PGA Tour Caddies file class-action suit against PGA Tour for use of likeness, bibs

[ay33660]

First of all, wearing an advertising bib is NOT part of a caddy's job. Caddies work for their player, not the PGA Tour or the week's corporate sponsor. The caddy didn't sign on with a player to be a billboard for a company that has no business relationship with the player.

And look at the players. They advertise. Players have logos all over their shirts. Some of them almost look like a NASCAR vehicle, and get paid huge bucks for each one.

If they can be compensated, why should caddies be forced to advertise and GET NOTHING FOR IT?

This suit is dripping with merit and the caddies deserve to be compensated fully.

Since this came onto the news I have been paying attention to what is actually on the caddies bibs. On all the tournaments I have seen so far it is the title sponsor.

Caddies work for the player. The player must adhere to the requirements set forth by the PGA and the tournament they are playing in. It is a reasonable expectation that the bibs worn by the caddies would have the title sponsor on them. After all it is a business and the sponsors pay millions in order to get the advertising out and part of that is having their corporate logo on the caddies bibs.

"First of all, wearing an advertising bib is NOT part of a caddy's job." - It is part of their job if it is a requirement of the tournament that the player is playing in. If the caddy does not want to put the bib on then don't caddy for any of the players in the tournament.

"Caddies work for their player, not the PGA Tour or the week's corporate sponsor. The caddy didn't sign on with a player to be a billboard for a company that has no business relationship with the player." - You are correct the caddies work for the player. However the player must adhere to the rules of the tournament and part of that is having their caddies wear a bib with the corporate sponsor on it. While neither the player nor the caddies work directly for the corporate sponsor, they do make money from them in the form of winnings. Caddies earn a share of the player's winnings. Where do you think the tournament purse comes from?

"And look at the players. They advertise. Players have logos all over their shirts. Some of them almost look like a NASCAR vehicle, and get paid huge bucks for each one." - If the caddies negotiate it into their contract with the player they can have their own sponsors. I believe Steve Williams had sponsors. Other than a few notable caddies like Steve Williams and Fluff, most caddies do not have any presence. I have no idea who Rory's caddie is and he is the caddie to the number 1 player in the world.

"If they can be compensated, why should caddies be forced to advertise and GET NOTHING FOR IT?" - Again the caddies are being compensated. Companies pay millions to be tournament sponsors, they expect to be on the bibs are part of what they received in advertising, players enter tournament and the winning come from tournament sponsors, caddies are paid a share of the players' winners which again COMES FROM TOURNAMENT SPONSORS and THOSE TOURNAMENT SPONSORS EXPECT CADDIES WEAR THE BIBS AS PART OF THE ADVERTISING THEY GET FOR PAYING $$$$$$$$ TO BE THE TOURNAMENT SPONSORS.

Caddies have ZERO merit in this lawsuit as far as I am concerned.

If they don't like it then quit and go flip burgers for a living.

[jamo]

"And look at the players. They advertise. Players have logos all over their shirts. Some of them almost look like a NASCAR vehicle, and get paid huge bucks for each one." - I f the caddies negotiate it into their contract with the player they can have their own sponsors. I believe Steve Williams had sponsors. Other than a few notable caddies like Steve Williams and Fluff, most caddies do not have any presence. I have no idea who Rory's caddie is and he is the caddie to the number 1 player in the world.

Williams used to be (is?) sponsored by Valvoline (among others, I'd assume). He'd take the bib off on the 18th green to get some airtime, but that was it.

[iacas]

The language I quoted makes two basic arguments..........I am paraphrasing, but the first is "If you don't like it, find another job"......I really hope nobody would actually think this is a legitimate argument in an employment setting.....this argument applies to ANY job and if you buy into this reasoning, well then you might as well just eliminate all labor laws, right......wow, that would just SO great for our society.

It is a legitimate thing to say.

If you don't like the pay at McDonald's, that doesn't entitle you to demand McDonald's pays you $100k/year. It does entitle you to seek better employment.

