examines the financial realities of the average LPGA Tour player

[2bGood]

Gender aside, it is interesting to look at how much secondary professional leagues make VS the primary league. Here is a few samples

 

NFL - $2.7M average

CFL - $65K Canadian

XFL - $159K

 

NHL - $2.25M

AHL - $90K

 

NBA - $7.7M

WNBA - $116K

NBA G - $115K

 

MLB - $4.4M

Minor League - $77K

 

When you look at this the LPGA problem is not all that unique. The secondary leagues have a huge drop in revenues and salaries for players. The key to the LPGA would be to try to not be seen as a secondary league. Tennis  might be the only good example of a ladies league not being seen as secondary league (and the revenue show it as the top 10 earning female athletes of last year are tennis players)

 

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by 2bGood

[golfortennis]

21 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Gender aside, it is interesting to look at how much secondary professional leagues make VS the primary league. Here is a few samples

 

NFL - $2.7M average

CFL - $65K Canadian

XFL - $159K

 

NHL - $2.25M

AHL - $90K

 

NBA - $7.7M

WNBA - $116K

NBA G - $115K

 

MLB - $4.4M

Minor League - $77K

 

When you look at this the LPGA problem is not all that unique. The secondary leagues have a huge drop in revenues and salaries for players. The key to the LPGA would be to try to not be seen as a secondary league. Tennis  might be the only good example of a ladies league not being seen as secondary league (and the revenue show it as the top 10 earning female athletes of last year are tennis players)

 

 

 

I don't think those are fair comparisons.  The last three you are talking about the actual minors(ie, if you're not in the big show you are there.)  The CFL is a very different league in a much smaller market.

 

And how the LPGA and WNBA are considered "secondary" leagues when none of the "primary" leagues' athletes would be eligible to compete is a stretch.

 

There is no market for women's sports that would bring in revenue anywhere near the comparable men's sports.  AS stated before, the only time women see the same tennis prize money is when there is a concurrent men;s tournament.  Standalone WTA events have purses that are miniscule in comparison. 

 

It was stated before:  women don't watch women's sports.  They appear to watch men's sports.  But not women's sports.  That needs to be changed before you can ever talk about money being larger.

 

[dlygrisse]

Water cooler talk:  hey man, did you catch that WNBA game last night?  Yeah brah the Sparks really came back on the Dream, did you see that crazy fall-away layup to win the game?  Nah, I missed it, my wife wanted to watch Monday Night Football......

42 minutes ago, Bluefan75 said:

 

 

It was stated before:  women don't watch women's sports.  They appear to watch men's sports.  But not women's sports.  That needs to be changed before you can ever talk about money being larger.

 

 

[2bGood]

7 hours ago, Bluefan75 said:

 

I don't think those are fair comparisons.  The last three you are talking about the actual minors(ie, if you're not in the big show you are there.)  The CFL is a very different league in a much smaller market.

 

And how the LPGA and WNBA are considered "secondary" leagues when none of the "primary" leagues' athletes would be eligible to compete is a stretch.

 

There is no market for women's sports that would bring in revenue anywhere near the comparable men's sports.  AS stated before, the only time women see the same tennis prize money is when there is a concurrent men;s tournament.  Standalone WTA events have purses that are miniscule in comparison. 

 

It was stated before:  women don't watch women's sports.  They appear to watch men's sports.  But not women's sports.  That needs to be changed before you can ever talk about money being larger.

 

 

My point is more that there does not seem to be room for more than one big money league in most professional sports in North America. The money flows to the one major league (NHL, NBA, PGA, NFL, MLB etc) with very little flowing to the 'secondary' leagues. One interesting exception is college sports as they seem to attract money with out much trouble at all. 

 

Again if you ignore gender in this conversation, and categorise the LPGA as just another option to watch golf, you find it is just as competitive or even more so than the other Non-PGA golf options for the most part.

 

The fact women care less about women's sports as fans than they do men's sports has always been been bewildering to me. 

 

 

[golfortennis]

56 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 

My point is more that there does not seem to be room for more than one big money league in most professional sports in North America. The money flows to the one major league (NHL, NBA, PGA, NFL, MLB etc) with very little flowing to the 'secondary' leagues. One interesting exception is college sports as they seem to attract money with out much trouble at all. 

