USGA and Lucy Li (MERGED)

[Nessism]

I didn't even know who Lucy Li was before seeing this thread. Visibility and exposure, as well as likability, leads to endorsement contracts ($$). You guys saying she doesn't benefit from this Apple deal are deluding yourselves.

 

So what contracts or endorsements has this produced?

 

Oh, that's right— she's an amateur. She can't sign endorsement deals.

 

That's not the point. She benefited. And that's what the USGA says separates a pro from an amateur.

[BertGA]

I didn't even know who Lucy Li was before seeing this thread. Visibility and exposure, as well as likability, leads to endorsement contracts ($$). You guys saying she doesn't benefit from this Apple deal are deluding yourselves.

 

So what contracts or endorsements has this produced?

 

Oh, that's right— she's an amateur. She can't sign endorsement deals.

 

That's not the point. She benefited. And that's what the USGA says separates a pro from an amateur.

 

That’s my point. She has not received any tangible benefit at this point besides visibility, which by virtue of her amateur status precludes her from monetizing.

 

I am past discussing the merits of the USGA’s initial investigation or final ruling. I am simply talking about the monetary value of her presence in the Apple commercial. As far as I can tell it’s zero. What is up for discussion is how much she will benefit when she is able to cash in on her brand, and how much of that is from Apple vs. her history as a golfer.

[heavy_hitter]

I didn't even know who Lucy Li was before seeing this thread. Visibility and exposure, as well as likability, leads to endorsement contracts ($$). You guys saying she doesn't benefit from this Apple deal are deluding yourselves.

 

So what contracts or endorsements has this produced?

 

Oh, that's right— she's an amateur. She can't sign endorsement deals.

 

That's not the point. She benefited. And that's what the USGA says separates a pro from an amateur.

 

How did she benefit?

 

Antiquated rule. Completely stupid.

[JDee1935]

Glad the USGA made the right call here.

 

Except it's not the right call. Just more USGA ineptitude.

 

It's a really bad decision, one that many of her player peers, and their families are ticked off about. Sad, that they let one family and player openly break the rules, then let her off. This will have profound snowball effect over the next few years. Amateurs know they can get away with murder now, and use the excuse [ lying as Li family did] that,,"they didn't know"

This post brings up a few questions:

Which decision, the one that says she violated the rule, or the one that chose not to penalize her for breaking it?

Who is actually ticked off? Do you have some references?

Did the Li family really lie? Again, do you have a source, or is it just your opinion?

 

I don't have a problem with anyone having an opinion. But that opinion isn't very persuasive to me unless its based on some kind of facts.

 

You DO NOT get an ad w/Apple without an agent,,period.What do you think they did,just decide to dial her number because her name is Lucy???

 

Amateurs of high status...are well aware of this rule, all of them. This whole issue was a blatant disregard for the rules by her family, and they got caught. It IS a sign that she's decided to turn pro, has hired an agent, and planning for when. Probably Q School in August. Because she got caught, she had no where to go until then. And, she has an agent, who had contacts in Apple. You think they knew who she is?? The whole deal smells on believable lies.

 

So, now when a player signs an incorrect scorecard, their reply is, "I didn't know?" What OTHER rules is USGA going to warn people on?? Now, how many juniors will use the excuse that they did not know??

[cxx]

I didn't even know who Lucy Li was before seeing this thread. Visibility and exposure, as well as likability, leads to endorsement contracts ($$). You guys saying she doesn't benefit from this Apple deal are deluding yourselves.

 

So what contracts or endorsements has this produced?

 

Oh, that's right— she's an amateur. She can't sign endorsement deals.

 

That's not the point. She benefited. And that's what the USGA says separates a pro from an amateur.

 

How did she benefit?

 

Antiquated rule. Completely stupid.

 

It's the opposite and more appropriate now than ever. Apple, in using Li in its ad was promoting itself, but also promoting Li. What do you think the value was of Apple buying all that time on TV? At least some proportion would be directly beneficial to Li. The world doesn't work in "cash under the table" mode anymore (well there are still some old fashioned types around). It's soft dollars and exposure that are the currency these days.