And that statement has nothing to do with labor laws. Straw man.

The second argument is that "they shouldn't be complaining because hey have endured these conditions in the past"......do I really even need to explain this further?  Seriously folks??????  Does anyone think this is a legitimate argument for ANY condition they think is unfair (see slavery, anti-gay laws, etc.)......

Yes, because being handsomely paid to carry a bag around is just like slavery or anti-gay laws. C'mon…

They also haven't "endured" anything. They've had to wear caddie bibs so that fans know who the players are, so that their players can compete to earn money, and so that a portion of that money (on top of a base fee, most often) goes to the caddies.

[billchao]

They've had to wear caddie bibs so that fans know who the players are, so that their players can compete to earn money, and so that a portion of that money (on top of a base fee, most often) goes to the caddies.

True, but there are also other ways of displaying the players' names without turning the caddies into walking billboards. They can, for example, just stitch name plates to the backs of the caddies' shirts, or make them carry a standard with the name of the player on it. They don't need bibs to have a golf tournament, and the fact that they so prominently display corporate sponsors makes me believe that a large part of their function is as advertising.

[iacas]

True, but there are also other ways of displaying the players' names without turning the caddies into walking billboards.

Calling them "walking billboards" distorts the truth.

The bibs have:

• The player name on the back.
• The Tournament name on the front.
• The PGA Tour logo on the front.
• Pockets for useful things like tees, etc.

That's it. They're lightweight, breathable, etc. They're functional, and it's not like they're covered in multiple things: they have the tournament name on them, the sponsor of which is basically already paying the caddies by funding the tournament to begin with, which pays the players, who employ the caddies.

They can, for example, just stitch name plates to the backs of the caddies' shirts, or make them carry a standard with the name of the player on it.

That's goofy. C'mon, Bill, why would a caddie have a shirt ruined by stitching a name on it? The caddie might not even be with that player a week later.=

They don't need bibs to have a golf tournament, and the fact that they so prominently display corporate sponsors makes me believe that a large part of their function is as advertising.

Uhm, they don't need caddies either.

They do need sponsors.

[newtogolf]

True, but there are also other ways of displaying the players' names without turning the caddies into walking billboards.

They can, for example, just stitch name plates to the backs of the caddies' shirts, or make them carry a standard with the name of the player on it.

They don't need bibs to have a golf tournament, and the fact that they so prominently display corporate sponsors makes me believe that a large part of their function is as advertising.

On the PGA Tour caddies for the most part are human mules who carry clubs for the pro golfers.  There are maybe three that real golf fans might know the names of and one of them is semi-retired.  Patrick Reed uses his wife and brother-in-law which is a pretty good indication that the job doesn't require much in terms of golf expertise.  Carry the bag, hand the pro his water, cover his clubs with an umbrella and tell him to hit the shot he knows he can hit.

If they push too hard they will be replaced by automated golf carts that will have the logo's of the tour sponsors on it and the problem will be solved.

[billchao]

That's it. They're lightweight, breathable, etc. They're functional, and it's not like they're covered in multiple things: they have the tournament name on them, the sponsor of which is basically already paying the caddies by funding the tournament to begin with, which pays the players, who employ the caddies.

What about the caddies for the players that don't make the cut? The relationship between caddie and tournament sponsor is even more indirect than the relationship between player and tournament sponsor.

That's goofy. C'mon, Bill, why would a caddie have a shirt ruined by stitching a name on it? The caddie might not even be with that player a week later.

You're right. I forgot to consider that caddies aren't necessarily permanent fixtures next to their players.

I actually like the bibs. I just think that if the PGA is making something from them, then the caddies should get a share. I don't feel it's worth a lot either, so in that respect, I don't think our positions are really that far apart.

On the PGA Tour caddies for the most part are human mules who carry clubs for the pro golfers.  There are maybe three that real golf fans might know the names of and one of them is semi-retired.  Patrick Reed uses his wife and brother-in-law which is a pretty good indication that the job doesn't require much in terms of golf expertise.  Carry the bag, hand the pro his water, cover his clubs with an umbrella and tell him to hit the shot he knows he can hit.