 

Again if you ignore gender in this conversation, and categorise the LPGA as just another option to watch golf, you find it is just as competitive or even more so than the other Non-PGA golf options for the most part.

 

The fact women care less about women's sports as fans than they do men's sports has always been been bewildering to me. 

 

 

 

NCAA sports has the advantage of people who may not care about football per se(ie won't watch an NFL game), they do care about the ol' alma mater and what "their boys" are doing.  The attachment to the alma mater is a very US centric thing, and creates the base to bring about everything else.

 

I agree on the last sentence.  BUt what is more bewildering is the number of people who never try to address this fact when talking about the money involved.  It's always some form of "men should watch more" or "somoene should hand over money because it's the right thing to do."

 

 

[Holy Moses]

I'm torn on this one. When you turn professional, you play for prize money and sponsorships. Pro golfers know what they are getting into, so don't get into pro golf if you are worried you can't make it financially. But my softer side thinks that it should be a little easier and less stressful for the ladies who are barely scraping by. The LPGA Tour is giving stipends to those who don't make the cut this year, but the financial issues some ladies are up against has been going on for a while and will continue to occur. I don't know the best solution. Earlier this year, Randall Mell argued that corporations should give seed money and I guess just overpay or pay extra to the LPGA with the hope that the LPGA grows because of this and they get a handsome return. It's a nice thought, but companies don't normally like risk and Mell's suggestion just seems too risky. 

 

I'm not so sure that the issue has to do with exposure on network TV for the LPGA. The WNBA gets tons of exposure, and the league wouldn't survive without being subsidized by the NBA. As talented as the ladies are (and they are very talented), sex appeal sells and there just isn't much sex appeal in women's golf. It's a slow moving sport that requires hours and hours of viewing for a few exciting moments. This might be controversial, but I think the biggest reason that the LPGA Tour isn't as big as the PGA Tour, apart from its lack of sex appeal that other women's sports have, is that most good golfers can hit all the shots that an LPGA player does. No doubt an LPGA player is far better than even the best male amateurs, but I'm a 3 handicap and I can perform every shot an LPGA player can. They perform them far more often with far more precision, but I can still do them occasionally. People watch sports on TV because they can't do what highly skilled amateurs and pros do and we watch in awe to see start athletes do amazing things. I can't hit a tennis ball anywhere as hard as Serena does, so I watch her. I can't do anything that Simone Biles does in the gym, so I watch her every four years. Viewers can't fight like Holly Holm, so we watch her. I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but I think that's the biggest reason the LPGA is lagging behind. It's chauvinistic, but our current reality. 

 

With that said, purses on the LPGA Tour are growing like crazy. In 2019, prize money on the LPGA Tour grew 70%, while on the PGA Tour the purses only grew 33%. The gap narrowed in 2019. I don't know if that gap will still be narrowed after the pandemic and when the PGA Tour gets their new TV deal and the extra cash that comes with it. I enjoy women's golf and I watch a lot of it when it's on, but I just don't see the mass appeal needed for the ladies to get the money they think they deserve. One thing I have thought about is if the USGA doesn't roll back the ball or equipment and the PGA Tour becomes a drive, chip, and putt Tour, the average viewer might get turned off. CBS' coverage makes even a die-hard viewer like myself want to only watch the highlights on Golf Central. Now I'm being bombarded with gambling odds during tournaments. Maybe viewers would turn to the LPGA Tour over the PGA Tour if the men's TV game becomes unwatchable. 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Holy Moses

[Golf Dino]

3 hours ago, Holy Moses said:

I'm torn on this one. When you turn professional, you play for prize money and sponsorships. Pro golfers know what they are getting into, so don't get into pro golf if you are worried you can't make it financially. But my softer side thinks that it should be a little easier and less stressful for the ladies who are barely scraping by. The LPGA Tour is giving stipends to those who don't make the cut this year, but the financial issues some ladies are up against has been going on for a while and will continue to occur. I don't know the best solution. Earlier this year, Randall Mell argued that corporations should give seed money and I guess just overpay or pay extra to the LPGA with the hope that the LPGA grows because of this and they get a handsome return. It's a nice thought, but companies don't normally like risk and Mell's suggestion just seems too risky. 