[davep043]

Glad the USGA made the right call here.

 

Except it's not the right call. Just more USGA ineptitude.

 

It's a really bad decision, one that many of her player peers, and their families are ticked off about. Sad, that they let one family and player openly break the rules, then let her off. This will have profound snowball effect over the next few years. Amateurs know they can get away with murder now, and use the excuse [ lying as Li family did] that,,"they didn't know"

This post brings up a few questions:

Which decision, the one that says she violated the rule, or the one that chose not to penalize her for breaking it?

Who is actually ticked off? Do you have some references?

Did the Li family really lie? Again, do you have a source, or is it just your opinion?

 

I don't have a problem with anyone having an opinion. But that opinion isn't very persuasive to me unless its based on some kind of facts.

 

You DO NOT get an ad w/Apple without an agent,,period.What do you think they did,just decide to dial her number because her name is Lucy???

 

Amateurs of high status...are well aware of this rule, all of them. This whole issue was a blatant disregard for the rules by her family, and they got caught. It IS a sign that she's decided to turn pro, has hired an agent, and planning for when. Probably Q School in August. Because she got caught, she had no where to go until then. And, she has an agent, who had contacts in Apple. You think they knew who she is?? The whole deal smells on believable lies.

 

So, now when a player signs an incorrect scorecard, their reply is, "I didn't know?" What OTHER rules is USGA going to warn people on?? Now, how many juniors will use the excuse that they did not know??

What I'm reading here is that you really don't have any references, you're just making assumptions. Or deductions. Or guessing. But in your opinion, she was guilty, and should have been kicked out of amateur golf. That's fine with me, its your opinion. But if you're going to complain that her peers and their families are ticked off, you really SHOULD have some evidence. If you're going to accuse someone of lying, you should have some evidence. Otherwise, you're just part of a typical internet lynch mob..

 

Edit - correct a few mis-spellings

[heavy_hitter]

I didn't even know who Lucy Li was before seeing this thread. Visibility and exposure, as well as likability, leads to endorsement contracts ($$). You guys saying she doesn't benefit from this Apple deal are deluding yourselves.

 

So what contracts or endorsements has this produced?

 

Oh, that's right— she's an amateur. She can't sign endorsement deals.

 

That's not the point. She benefited. And that's what the USGA says separates a pro from an amateur.

 

How did she benefit?

 

Antiquated rule. Completely stupid.

 

It's the opposite and more appropriate now than ever. Apple, in using Li in its ad was promoting itself, but also promoting Li. What do you think the value was of Apple buying all that time on TV? At least some proportion would be directly beneficial to Li. The world doesn't work in "cash under the table" mode anymore (well there are still some old fashioned types around). It's soft dollars and exposure that are the currency these days.

 

You didn’t answer the question. How did she benefit? That is right, she didn’t. She also didn’t promote or even use her name in the ad.... hmmmm. She hit a golf ball. So tell me what this hurt again?

 

I will plant my feet in the ground and maintain firm with my stance. This is an antiquated rule that is stupid. You have done nothing to convince me otherwise.

[Nessism]

Lets say you are running a golf clothing company and looking for an up and coming star to endorse your products. You narrow the field to two: Lucy and (insert name here). Both are excellent golfers. Which do you choose? The one that already has visibility out in the public eye via Apple or the other woman that has no visibility up to this point?

[BertGA]

Lets say you are running a golf clothing company and looking for an up and coming star to endorse your products. You narrow the field to two: Lucy and (insert name here). Both are excellent golfers. Which do you choose? The one that already has visibility out in the public eye via Apple or the other woman that has no visibility up to this point?

 

Fame from this event is short-lived. By the time she is able to sign the contract, this will be long forgotten by the general public.

 

If she were a professional right now, we are having a different conversation.

 

She is also a generational talent, up to now. If that continues, her golf accomplishments will far outpace the fifteen seconds she appeared in the Apple ad. She will get far more exposure from winning and competing in tournaments than she will the Apple commercial that, quite frankly, will probably only exist on YouTube in 2 months. This commercial will be ancient history by the time she turns pro.