If they push too hard they will be replaced by automated golf carts that will have the logo's of the tour sponsors on it and the problem will be solved.

Whatever value the caddie has to the individual player is between the caddie and the player. Like I said above, whatever value the caddie has to the PGA Tour and it's sponsors is a separate relationship. It may not be a lot, but if they're worth something, they should be getting something. I think I'm arguing more for the principle of the issue than whatever monetary gain the caddies hope to get out of it.

[iacas]

What about the caddies for the players that don't make the cut? The relationship between caddie and tournament sponsor is even more indirect than the relationship between player and tournament sponsor.

That misses the point: caddies are paid by the players. They're the employees of the players. The players have the right to direct the caddie to do anything that doesn't violate labor laws. Since players are required to, if they have a caddie, direct the caddie to wear the bib, they do so. The player, as an independent contractor, is free to not follow the PGA Tour rules and play in PGA Tour events. The caddies, as the employed, are free to seek other employment.

I actually like the bibs. I just think that if the PGA is making something from them, then the caddies should get a share. I don't feel it's worth a lot either, so in that respect, I don't think our positions are really that far apart.

The caddies are making something from the tournament sponsor. Their players are paying them from what they'll make in the purse.

Whatever value the caddie has to the individual player is between the caddie and the player. Like I said above, whatever value the caddie has to the PGA Tour and it's sponsors is a separate relationship.

It's not a separate relationship.

It's kind of like a franchise where the owner owns their own store. The corporate office commands that all employees of the owner mandate that their employees wear the company logo. The employer (owner) is responsible for making it - the employee cannot sue the company itself for "advertising" it - it's a condition of their employment by the owner.

That probably has some holes in it but it makes sense for now, anyway.

The money flow is basically: Sponsor -> Players -> Caddies.

Again, it's not like caddies are NASCAR automobiles with 50 ads plastered all over them. They have the tournament name on their bib.

---

Related question: how far do you think a caddie would get in suing Augusta National for being forced to wear a white coverall. Maybe Ian Poulter's caddie really wants to wear pink, or Rickie Fowler's wants to wear an orange coverall/jumpsuit… shouldn't they be allowed?

No, and caddies wouldn't think to say so.

[newtogolf]

Whatever value the caddie has to the individual player is between the caddie and the player. Like I said above, whatever value the caddie has to the PGA Tour and it's sponsors is a separate relationship. It may not be a lot, but if they're worth something, they should be getting something. I think I'm arguing more for the principle of the issue than whatever monetary gain the caddies hope to get out of it.

The caddies work for the pro golfers.  In order for the pro golfers to be permitted on the course they must be dressed in accordance to the tournament rules, so must the caddies.  In most cases PGA Tour tournaments are about charities.  Companies sponsor the tournaments for charities in exchange for marketing so it's not unreasonable for the PGA Tour to require the caddies wear a bib that showcases the company for incurring the expense of a tournament.

If the caddies want to get paid more money they should talk to the players they caddie for, not hit up the tournament organizers.

[mvmac]

The money flow is basically: Sponsor -> Players -> Caddies.

Again, it's not like caddies are NASCAR automobiles with 50 ads plastered all over them. They have the tournament name on their bib.

Correct, they're just wearing the tournament sponsors name on the bib, it's not like they're sporting Nike, Walmart, Toyota logos on them. I'm sure it's been mentioned already but caddies can earn bonuses from a tour-sponsored deal with Nature Valley granola.

[tristanhilton85]

The thing for me is that it's not like the tour is selling out space on the bibs to different advertisers. It's simply the name of the the sponsor of the tournament. Essentially the sponsor pays the player who then pays the caddie. I see no reason why the name of the tournament and it's sponsor should not be on the bib.

[billchao]

You guys all made good arguments that I hadn't properly considered before. Thanks.

