PGA Tour Prize Money Distribution - Leave As Is, Or...?

[Frank-0-Sport]

 
  
   $ 5,000,000 Sample Base Purse
  
  Divide the 1st prize of the particular event being contested by $900,000.
Use the result to multiply individual place prizes.

 1..$ 900,000   11..$ 125,000   21..$ 60,000   31..$ 32,500   41..$ 20,500   51..$ 12,300   61..$ 10,900
 2..$ 540,000   12..$ 115,000   22..$ 56,000   32..$ 31,000   42..$ 19,500   52..$ 12,000   62..$ 10,800
 3..$ 340,000   13..$ 105,000   23..$ 52,000   33..$ 29,500   43..$ 18,500   53..$ 11,800   63..$ 10,700
 4..$ 240,000   14..$  95,000   24..$ 48,000   34..$ 28,250   44..$ 17,500   54..$ 11,600   64..$ 10,600
 5..$ 200,000   15..$  90,000   25..$ 44,000   35..$ 27,000   45..$ 16,500   55..$ 11,500   65..$ 10,500
 6..$ 180,000   16..$  85,000   26..$ 40,000   36..$ 25,750   46..$ 15,500   56..$ 11,400   66..$ 10,400
 7..$ 167,500   17..$  80,000   27..$ 38,500   37..$ 24,500   47..$ 14,500   57..$ 11,300   67..$ 10,300
 8..$ 155,000   18..$  75,000   28..$ 37,000   38..$ 23,500   48..$ 13,700   58..$ 11,200   68..$ 10,200
 9..$ 145,000   19..$  70,000   29..$ 35,500   39..$ 22,500   49..$ 13,000   59..$ 11,100   69..$ 10,100
10..$ 135,000   20..$  65,000   30..$ 34,000   40..$ 21,500   50..$ 12,600   60..$ 11,000   70..$ 10,000

If more than 70 professionals finish the event, then each place beyond the 70th is worth $ 100 less
than the place above it (71st - $ 9,900; 72nd - $ 9,800; 73rd - $ 9,700; and so on). Prize money
is awarded to all professionals finishing 72 holes (or 54 holes, if scheduled as such).
 

Greetings ...

Shown above is the current distribution method for PGA Tour Prize Money. This method has been used at regular PGA Tour events (but not Majors or WGC's) since January of 1979.

First prize is 18% of the total purse, 2nd prize is 10.8% of total, 3rd place is 6.8% and so on down to 70th place which is 0.2% of total.

Difference ratios between 1st place and others are as follows --

1st-2nd: 1.6667-1  ... 1st-3rd: 2.647059-1 ... 1st-4th: 3.750-1 ... 1st-10th: 6.667-1 .... 1st-30th: 26,47059-1 .... 1st-70th: 90-1

Is there anything about the prize amounts and difference ratios you would change? Or should everything be left "as is"??

My preferences are ...

(1) 1st prize remains 18% of total purse.

(2) Difference ratio between 1st and 2nd place widened to 2.00-1, which puts greater emphasis on winning a tournament.

(3) Difference ratio between 1st and 70th narrowed to 50-1. May have significant impact on races for Top 125/150 (or, Top 90/120, if the Top 125 Exemption is changed).

(4) All professionals finishing 72 holes (or 54, if weather-shortened) guaranteed to receive at least as much money as is offered for 70th place. This applies to any event with more than 70 official finishers.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[iacas]

First place 25%. Second 10%. Drops off quickly after that. Put more importance on winning, not less.

[shades9323]

I agree.

Originally Posted by iacas

First place 25%. Second 10%. Drops off quickly after that. Put more importance on winning, not less.

Frank-o,

why are you always wanting to change the tour?

[deasy55]

Increase winning percentage of purse.

Also, only give the top 20 a cheque...like the good old days

[Kieran123]

Greetings...

I would leave it as is.

Thanx-A-Lot, Kieran123

[cdnglf]

Quote:

First place 25%. Second 10%. Drops off quickly after that. Put more importance on winning, not less.

This will never happen, because the majority of PGA Tour players will recognize that it is not in their best interests. And while it seems to be a common sentiment among fans, I'm not sure how the Tour as a whole benefits either. What is the advantage in concentrating the bulk of the total PGA Tour purse into fewer hands? For the best players, an increase in purse is just more money on the pile; but if you cut the earnings of the mid-level player, you're probably impacting his ability to compete. A cut of 20-30% (or more) off ~$900k probably leaves him having to make decisions about trainers, swing coaches, travel arrangements, living situation, etc that are not advantageous to him playing his best. And when you diminish the ability of the mid-level guys to compete, you dilute the overall quality of play on the tour.

The pat answer to this is always "play better". But the problem is this: there's only 40 tournaments per year, and the PGA Tour needs 200+ guys to fill them. Not everyone can "play better".