[MadGolfer76]

I think this thread is suffering from a little "millenialism." If there was no benefit, then she wouldn't have done the ad. Even if it isn't a traditional money-for-service arrangement, there are other options that can be used to get around the rules, like self-promotion, back dated payouts, higher percentage points when she turns the appropriate age/gains professional status, etc. These rules aren't in place solely to interfere with the juvenile player's ability to make bank, but rather protect the kid (which she is) from profiteering parents and companies. People lose their integrity when money is on the line, and this likely is no exception. The USGA is a collection of idiots, but even a blind pig finds an acorn (ie: makes the right choice) every once in a while.

[Nessism]

Lets say you are running a golf clothing company and looking for an up and coming star to endorse your products. You narrow the field to two: Lucy and (insert name here). Both are excellent golfers. Which do you choose? The one that already has visibility out in the public eye via Apple or the other woman that has no visibility up to this point?

 

Fame from this event is short-lived. By the time she is able to sign the contract, this will be long forgotten by the general public.

 

If she were a professional right now, we are having a different conversation.

 

She is also a generational talent, up to now. If that continues, her golf accomplishments will far outpace the fifteen seconds she appeared in the Apple ad. She will get far more exposure from winning and competing in tournaments than she will the Apple commercial that, quite frankly, will probably only exist on YouTube in 2 months. This commercial will be ancient history by the time she turns pro.

 

 

Who are you arguing with anyway? Me or with the ruling the USGA made? To me it's clear that she violated the USGA's rule, whether or not the USGA's rule is reasonable is a different discussion.

[heavy_hitter]

Lets say you are running a golf clothing company and looking for an up and coming star to endorse your products. You narrow the field to two: Lucy and (insert name here). Both are excellent golfers. Which do you choose? The one that already has visibility out in the public eye via Apple or the other woman that has no visibility up to this point?

 

You give the clothes to the kid, which is legal, and they wear and hash tag the brand all over social media. Tell me what the difference is? It is an outdated rule.

[xxio]

Lets say you are running a golf clothing company and looking for an up and coming star to endorse your products. You narrow the field to two: Lucy and (insert name here). Both are excellent golfers. Which do you choose? The one that already has visibility out in the public eye via Apple or the other woman that has no visibility up to this point?

 

You give the clothes to the kid, which is legal, and they wear and hash tag the brand all over social media. Tell me what the difference is? It is an outdated rule.

 

Those getting free clothing/equipment..."if because of their golf abilities" should be dinged or be determined professionals as well.

 

Sexy girls who play like 8 handicaps with 100k followers on social media are not being followed for their golf abilities. That is like saying you buy Playboy for the articles.

 

Atletes/celebrities who are famous for skills other than golf but get given golf stuff because they play golf are not getting stuff because of golf abilities either.

 

College golf is perfect example, golf goodies have to go through or to the school or program because these kids are getting college rides solely because of their golf abilities.

 

If the ad was just Lucy standing there in non golf attire having a frappuchino I think there would be no issues.

 

 

[heavy_hitter]

Lets say you are running a golf clothing company and looking for an up and coming star to endorse your products. You narrow the field to two: Lucy and (insert name here). Both are excellent golfers. Which do you choose? The one that already has visibility out in the public eye via Apple or the other woman that has no visibility up to this point?

 

You give the clothes to the kid, which is legal, and they wear and hash tag the brand all over social media. Tell me what the difference is? It is an outdated rule.

 

Those getting free clothing/equipment..."if because of their golf abilities" should be dinged or be determined professionals as well.

 

Sexy girls who play like 8 handicaps with 100k followers on social media are not being followed for their golf abilities. That is like saying you buy Playboy for the articles.

 

Atletes/celebrities who are famous for skills other than golf but get given golf stuff because they play golf are not getting stuff because of golf abilities either.

 

College golf is perfect example, golf goodies have to go through or to the school or program because these kids are getting college rides solely because of their golf abilities.