 

I'm not so sure that the issue has to do with exposure on network TV for the LPGA. The WNBA gets tons of exposure, and the league wouldn't survive without being subsidized by the NBA. As talented as the ladies are (and they are very talented), sex appeal sells and there just isn't much sex appeal in women's golf. It's a slow moving sport that requires hours and hours of viewing for a few exciting moments. This might be controversial, but I think the biggest reason that the LPGA Tour isn't as big as the PGA Tour, apart from its lack of sex appeal that other women's sports have, is that most good golfers can hit all the shots that an LPGA player does. No doubt an LPGA player is far better than even the best male amateurs, but I'm a 3 handicap and I can perform every shot an LPGA player can. They perform them far more often with far more precision, but I can still do them occasionally. People watch sports on TV because they can't do what highly skilled amateurs and pros do and we watch in awe to see start athletes do amazing things. I can't hit a tennis ball anywhere as hard as Serena does, so I watch her. I can't do anything that Simone Biles does in the gym, so I watch her every four years. Viewers can't fight like Holly Holm, so we watch her. I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but I think that's the biggest reason the LPGA is lagging behind. It's chauvinistic, but our current reality. 

 

With that said, purses on the LPGA Tour are growing like crazy. In 2019, prize money on the LPGA Tour grew 70%, while on the PGA Tour the purses only grew 33%. The gap narrowed in 2019. I don't know if that gap will still be narrowed after the pandemic and when the PGA Tour gets their new TV deal and the extra cash that comes with it. I enjoy women's golf and I watch a lot of it when it's on, but I just don't see the mass appeal needed for the ladies to get the money they think they deserve. One thing I have thought about is if the USGA doesn't roll back the ball or equipment and the PGA Tour becomes a drive, chip, and putt Tour, the average viewer might get turned off. CBS' coverage makes even a die-hard viewer like myself want to only watch the highlights on Golf Central. Now I'm being bombarded with gambling odds during tournaments. Maybe viewers would turn to the LPGA Tour over the PGA Tour if the men's TV game becomes unwatchable. 

 

Much of the discussion in women's golf right now is centered around not prize or purse money, but sponsorships.  That means that many of the top women in the world are not afforded the same courtesy as their male counterparts on tours that are far below the PGA.  It is not unusual for a top professional to be denied the courtesy of complimentary clubs.  Beth Ann Nichols wrote a story about it a couple of years ago as the women were going into the AIG Women's Open Championship (Women's British Open) at Royal Lytham & St. Anne.  Here's a link to Beth Ann's piece in Golfweek:  

 

https://bit.ly/31SUPIT

 

She discussed how a world number 1 and Olympic Gold medalist, Inbee Park was denied by Taylormade for a couple of hybrids that better suited her game for England and how she had to pull out her credit card to pay for them.  They should have comped her.  If the manufacturers can comp nearly every head pro in a pro-shop, including a personalized bag and all, surely they can comp the top women professionals.  The LPGA did go down the "sexy" path a couple of generations ago.  I posted it elsewhere, but I will report it here --  you can listen to Beth Ann speak about some of these issues of women's professional golf and sponsorships here:  https://bit.ly/3lfweWb

 

 

 

 

 

[mallrat]

On 10/16/2020 at 8:33 PM, fredogolfer said:

Some instructor from TPC Las Vegas Who has won awards from Golf Digest told Roberta Liti(Symetra Tour) she should feel lucky she even got to play for a living.

 

Ryann O’Toole mainly argued that the ladies don’t have more fans because they aren’t given more exposure. She replied to almost everyone who said the ladies don’t deserve it. 
 

other players who chimed in were Harang Lee, Gemma Dryburgh, Amelia Lewis, Leslie Cloots mainly around women not being given the same opportunity and it was just disgusting to have people directly arguing with the players and telling them how they should feel. Most were men who said women should be lucky to even make money at all.

did his name rhyme with “Gaydar Rolf Pro?” I used to follow him and am not surprised.