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings .... [quote name="shades9323" url="/t/52914/pga-tour-prize-money-distribution-leave-as-is-or#post_644483"]Frank-o,

why are you always wanting to change the tour?

[/quote] Doesn't everybody want to? TO CDNGLF -- I agree with you. There's a certain sort of democracy I believe in, too. With regards to prize money it is a fair share for participants. You can not tilt the balance too far towards the top finishers. TO IACAS -- 25% then 10%, you say. In a $5,000,000 event, that's $ 1,250,000 for 1st, $500,000 for 2nd. 35% of total the purse is eaten up right there. The PGA Tour's current method consumes 28.8% ($900,000-1st/$540,000-2nd), and I am suggesting 27% ($900,000-1st/$450,000-2nd). I am also suggesting a 50-1 difference between 1st place and 70th place, making the latter in a $5,000,000 event worth $ 18,000 vs the current $ 10,000. In your opinion, how many professionals (at minimum) do you think should get cash rewards in any given event, and how low should last place be? Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by shades9323

I agree.

Frank-o,

why are you always wanting to change the tour?

Greetings . . .

Based on his one dimensional posts, I'd say that the following is true about Frank.

1.) he has a close connection (e.g. friend, relative, self) to someone on the fringe of making it into the top 125 tour players. This person needs every advantage they can get to get exempt status. They'll probably never get there, but Frank keep this strange internet campaign going in case they ever get all facets of their game together.

2.) This person may have won an event in the past, but they have conditional status at best, and aren't enough of a household name to get any sponsor's exemptions.

3.) They have absolutely no chance of placing high or ever winning an event, but they do have the potential to make a cut.

4.) Salutations.

[x129]

Anyone 15 back ( I would consider 10) of the leader gets paid zero. Any left over money goes to the leader. Give the guy in front a reward for continuing to crush the field.  Have a cut after the 3rd round eliminating anyone 20 back.

I am not sure what problem is trying to be solved here. I am pretty sure everyone out there is trying really hard to win. Want to crank up the pressure? Make it 10k to play (add it to the prize pool). every week. Let only the to 75 keep their card at the end of the season

[ND Fan]

Wow you guys have way too much time on your hands... Seriously debating a subject that no one complains about and you don't the influence to change.

These guys play golf for a living making the cut isn't easy to do for many so getting paid is an important aspect of the sport.

I can't possibly imagine why anyone's suggestion of change would be an improvement on what already exist.

I have an idea lets change the word white to black and black to white, because I think it should be that way, cotton is now black and space is now white. Why not?!

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ... TO SEAN-MILLER ... No, I don't know any pros, struggling or otherwise. As for the main intent in various recent posts of mine, I am suggesting changes in the [url=http://www.pgatour.com/r/player_exemptions/index.html][b]PGA Tour Exemption Categories'[/b][/url] priority selection order to give a little more favor to up-and-coming players, such as those from the Nationwide Tour and Q-School. Just a quick comment on Q-School - many of those who enter it come from the likes of the PGA Tour, Nationwide Tour, various USA mini-tours such as Hooters, and various foreign tours. These are players who have the experience to play as well as the talent and desire. They don't necessarily view Q-School as a one-shot deal, but rather as a step on the way up to better things. Consider what happens if the Top 125 Money Winner Category is reduced to Top 90--- (1) The Non-Member Top 125 Equal Earnings category also gets changed to Top 90. (2) The 126 to 150 Money Leader Category gets changed to, say, 91 to 120. (3) The Beyond the Top 150 Money Leader Category (Past Champions, Veteran Members) gets changed to, say, Beyond the Top 120. Such changes would do wonders for those 50 players (more or less) playing out of the Nationwide Tour 25/Q-School 25 Category, but will make it a bit tougher for other pros to keep their PGA Tour Cards. You would see those "marginal" guys either making a better commitment to playing, or heading off to pasture. If the difference ratio between first and second place prize money is widened to at least 2.00-1 vs the current ratio of 1.667-1, you should start finding just about all of the annual tournament winners among the Top 90 Money Leaders, with most of them concentrated among the Top 30. The lower half of the Top 90 would just about be full of non-winners (for the particular year). My suggestion to change the difference ratio between first place and 70th place to 50-1, vs the current 90-1, does seem like a bigger wetting of the pro's beaks. But this particular change is suggested to give -ALL- professionals -- established, marginal, up-and-coming, non-member, or whatever -- a fairer chance of reaching the various suggested thresholds (Top 90 or 120). Regardless of whatever opportunity is given to any type of professional competing on the PGA Tour, they still have to go out there and EARN THEIR OWN WAY. That's the way it's always been, regardless of whatever exemption rules and prize money payouts may be in effect. Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[Kieran123]

Greetings ...

Greetings ...

Greetings ...

Greetings ...

Greetings ...