 

If the ad was just Lucy standing there in non golf attire having a frappuchino I think there would be no issues.

 

Most of this statement is either opinion or simply not true.

 

High level Juniors and amateur golfers get free stuff all the time from manufacturers. I can go to different IG or FB pages of high level juniors right now and at the end of the post they are #hastagging manufacturers they are receiving products from. They receive ball deals, club deals, clothes deals, etc. etc. Under the USGA rules there is nothing wrong with this. They can accept free tournaments, air fare to and from, housing, and food as well. As long as they don't take a cash gift for playing, everything is OK. This is the hypocrisy I am talking about with the USGA.

 

Golf goodies do not have to run through the school for kids playing college golf.

[xxio]

I'm only speaking through my experiences.

 

From my experience reps ask the kids what they want, but send it to the school to give to the kids. They don't give to kids directly. I do only personally know about 12-14 kids who got got scholarships.

 

There were some direct deliveries but the kids still paid discounted (dealer) prices for them.

 

Maybe these programs were on the strict side.

 

 

 

[Sixcat]

I'm only speaking through my experiences.

 

From my experience reps ask the kids what they want, but send it to the school to give to the kids. They don't give to kids directly. I do only personally know about 12-14 kids who got got scholarships.

 

There were some direct deliveries but the kids still paid discounted (dealer) prices for them.

 

Maybe these programs were on the strict side.

 

This is in-line with what I have seen from the dozen or so juniors from my club who have gone on to play college golf over the past decade.

[heavy_hitter]

I'm only speaking through my experiences.

 

From my experience reps ask the kids what they want, but send it to the school to give to the kids. They don't give to kids directly. I do only personally know about 12-14 kids who got got scholarships.

 

There were some direct deliveries but the kids still paid discounted (dealer) prices for them.

 

Maybe these programs were on the strict side.

 

I am speaking from experience as well. My daughter plays D1 golf. You are a high profile Junior receiving free stuff, you still get that free stuff in college as long as it doesn't break NCAA guidelines. We, of course, aren't talking about NCAA guidelines. Each school is also different in what they will provide.

 

How highly ranked the golfer is, will determine what kind of benefits come from companies. Was on IG last night and a 12 year old we know of just received a Sponsorship from Adidas Apparel to wear shoes and clothes. One of my kids buddies is given Adidas shoes and Callaway Products. Top Juniors down to even 8 years old are getting junior sponsorship deals if they are winning tournaments. These companies are getting more advertisement from Junior Golfers and their parents on Social Media Sites than you want to believe. It is honestly out of control. Yet, you guys are complaining about Lucy Li appearing in am Apple commercial and receiving ZERO compensation. The USGA rules on what constitutes amateurism are a complete joke as well as the NCAA's.

[heavy_hitter]

I'm only speaking through my experiences.

 

From my experience reps ask the kids what they want, but send it to the school to give to the kids. They don't give to kids directly. I do only personally know about 12-14 kids who got got scholarships.

 

There were some direct deliveries but the kids still paid discounted (dealer) prices for them.

 

Maybe these programs were on the strict side.

 

I am speaking from experience as well. My daughter plays D1 golf. You are a high profile Junior receiving free stuff, you still get that free stuff in college as long as it doesn't break NCAA guidelines. We, of course, aren't talking about NCAA guidelines. Each school is also different in what they will provide.

 

How highly ranked the golfer is, will determine what kind of benefits come from companies. Was on IG last night and a 12 year old we know of just received a Sponsorship from Adidas Apparel to wear shoes and clothes. One of my kids buddies is given Adidas shoes and Callaway Products. Top Juniors down to even 8 years old are getting junior sponsorship deals if they are winning tournaments. These companies are getting more advertisement from Junior Golfers and their parents on Social Media Sites than you want to believe. It is honestly out of control. Yet, you guys are complaining about Lucy Li appearing in am Apple commercial and receiving ZERO compensation. The USGA rules on what constitutes amateurism are a complete joke as well as the NCAA's.