 

On 10/15/2020 at 11:48 PM, grm24 said:

FWIW Johnson Wagner (154th, 597k) at the end of the 2018/19 PGA Tour season was not last on the money list. Jonathan Kaye was 265th @ 6k. The cruel fact that has long been known in all professional sports is that tv rights, ratings, live gate, player endorsements and event sponsorship drives what money is available to players regardless of how well the game is played.  In this instance the PGA Tour has much more of all of it than the LPGA does. That's never going to change and neither will in income disparity between the tours. Eyeballs drive dollars. LPGA golf as good as it is doesn't have the eyeballs/interest on it in the real world to have more money committed to it. The ROI just isn't there.

 

I look at it like the USWNT in soccer. It should not be about equal pay because there are a lot of variables and different factors. It should be about an “equal percentage of revenue.” Once that is equal then it truly is on the women to increase revenue and for the men, I imagine a reckoning is coming post Tiger because the money is not sustainable. 

[fredogolfer]

On 10/24/2020 at 6:42 PM, 2bGood said:

 

My point is more that there does not seem to be room for more than one big money league in most professional sports in North America. The money flows to the one major league (NHL, NBA, PGA, NFL, MLB etc) with very little flowing to the 'secondary' leagues. One interesting exception is college sports as they seem to attract money with out much trouble at all. 

 

Again if you ignore gender in this conversation, and categorise the LPGA as just another option to watch golf, you find it is just as competitive or even more so than the other Non-PGA golf options for the most part.

 

The fact women care less about women's sports as fans than they do men's sports has always been been bewildering to me. 

 

 

Most college sports are huge money losers. D-1 football being the exception and schools that make the big dance in basketball make some money but not as much as you’d think. There are some historical programs at individual schools that might make them money because if their reputation but beside that it’s money down the drain although the hope is the appearance of “a vibrant student life” will recruit more students and more tuition dollars. However, that economic model is slowly becoming obsolete.

[2bGood]

10 minutes ago, fredogolfer said:

Most college sports are huge money losers. D-1 football being the exception and schools that make the big dance in basketball make some money but not as much as you’d think. There are some historical programs at individual schools that might make them money because if their reputation but beside that it’s money down the drain although the hope is the appearance of “a vibrant student life” will recruit more students and more tuition dollars. However, that economic model is slowly becoming obsolete.

 I am not sure I buy it. Here is the averages revenues (not net):

 

There is fair amount information out there that when colleagues cry that they don't make money they are using the same accounting tricks movies use to limit profit based payments to actors and investors. 

 

Not that it matters for this thread though. 

[2bGood]

36 minutes ago, mallrat said:

did his name rhyme with “Gaydar Rolf Pro?” I used to follow him and am not surprised.

 

 

I look at it like the USWNT in soccer. It should not be about equal pay because there are a lot of variables and different factors. It should be about an “equal percentage of revenue.” Once that is equal then it truly is on the women to increase revenue and for the men, I imagine a reckoning is coming post Tiger because the money is not sustainable. 

Keep in mind the USWNT lost in court. Here is a good breakdown of the facts of the case: 

 

 

[mallrat]

I haven’t listened to it yet but why do the ladies not deserve an equal percentage of revenue? It is very different from equal pay but is fair and based on true equality

[ptjn1201]

I don't know all of the particulars, but let's say broadcasting rights cost $10 million.  Team A brings in $50 million in revenue, Team B bring in $15 million, due to large disparities in ratings.  If you give 50% of revenue to Team A, there's still profit of $15 million.  If you give 50% of revenue to Team B, you're posting a $2.5 million loss.

[mallrat]

I’m not getting your argument (I know it’s not an argument). Because in this sense the PGA & LPGA are not paying for broadcasting rights. So in that discussion it is on the network to recoup their money or to obtain the rights for an amount they know they can make a profit on. Also the teams revenues have nothing to do with this. Why would a broadcasting network pay out a team on top of the broadcasting rights they already agreed to?

 

 

[fredogolfer]

A local boxer who was a rising star announced his retirement yesterday after suffering a brain bleed during a fight on Saturday. He was supposed to be the next big thing, after looking at some of his social media and history and what fans said throughout the years. Many believe boxing should be the highest paid sport due to the inherent danger. Throws another interesting perspective.