[Shorty]

I would love to see the PGA Tour call their bluff and say the bibs now only have their player's name on them.

Then they can reduce the prize money pool because Tournament sponsors and the PGATour get less exposure - which is debatable BTW.

Caddy earnings then get reduced.
Point made then back to business.

I love the way they complain about their "likeness" being exploited.  I notice they tend to wear shoes with stripes and swooshes and stuff on them. Are they demanding that Nike and Adidas pay them for advertising for nothing?

Mummy-------they're making me put " Waste Management on my bib!!!" Waaaahhhhh.

[ev780]

Two things come to mind.

First is that product and logo placement is big business!  TV exposure is the issue and who gets compensated for that exposure needs to be sorted out.  Look at how often logos are blurred out on TV.  It may well be true that it is worth exactly the same as the sign spinner guy on the street corner but somehow I think the stakes are a little higher here.  I think the caddies have a valid concern.  One of the tests of Independent Contractor status is how much of my work is controlled by others.  What my uniform is one of those things.

Second, PGA and PGA Tour are not the same organization.  Please be careful blaming the PGA when you mean PGA Tour and vice versa.  PGA is club pros and PGA Tour is players.

[The Recreational Golfer]

What this issue comes down to is that if Person A performs an act that generates revenue for Person B, Person B should compensate Person A fairly for that act. But then maybe you don't believe that.

This case does not come down to "at least the caddy has a job" because Person B, the corporate sponsor, is not providing the caddy a job. The player is.

The caddy is performing a revenue generating act for the sponsor and not getting compensated for it.

The mere fact that this is the current condition on the Tour does not make it right.

I would like to see what happened if enough Tour players, including the top stars, supported their caddy by saying, "My caddy isn't going to wear a General Widgets bib in this tournament," and stuck to it.

[newtogolf]

What this issue comes down to is that if Person A performs an act that generates revenue for Person B, Person B should compensate Person A fairly for that act. But then maybe you don't believe that.

This case does not come down to "at least the caddy has a job" because Person B, the corporate sponsor, is not providing the caddy a job. The player is.

The caddy is performing a revenue generating act for the sponsor and not getting compensated for it.

The mere fact that this is the current condition on the Tour does not make it right.

I would like to see what happened if enough Tour players, including the top stars, supported their caddy by saying, "My caddy isn't going to wear a General Widgets bib in this tournament," and stuck to it.

The caddie has a contract / agreement with the PGA pro they work for, not the PGA Tour.  Bibs are what caddies are required to wear if they work as a caddie, if they refuse to wear a bib they aren't permitted inside the ropes, it's really not up for debate.

I'd like to see Web Simpson tell his caddie to stop his whining and do his job or if he's underpaying him then give the guy a raise, this isn't a PGA Tour problem.

[Golfingdad]

I would like to see what happened if enough Tour players, including the top stars, supported their caddy by saying, "My caddy isn't going to wear a General Widgets bib in this tournament," and stuck to it.

My guess would be that General Widgets would provide less money as a sponsor and, thus, less prize money for the players, and consequently, less of a portion of that prize money for their caddy.

[14ledo81]

What this issue comes down to is that if Person A performs an act that generates revenue for Person B, Person B should compensate Person A fairly for that act. But then maybe you don't believe that.

This case does not come down to "at least the caddy has a job" because Person B, the corporate sponsor, is not providing the caddy a job. The player is.

The caddy is performing a revenue generating act for the sponsor and not getting compensated for it.

The mere fact that this is the current condition on the Tour does not make it right.

I would like to see what happened if enough Tour players, including the top stars, supported their caddy by saying, "My caddy isn't going to wear a General Widgets bib in this tournament," and stuck to it.

He actually is getting compensated for it.

The larger (richer) corporate sponsor the tour can attract, the larger the individual purse.  Most caddies get paid a percentage of the purse from their player.

It is in the caddies best interest to do whatever it takes to attract good sponsors.  Their pay (IMO) directly reflects this.