 

Oh... I know a lot about Junior golf and have NEVER seen the Lucy Li Commercial everyone is so pissed about. People need to get over themselves.

[xxio]

Maybe you should to write the USGA with these examples/evidence?

 

In my experiences a lot of organizations need a "complaint" before they act. Most are complacent and don't want to rock the boat. However they will act once someone else rocks the boat.

 

I doubt the USGA monitors social media to check on these specific kids. Maybe time to translate your rant into action.

 

If you, who has the evidence, won't act. Who will? Just like you said it will get worse.

 

I would even go as far as penalizing the company or rep giving the stuff, otherwise they will just go on to the next kid.

 

[heavy_hitter]

Maybe you should to write the USGA with these examples/evidence?

 

In my experiences a lot of organizations need a "complaint" before they act. Most are complacent and don't want to rock the boat. However they will act once someone else rocks the boat.

 

I doubt the USGA monitors social media to check on these specific kids. Maybe time to translate your rant into action.

 

If you, who has the evidence, won't act. Who will? Just like you said it will get worse.

 

I would even go as far as penalizing the company or rep giving the stuff, otherwise they will just go on to the next kid.

 

1. All this is legal under the USGA guidelines for amateurism. All I would be doing is complaining and I really don't care enough to complain. It is only my opinion that it has gotten out of control. If I don't like a TV program, I don't complain or start a FB page or online petition to get it banned, I flip the station. More people in this world should take that advice. You say that I have the evidence? I am asking you the evidence to what? They aren't breaking any USGA rules. Yet.... appearing in a commercial where you get no compensation is illegal in their eyes and has caused controversy. It is mind boggling stupid.

 

2. More regulation isn't the answer. USGA already has too many rules and regulations in the books already. They have already lost the war on what they want to be amateurism. When they didn't see the future with Social Media sites they lost the battle years ago. I don't see them going backwards at this point, although I wouldn't put it past them as the rules they just implemented were stupid.

 

3. In my opinion, there are a lot of people breaking the rules on amateurism in golf. You can find countless Go Fund Me pages for juniors and older amateurs alike so they can travel to tournaments. Wouldn't that constitute accepting cash to play golf as there is no one to regulate how that money is collected or distributed? I really don't care though as I think the USGA rules on amateurism are antiquated.

[xxio]

You seem to be complaining here.

 

The USGA has already decided that it was a violation but also decided that the penalty be a slap on the wrist.

 

 

Based on your experiences there are many violations. There are so many kids I know that also following the letter of the law and give up opportunities. It is unfair to them in a sport where a badge of honor is "players police themselves".

 

You should report these GoFundMe pages because they are violations.

 

 

The prevalence of violations does not make amateurism antiquated. That is the 13 year old's "but dad, everyone is doing it" argument.

 

Once you do away with amateurism in golf the can of worms is huge.

 

I do agree that the monitoring and implementation may need to be changed.

[heavy_hitter]

You seem to be complaining here.

 

The USGA has already decided that it was a violation but also decided that the penalty be a slap on the wrist.

 

 

Based on your experiences there are many violations. There are so many kids I know that also following the letter of the law and give up opportunities. It is unfair to them in a sport where a badge of honor is "players police themselves".

 

You should report these GoFundMe pages because they are violations.

 

 

The prevalence of violations does not make amateurism antiquated. That is the 13 year old's "but dad, everyone is doing it" argument.

 

Once you do away with amateurism in golf the can of worms is huge.

 

I do agree that the monitoring and implementation may need to be changed.

 

Complaining about what? I am arguing two points. First is about the USGA being hypocrites. They live in a bubble. Glad they did the right thing with Lucy. Second, is you folks who thinks a 15 year old kid that no one knows about should have her amateur career killed because she appeared in a commercial without taking money. How is any of this growing the game of golf?

 

You are the one that wants to slam the hammer on KIDS!!! At that, on kids THAT AREN'T VIOLATING ANY RULES!!!! I don't comprehend how you don't understand that.

 

Your entire argument is senseless. I honestly don't think you even understand.

[xxio]

You say they are not violating any rules yet you complain they get free stuff and post on social media without any repurcussions.

