshots]

2 minutes ago, Friz said:

Understand you're playing devils advocate, but that argument coming from these professionals should have no legs to stand on in a legal setting.

I'm not so sure that it has no standing just based on what other sports have been through and Golf has mostly avoided so far.

How Long Will The PGA Handicap Its Golfers?

---

Unlike the NBA, MLB and NFL, the PGA Tour considers golfers to be independent contractors, and they have to pay their own expenses, including extensive travel, caddy and coaching costs, entry fees, and even a $50...

 

 

[Darkfrog]

8 minutes ago, jshots said:

I'm not so sure that it has no standing just based on what other sports have been through and Golf has mostly avoided so far.

How Long Will The PGA Handicap Its Golfers?

---

Unlike the NBA, MLB and NFL, the PGA Tour considers golfers to be independent contractors, and they have to pay their own expenses, including extensive travel, caddy and coaching costs, entry fees, and even a $50...

 

 

That article lost me with this statement:

Quote

However, even above-average players in the Professional Golf Association Tour struggle merely to support themselves.

A quick search of the PGAT 2022 money list found that #100 of 200 has earned around $1.2 million dollars. Hardly struggling, unless you have the financial acumen of a can of spam.

[ChetlovesMer]

20 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

That article lost me with this statement:

A quick search of the PGAT 2022 money list found that #100 of 200 has earned around $1.2 million dollars. Hardly struggling, unless you have the financial acumen of a can of spam.

Agreed. I think that's just prize money. It looks like most guys in the top 200 have a "bag deal", A "hat deal", a "logo deal" etc. ... That can bag him (see what I did there? 🤪) at least an additional $250K to $1M per year. 

Take a look at this article. It's a little dated (2018) but the information is still pretty good. 

Ever Wonder How Much a PGA TOUR Pro Makes to Wear All Those Logos?

---

Recently Golf.com spoke with a top sports agent, who spoke anonymously about the kind of money a PGA TOUR pro makes off of endorsement deals. 

I do understand that they have to pay their own travel expenses and they give their caddies a cut. But even so, it doesn't sound to me like these guys are just scrapping by. 

 

[turtleback]

6 hours ago, Friz said:

One of LIV's lawyers stated during the lawsuit that prize money is recouped against their sign on bonus.  LIV later came out and said it was "in addition to."

I dont think there is a clear and obvious answer, theyre stating both and clearly want everyone to believe its additional...but the below article provides a little info on it

 

A statement by a LIV Golf lawyer raised questions about LIV’s prize money | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest

---

One of LIV Golf’s lawyers at Tuesday’s temporary restraining order hearing may have accidentally revealed that...

 

It is a disbarrable offense for a lawyer to lie in a court pleading, so I'm going with what the lawyer said in the suit, not what the LIV PR flack says.

2 hours ago, jshots said:

Playing devils advocate here because I can't comprehend what its like to be a millionaire and want to be a zillionaire - but I think the point is there is no competition in LIV just money. Thus still no meaningful choice to them. LIV can pay but can't provide competition, PGA Tour has the competition but doesn't pay that well. Most PGA Tour players are not making a ton of money, especially compared to other US sports.

Just playing common sense here, but LIV not being able to provide competition for their players is one of the silliest claims yet.  If they want competition, play the tour.  If they're just interested in money play LIV.

The PGA pays what it pays based on how much they actually generate, which has absolutely nothing to do with what other sports pay, that generate what they generate.  LIV pays based on how much money the Saudis want to sportswash and has nothing to do with how much LIV generates.  But how strange that a non-competitive league would set itself up against the ultra-competitive PGATour.

I had asked about your profession, in a prior message, because I was looking to see if my surmise that it had nothing to do with law or economics was correct.

[jshots]

18 minutes ago, turtleback said:

I had asked about your profession, in a prior message, because I was looking to see if my surmise that it had nothing to do with law or economics was correct.

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.

[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.