GreetinGreetings ...Greetings ...gs ...

Greetings ...Greetings ...

Greetings Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ......GreeGrGreetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...veetings ...s ...GreetivnGreetings ...vGreetings ...GreetingGreetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...s ...Greetings ...Greetings ...gs ...Greetings ...GreGreetings ...vGreetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...etings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...Greetings ...

*explodes*

[AmazingWhacker]

Winner take all except 10,000 each to the Top 10 to help cover expenses.  No more millionaires who never won a tournament and who nobody ever heard of.

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by ND Fan

Wow you guys have way too much time on your hands... Seriously debating a subject that no one complains about and you don't the influence to change.

These guys play golf for a living making the cut isn't easy to do for many so getting paid is an important aspect of the sport.

I can't possibly imagine why anyone's suggestion of change would be an improvement on what already exist.

I have an idea lets change the word white to black and black to white, because I think it should be that way, cotton is now black and space is now white. Why not?!

I don't think debating prize money in golf is as "out to lunch" as you are making it seem.  As it stands now, a very above average living can be made on the PGA Tour without winning.  You can use Rickie Fowler for example.  A great player, who hasn't won and really, based on the amount of money he has made, really doesn't need to as he's become VERY rich finishing in top 5s, 10s and 20s...

No one is saying these guys should starve... in my opinion, the drop off slope of prize money after finishing 1st should be a bit steeper than it is now which hopefully, would generate a bit more "burning desire" to win.  That can only really equate to better competition in more tournaments besides only the majors......Only a few have that desire...we know who they are.  The rest seem to be happy making millions finishing in the middle of the pack.

[cdnglf]

Quote:

in my opinion, the drop off slope of prize money after finishing 1st should be a bit steeper than it is now which hopefully, would generate a bit more "burning desire" to win.  That can only really equate to better competition in more tournaments besides only the majors......Only a few have that desire...we know who they are.  The rest seem to be happy making millions finishing in the middle of the pack.

There are only about 40 tournaments per year, so most guys will play for years without winning. Does this mean they don't have the desire to win? Or that they just aren't good (and lucky) enough? The perks of winning (money, 2 year exemption, Masters and Hawaii invites, etc) are already very significant. I doubt very much that bumping the first place money by 20-30% will materially affect anyone's desire to win.

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

You would see those "marginal" guys either making a better commitment to playing, or heading off to pasture.

No, you would see a bunch of marginal guys around 90 instead of 125.  Moving the line back doesn't remove marginal players.  It just changes the definition of marginal.

Also, do you seriously think that there is a big problem with motivation and "commitment to playing" among those 100-150 on the PGA tour money list?  Those dang top 200 in the world pros either need to commit to golf or get out!

I like Iacas' idea, but a little different.  I would boost the top player purse (so winning is more important) but i would take it from 2-whatever as opposed to boosting more money across the top of the standings.  Really, there are two competing interests here: emphasizing winning is important, but also you want a great field and the way you get that is good prize money throughout.  By removing money from 2-10 and adding that money to one, you accomplish these goals.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by cdnglf

This will never happen, because the majority of PGA Tour players will recognize that it is not in their best interests.

Hey, he asked the question, and I answered it. I didn't say it would ever work or that any PGA Tour players would ever vote to put it in. I said what I'd like to see.

Originally Posted by Frank-0-Sport

25% then 10%, you say. In a $5,000,000 event, that's $ 1,250,000 for 1st, $500,000 for 2nd. 35% of total the purse is eaten up right there. The PGA Tour's current method consumes 28.8% ($900,000-1st/$540,000-2nd), and I am suggesting 27% ($900,000-1st/$450,000-2nd). I am also suggesting a 50-1 difference between 1st place and 70th place, making the latter in a $5,000,000 event worth $ 18,000 vs the current $ 10,000.

In your opinion, how many professionals (at minimum) do you think should get cash rewards in any given event, and how low should last place be?

Frank, I don't really care what you're suggesting, and I'm capable of adding 25 to 10 and getting 35.

1 - 25%

2 - 10%

3 - 7%

4 - 5%

5 - 3%

10th - 1%

The rest would decline from there. That's 50% of the purse to the top five finishers. I like that.

Last place (that makes the cut), who cares? Is there really much of a difference between $3k and $10k at that level?

In a $5M tournament, the guy who finishes 70th should make $5k. That's 0.1%. I don't care how you get there, but I'd make it linear from 10th place getting 1%.

Will it happen? Nope.

[cdnglf]

Quote:

Is there really much of a difference between $3k and $10k at that level?

At $10k, you're probably covering your costs; at $3k, you aren't. That strikes me as a very significant difference, particularly for the guys who are just starting on Tour.

Under your proposed distribution, I suspect you'd end up with guys who'd be high enough on the money list to keep their cards, but operating at not much above break even. That doesn't make sense to me.