 

I guess I'm wrong in understanding that what you you say that the rules are antiquated and these kids should not be punished for their violations.

 

 

Mine is, these are violations as the rules are written right now. The rules may need to be tweaked because implementation is difficult and almost absurd. Definitely unfair to the kids that follow the letter of the law.

 

I also understand your daughter is in the middle of all this and may get the raw end of the deal a lot compared to the kids that get free stuff directly/violate the rules. I wish her a good golf career.

[heavy_hitter]

You say they are not violating any rules yet you complain they get free stuff and post on social media without any repurcussions.

 

I guess I'm wrong in understanding that what you you say that the rules are antiquated and these kids should not be punished for their violations.

 

 

Mine is, these are violations as the rules are written right now. The rules may need to be tweaked because implementation is difficult and almost absurd. Definitely unfair to the kids that follow the letter of the law.

 

I also understand your daughter is in the middle of all this and may get the raw end of the deal a lot compared to the kids that get free stuff directly/violate the rules. I wish her a good golf career.

 

I am done.

 

You have no idea of what the rules are. You also don't have any idea about my daughter. Only thing you are doing is making assumptions.

 

Cheers.

[Frank_Dux]

Her parents (and maybe coach if he knew) are to blame

 

They should know better

 

At her level they should be getting better advice in preparation for the next level

 

Our good friends who have a 16yr old girl that competes with Lucy on AJGA and are friends with the family told me verbatim "I'm not shocked at the news. The family doesn't care. She's not going to college. She's going pro."

[farmer]

Her parents (and maybe coach if he knew) are to blame

 

They should know better

 

At her level they should be getting better advice in preparation for the next level

 

Our good friends who have a 16yr old girl that competes with Lucy on AJGA and are friends with the family told me verbatim "I'm not shocked at the news. The family doesn't care. She's not going to college. She's going pro."

Third hand hearsay? Really?

[Frank_Dux]

Her parents (and maybe coach if he knew) are to blame

 

They should know better

 

At her level they should be getting better advice in preparation for the next level

 

Our good friends who have a 16yr old girl that competes with Lucy on AJGA and are friends with the family told me verbatim "I'm not shocked at the news. The family doesn't care. She's not going to college. She's going pro."

Third hand hearsay? Really?

 

Don't kill the messenger =) She could still go to college of course...but he was just saying he's not surprised. When you hear that "the parents should have known better," perhaps they did know what they were doing.

[chrissdc]

Her parents (and maybe coach if he knew) are to blame

 

They should know better

 

At her level they should be getting better advice in preparation for the next level

 

Our good friends who have a 16yr old girl that competes with Lucy on AJGA and are friends with the family told me verbatim "I'm not shocked at the news. The family doesn't care. She's not going to college. She's going pro."

Third hand hearsay? Really?

 

I’m surprised by this. A little over a year ago, I was standing next to her parents speaking with a mutual friend and the parents stayed she really want to go to Stanford and play college golf.

[Frank_Dux]

Her parents (and maybe coach if he knew) are to blame

 

They should know better

 

At her level they should be getting better advice in preparation for the next level

 

Our good friends who have a 16yr old girl that competes with Lucy on AJGA and are friends with the family told me verbatim "I'm not shocked at the news. The family doesn't care. She's not going to college. She's going pro."

Third hand hearsay? Really?

 

I'm surprised by this. A little over a year ago, I was standing next to her parents speaking with a mutual friend and the parents stayed she really want to go to Stanford and play college golf.

 

That's just what I was told and you figure it's like one of those things where it's like "Oh, that kid, ya, everyone knows he/she is going..."

 

Whatever route they decide, hopefully she'll have continued success.

[BertGA]

I’m surprised by this. A little over a year ago, I was standing next to her parents speaking with a mutual friend and the parents stayed she really want to go to Stanford and play college golf.

 

Kind of like the soccer phenom...Olivia whatever...signed intent for UNC at 11, now two years later says she is going pro.

 

Circumstances change, kids change, opportunities change.