[fredogolfer]

On 10/23/2020 at 1:37 PM, 2bGood said:

Gender aside, it is interesting to look at how much secondary professional leagues make VS the primary league. Here is a few samples

 

NFL - $2.7M average

CFL - $65K Canadian

XFL - $159K

 

NHL - $2.25M

AHL - $90K

 

NBA - $7.7M

WNBA - $116K

NBA G - $115K

 

MLB - $4.4M

Minor League - $77K

 

When you look at this the LPGA problem is not all that unique. The secondary leagues have a huge drop in revenues and salaries for players. The key to the LPGA would be to try to not be seen as a secondary league. Tennis  might be the only good example of a ladies league not being seen as secondary league (and the revenue show it as the top 10 earning female athletes of last year are tennis players)

 

 

To play the contrarian, most of those making a lower average salary are feeder leagues or definitely not the top tier of that particular sport.

[2bGood]

50 minutes ago, fredogolfer said:

To play the contrarian, most of those making a lower average salary are feeder leagues or definitely not the top tier of that particular sport.

😀 You are not being a contrarian as that is my point. The LPGA (gender aside) is not a top tier league. Their comparable leagues are other secondary leagues. The average sports fan just does not have that much interest in the next level down in sports league regardless of gender.

 

I am sure few people remember the WBL (world basket ball league). It was a height restricted league with max height set at 6'5". They had some of the best shorter basketball players in the world. Great basket ball, but close to zero interest. 

 

LPGA is kind of the same thing, they want the best non-male players in the world. People want to watch the best players in the world. Just like the Champions tour has a huge drop off in interest, the best older players in the world is also not a big draw.  

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by 2bGood

[fredogolfer]

6 hours ago, 2bGood said:

😀 You are not being a contrarian as that is my point. The LPGA (gender aside) is not a top tier league. Their comparable leagues are other secondary leagues. The average sports fan just does not have that much interest in the next level down in sports league regardless of gender.

 

I am sure few people remember the WBL (world basket ball league). It was a height restricted league with max height set at 6'5". They had some of the best shorter basketball players in the world. Great basket ball, but close to zero interest. 

 

LPGA is kind of the same thing, they want the best non-male players in the world. People want to watch the best players in the world. Just like the Champions tour has a huge drop off in interest, the best older players in the world is also not a big draw.  

 

It is the top tier league for women and some would argue (not me), the premier sporting organization for women. I think women’s tennis and now women’s football/ soccer beats women’s golf.

[MtlJeff]

It's been pointed out already, but women can sometimes be quick to comment that pay scales are unfair but at the end of the day women have to actually support these sports or the scales won't change. I remember when the US soccer team lawsuit was filed , many of my female coworkers called things sexist etc....I asked all of them when the last time they watched a women's soccer game was, none of them had ever watched one. They all watched the men's world cup with their boyfriends.

 

I've literally never once heard a woman say she needed to catch a WNBA game or an LPGA event. 

 

On the other hand, i've heard plenty of women talk about Beyonce or Taylor Swift, or whichever reality show the current Kardashian is on. Guess what, all of those women are multi-millionaires. Wikipedia lists Swift's net worth at close to 400M dollars and i'd guess her fan base is significantly female. 

 

if what you do is supported you will make money --Lots of it

 

That being said, i don't have an issue with the men's league doing some subsidizing/backing of the women's leagues. It is a good thing to invest and promote these leagues to young women and hope over time they catch. But some perspective has to be kept

[2bGood]

On 11/4/2020 at 4:52 AM, fredogolfer said:

It is the top tier league for women and some would argue (not me), the premier sporting organization for women. I think women’s tennis and now women’s football/ soccer beats women’s golf.

...And the CFL is the Top Tier league that requires Canadians on their team. 

 

What I am saying is if your product is the top tier of your sport, regardless of gender, age, height, nationality or other restrictions you tend have a hugely higher level of interest than the next league down.

 

The LPGA does not lack popularity because they are women, it lacks it because it does not feature the best players in the world. 

