Mike Whan's Take on Purse Equality for LPGA/PGA Tours

[jsgolfer 520]

Would anyone really watch the LPGA more if they had bigger purses? Does anyone watch the PGA because of the size of the purse?  I’ve never even thought about the purses ever.  You have to have a product that people want to watch and the women, unfortunately are just not as exiting as the men.  

And CEO’s still need to show a profit, even if they like golf and want to play pro-ams, because if they don’t, they won’t be a CEO for long.

So why stop with golf, what about the WNBA, should they get paid as much as the Men?

[iacas 10,101]

6 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

Would anyone really watch the LPGA more if they had bigger purses? Does anyone watch the PGA because of the size of the purse?  I’ve never even thought about the purses ever.  You have to have a product that people want to watch and the women, unfortunately are just not as exiting as the men.  

And CEO’s still need to show a profit, even if they like golf and want to play pro-ams, because if they don’t, they won’t be a CEO for long.

So why stop with golf, what about the WNBA, should they get paid as much as the Men?

I think there's some merit to the idea that because men's golf has always been covered, it's grown more than the LPGA Tour. That because it's always been that way, the women's game has lagged behind, and if for some reason the roles had been reversed, the women's game would be much bigger than it is now.

But… I don't know that I quite buy that. Generally, I think there are reasons beyond TV coverage why people watch men's sports, mostly, more readily than women's sports.

[StuM 117]

51 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Maybe if they want to claim losses for tax purposes. 

The math does not support that.  Assuming a 50% tax bracket. You spend a dollar to save 50 cents in taxes, you are out 50 cents after recouping the tax.

[ChetlovesMer 755]

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

This is a great point. The decision makers at Fortune 500 companies are driven by more than just company profit.

No, not really. When fortune 500 companies lose money. PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS. I for one would be pissed off if the CEO of my company was dumping money into the LPGA just because they wanted it to be "fair". IT IS FAIR, you get paid based on revenue generated. That's how sports/life/business works. If you want more money... GENERATE MORE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

This idea that a CEO can just throw a companies money down the toilet because he or she "likes golf" is re-god-damned-diculous! Firstly, read The Sarbanes-Oxley Act. That could actually land the CEO in jail. Secondly, CEO's at Fortune 500 companies report to a board of directors for the very reason to keep them from pissing the companies money down the drain.

 

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

Because $7M for a Fortune 500 company is a rounding error. And the publicity that can generate could have a lot more ROI than 60 seconds of a lame ad during the Superbowl.

What? ?????  Huh, no! Just NO!

$7M dollars for a Fortune 500 company is 70-100 people's jobs! 

Whether or not the SuperBowl ads are profitable is NOT what this thread is about. But, guess what.... companies calculate their ROI on Superbowl ads. 

[Darkfrog 151]

56 minutes ago, iacas said:

This is a long trail of maybes.

Well, it is purely hypothetical and not meant as a serious, real-world proposal, so I didn't want to use absolutes. It's just an off-the-cuff brainstormed idea of how a corporation might increase its value by treating an LPGA sponsorship as a component in a broader marketing campaign. If the only way for LPGA purses to be equal to the PGA Tour is to have equal TV viewership, I don't see that happening for a long time. But maybe (there it is again 😄) there are some creative, forward thinking marketers who can work with this limitation to the same ends.

57 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

I doubt people are going to flock to a company for a job or their product just because they paid women golfers the same as men golfers.

That's not what I said, but since it is hypothetical anyways, it doesn't really matter. All I am suggesting is that maybe there is an unconventional solution to reach the goal of equal purses that doesn't involve increasing the Neilsen ratings for the LPGA. I did vote for the25+ years category, so I am not arguing that my hypothetical is a reasonable idea.

 

[ChetlovesMer 755]

2 hours ago, GolfLug said:

Having said that, I love watching LPGA

Me too.

28 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

Would anyone really watch the LPGA more if they had bigger purses? Does anyone watch the PGA because of the size of the purse?  I’ve never even thought about the purses ever.  You have to have a product that people want to watch and the women, unfortunately are just not as exiting as the men.  

This

2 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

If the only way for LPGA purses to be equal to the PGA Tour is to have equal TV viewership, I don't see that happening for a long time. But maybe (there it is again 😄) there are some creative, forward thinking marketers who can work with this limitation to the same ends.

They need something or someone to market. They really need a SuperStar that moves the needle. As has been mentioned a dozen times in this thread. Michelle Wie had a chance to be that SuperStar but it didn't quite happen. 

[ncates00 242]

1 hour ago, StuM said:

The math does not support that.  Assuming a 50% tax bracket. You spend a dollar to save 50 cents in taxes, you are out 50 cents after recouping the tax.

Corporate tax rate is a flat 20%. Nonetheless, the math might not be there for the present year, but a corporation may want to generate NOL’s and carry them forward to a year in which they think they may need to lower their tax liability. 

1 hour ago, Darkfrog said:

That's not what I said...

 

 

2 hours ago, Darkfrog said:

 And maybe this drives talented women to want to work at this company, and gains a bunch of new women as customers who believe in the messaging, and ultimately creates more value then the initial investments.

Again, not fleshed out, and perhaps not really viable in any circumstance, and I'm not a marketer, so perhaps this is crazy talk.

Looks to me that’s exactly what you said. 

[StuM 117]

11 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Corporate tax rate is a flat 20%. Nonetheless, the math might not be there for the present year, but a corporation may want to generate NOL’s and carry them forward to a year in which they think they may need to lower their tax liability. 

I was using 50% as an exaggeration.  The math is worse at 20%.  Spend a dollar to save 20 cents, you are negative 80 cents. Carry forwards reduce future taxes but still are losses.  They are a way to offset losses that have been incurred but to intentionally incur a loss does not create a gain. The tax recovered is a fraction of the loss.

[Darkfrog 151]

42 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Looks to me that’s exactly what you said. 

You left out a lot of context. What I exactly said was:

Quote

what if a company buys an LPGA sponsorship which includes a prize purse equal to the men's event on the same dates. The company accepts there will be a financial loss but gain of goodwill among their target audience. Then the run a separate marketing campaign focusing on equal pay for women which states that they were the first LPGA sponsor to provide a prize purse equal to the men, and maybe the marketing campaign also highlights other women's rights/equality issues the company supports too. And maybe this drives talented women to want to work at this company, and gains a bunch of new women as customers who believe in the messaging, and ultimately creates more value then the initial investments.

You distilled it down to:

Quote

I doubt people are going to flock to a company for a job or their product just because they paid women golfers the same as men golfers.

Those two statements are not the same. I never said that just paying women golfers more would drive female talent to the company. Paraphrasing myself, what I said was that a LPGA sponsorship could be part of a broader campaign to increase a sponsoring company's value. But again, I wasn't trying to propose a realistic solution, it is just a thought experiment, so it really doesn't matter. All I am asking philosophically is if there are ways that LPGA purses can gain equivalency with the current limitations of the product that have been mentioned (less interest/viewership, no superstars, etc.).

[Aguirre 148]

I haven't read the entire thread but the only chance I see this occurring is at at the US Open, the Open (British), and LPGA (which I think the PGA just became a part of like five years ago). The women's Slams in tennis are equal pay largely because those events are joint events. And--also importantly--draw a lot of television ratings and crowds for the women as well as the men. In golf, the ratings and crowds are way behind. And of course, those events are not held in the same weeks at the same venue.

The LPGA and PGA Tour are not associated entities. So I doubt any of this will happen anytime soon.