 

As sports fans it is silly how fickle we are. Back to the PGA - Millions at stake every week for the top 200 players in the world, but if you are the 800th player in the world you are lucky if you make more than you spend - the drop off is sudden and sharp. 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by 2bGood

[MtlJeff]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

...And the CFL is the Top Tier league that requires Canadians on their team. 

 

What I am saying is if your product is the top tier of your sport, regardless of gender, age, height, nationality or other restrictions you tend have an hugely higher level of interest than the next league down.

 

The LPGA does not lack popularity because they are women, it lacks it because it does not feature the best players in the world. 

 

As sports fans it is silly how fickle we are. Back to the PGA - Millions at stake every week for the top 200 players in the world, but if you are the 800th player in the world you are lucky if you make more than you spend the drop off is sudden and sharp. 

 

 

 

 

I mostly agree. You put an NFL team in Toronto they would sell out...but a CFL team there gets 13,000 people. Canadians prefer the NFL to the CFL and we're canadian!

 

But i do think that gender is a bit important. I have a 3yr old daughter, i am going to encourage her to watch sports and women's sports in particular, as they can be more of an inspiration to her than a male athlete can. 

 

Women just need to watch women's sports more. Right now i'm pretty confident in saying they mostly are not

[2bGood]

On 11/4/2020 at 7:13 AM, MtlJeff said:

 

I mostly agree. You put an NFL team in Toronto they would sell out...but a CFL team there gets 13,000 people. Canadians prefer the NFL to the CFL and we're canadian!

 

But i do think that gender is a bit important. I have a 3yr old daughter, i am going to encourage her to watch sports and women's sports in particular, as they can be more of an inspiration to her than a male athlete can. 

 

Women just need to watch women's sports more. Right now i'm pretty confident in saying they mostly are not

Slightly different arguments. I am arguing that the LPGAs financial situation is not Gender bias, that is is consistent with other league with similar caliber players.

 

As for the question if the LPGA/Ladies golf is is important. I agree completely - at least in sports context (I am not going to wander outside of sports). Unfortunately financial rewards do not necessary correlate to what is important the relative importance of a sport. 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by 2bGood

[MtlJeff]

6 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

Slightly different arguments. I am arguing that the LPGA financial situation is not Gender bias, that is is consistent with other league with similar caliber players.

 

As for the question if the LPGA/Ladies golf is is important. I agree completely - at least in sports context. Unfortunately financial rewards do necessary correlate to what is important to society - if it did, then LPGA probably makes about the right amount of money and the PGA make way too much.  

 

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that i think it's nice for young females to have female athletes they can look up to and relate to. I would imagine if they were into sports, they'd rather watch women

 

But mostly my feeling is that women don't care about sports even remotely close to the same as men

[2bGood]

14 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that i think it's nice for young females to have female athletes they can look up to and relate to. I would imagine if they were into sports, they'd rather watch women

 

But mostly my feeling is that women don't care about sports even remotely close to the same as men

I have two daughters that golf, so as family we watch LPGA for that reason (I also like the product and watch anything golf). However, If you asked my girls to name golfers.... they will rattle off a bunch of PGA players. But I tend to think that is factor of way more exposure to the PGA (my fault, the golf channels fault etc)

[PedronNiall]

As has been said, it's about viewership and ROI. I can point you to a recent thread where a member was upset the clubs he ordered aren't the same spec a PGA pro plays. He bought his irons because of who he saw using them on the PGA tour. Bizhub Swingvision Pro segments, time on the tour vans, and Dick's Sporting Good's commercials featuring TaylorMade gear during PGA events sell clubs. Some guy seeing Ping setup Bubba's new driver might go out and drop $500 on Saturday night so he can have the same thing before his Sunday four-ball. 100 other guys might go do the same that weekend. That's why PGA players get paid what they do. To a slightly lesser extent the European Tour manages this; rather than complaining that because viewership wasn't where they wanted it sponsor dollars weren't either they started paying appearance fees and giving other incentives to both US and Euro-born players who mostly frequented the PGA to show up and put eyes on the screen because it made financial sense.

 

If KPMG buys more airtime during LPGA events are more people going to call their advisors Monday morning? If NetJets sponsors a woman who talks like putting milk on her Cornflakes was the most exciting thing she's done all year will they get the lift to their site traffic that they did when they sponsored Jim Furyk? How many of you can name a product that you remember seeing advertised during an LPGA event? Your answer to that should tell you how likely it is for companies to see the LPGA as a good investment. Having memorable events translates to memorable advertising. I remember seeing ING and Rolex and Coors and Lexus and Viagra commercials during everything from the US Open to the Monaco GP. Even products that you don't care about are more likely to stick when they're bookending something noteworthy in your mind. I like watching the LPGA because I like golf but it is rarely exciting.

 

If the LPGA players want bigger purses for everyone they need to put more eyes on screen. Maybe that energy that is on display for women's tennis just as much as men's won't ever be there for the LPGA. If that's the case they need to draw the eyes of fans who will like what they're doing, and to be honest, I don't know who that is as it stands now. Taylor Swift may be mostly teddy bears and rainbows when it comes to her sweet personality, but she's energetic and lively, and that's why girls and women scream their hearts out at her shows. You don't have to be what you're not, but what you are better hold people's attention if you want to be paid for entertainment.

 

As to the how, if that's what they want I'd recommend they get some analyst and researchers who specialize in product delivery/user experience to find out in detail why people watch PGA events for X hours on average Y times per year but only watch the LPGA for H hours T times a year. I'd also recommend they more actively do some things to draw in new potential audiences. How many people watch the Pebble Beach ProAm because they get to see Romo hit a 60 out of the hospitality area to 5 feet and then end up watching another two or three PGA events that year they otherwise wouldn't have because they saw Tiger and Xander joking around or found out Tiger and Tony are friends or saw Hideki hit a wood 290 out of a bunker onto the green and thought that was pretty freaking cool? Why doesn't the LPGA have hyped up events like that to pull in viewers who normally only watch other sports? Why isn't the LPGA doing a skills challenge with Nascar drivers before the Daytona 500? Why doesn't the LET have booth parties with their players at futbol games over in Europe, South America, and wherever else considering it is the global sport? I wonder if having smiling players with lively personalities get in front of the camera for 15 minutes with that kind of viewership might get a few more eyes on the LPGA Tour. Why doesn't the LPGA or LET have Beyonce or Ariana Grande or Lizzo or Adele or Swift or whoever else host a pre-tournament event to draw out the girls and women they need to watch their tour, watch those commercials, and have interest in the advertised products?

 

Two things I can tell you from having worked in Analytics with and around successful companies including at the Fortune 500 level: One, they almost without exception will not invest money in something if there's not a definitive gain to be realized. Two, the biggest differences between a company that sees growth and success and one that doesn't are the choice to ask the right questions rather than complain about the past and the willingness to make the changes needed rather than settle for the status quo. The PGA Tour hasn't even maxed its potential where innovation to draw new eyes is concerned, but it's much further along the journey than the LPGA is without question.

 

[North Texas]

On 11/14/2020 at 2:24 AM, PedronNiall said:

As has been said, it's about viewership and ROI. I can point you to a recent thread where a member was upset the clubs he ordered aren't the same spec a PGA pro plays. He bought his irons because of who he saw using them on the PGA tour. Bizhub Swingvision Pro segments, time on the tour vans, and Dick's Sporting Good's commercials featuring TaylorMade gear during PGA events sell clubs. Some guy seeing Ping setup Bubba's new driver might go out and drop $500 on Saturday night so he can have the same thing before his Sunday four-ball. 100 other guys might go do the same that weekend. That's why PGA players get paid what they do. To a slightly lesser extent the European Tour manages this; rather than complaining that because viewership wasn't where they wanted it sponsor dollars weren't either they started paying appearance fees and giving other incentives to both US and Euro-born players who mostly frequented the PGA to show up and put eyes on the screen because it made financial sense.

 

If KPMG buys more airtime during LPGA events are more people going to call their advisors Monday morning? If NetJets sponsors a woman who talks like putting milk on her Cornflakes was the most exciting thing she's done all year will they get the lift to their site traffic that they did when they sponsored Jim Furyk? How many of you can name a product that you remember seeing advertised during an LPGA event? Your answer to that should tell you how likely it is for companies to see the LPGA as a good investment. Having memorable events translates to memorable advertising. I remember seeing ING and Rolex and Coors and Lexus and Viagra commercials during everything from the US Open to the Monaco GP. Even products that you don't care about are more likely to stick when they're bookending something noteworthy in your mind. I like watching the LPGA because I like golf but it is rarely exciting.

 

If the LPGA players want bigger purses for everyone they need to put more eyes on screen. Maybe that energy that is on display for women's tennis just as much as men's won't ever be there for the LPGA. If that's the case they need to draw the eyes of fans who will like what they're doing, and to be honest, I don't know who that is as it stands now. Taylor Swift may be mostly teddy bears and rainbows when it comes to her sweet personality, but she's energetic and lively, and that's why girls and women scream their hearts out at her shows. You don't have to be what you're not, but what you are better hold people's attention if you want to be paid for entertainment.

 

As to the how, if that's what they want I'd recommend they get some analyst and researchers who specialize in product delivery/user experience to find out in detail why people watch PGA events for X hours on average Y times per year but only watch the LPGA for H hours T times a year. I'd also recommend they more actively do some things to draw in new potential audiences. How many people watch the Pebble Beach ProAm because they get to see Romo hit a 60 out of the hospitality area to 5 feet and then end up watching another two or three PGA events that year they otherwise wouldn't have because they saw Tiger and Xander joking around or found out Tiger and Tony are friends or saw Hideki hit a wood 290 out of a bunker onto the green and thought that was pretty freaking cool? Why doesn't the LPGA have hyped up events like that to pull in viewers who normally only watch other sports? Why isn't the LPGA doing a skills challenge with Nascar drivers before the Daytona 500? Why doesn't the LET have booth parties with their players at futbol games over in Europe, South America, and wherever else considering it is the global sport? I wonder if having smiling players with lively personalities get in front of the camera for 15 minutes with that kind of viewership might get a few more eyes on the LPGA Tour. Why doesn't the LPGA or LET have Beyonce or Ariana Grande or Lizzo or Adele or Swift or whoever else host a pre-tournament event to draw out the girls and women they need to watch their tour, watch those commercials, and have interest in the advertised products?

 

Two things I can tell you from having worked in Analytics with and around successful companies including at the Fortune 500 level: One, they almost without exception will not invest money in something if there's not a definitive gain to be realized. Two, the biggest differences between a company that sees growth and success and one that doesn't are the choice to ask the right questions rather than complain about the past and the willingness to make the changes needed rather than settle for the status quo. The PGA Tour hasn't even maxed its potential where innovation to draw new eyes is concerned, but it's much further along the journey than the LPGA is without question.

 

 

Can you sum this up for me in five sentences or less? Thanks 🙂

[Oh Hi Carl]

Women just don't support women's sports.  They don't.  They don't watch them much and they don't attend them much.  I have female family members who get agitated about the women's soccer national team not making as much as the men.  Then I ask them what their TVs were tuned to this past weekend.  It's always the NFL, the NBA, men's soccer.  They've never attended a women's college sporting event even though they have many options nearby.  Men generally watch men's sports.  Women generally don't watch sports or watch mainly men's sports.  

[BadgerLin]

11 hours ago, Sonja Henie said:

  Women generally don’t watch women’s sports, or watch mainly men's sports.  

Except for those of us who do.

Edited December 2, 2020 by BadgerLin

[Oh Hi Carl]

13 minutes ago, BadgerLin said:

Except for those of us who do.

Note the word "generally". 

[2bGood]

12 hours ago, Sonja Henie said:

Women just don't support women's sports.  They don't.  They don't watch them much and they don't attend them much.  I have female family members who get agitated about the women's soccer national team not making as much as the men.  Then I ask them what their TVs were tuned to this past weekend.  It's always the NFL, the NBA, men's soccer.  They've never attended a women's college sporting event even though they have many options nearby.  Men generally watch men's sports.  Women generally don't watch sports or watch mainly men's sports.  

The stats would back you up on this. You would think that ratio of Women to Men watching a sport would go up when it is a women sport, but it the opposite.