examines the financial realities of the average LPGA Tour player

[18majors]

5 minutes ago, Seamus_McDuff said:

The last time a golfer made the Forbes Top-10 was 2015 when Stacy Lewis was listed at $6.4M. 
 

https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/earnings/women-paid-forbes-2015.htm

 

In 2017 Lydia was listed at $5.9M but it took $6.2M to make the top-10. 
 

https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/earnings/women-paid-forbes-2017.htm

 

 

This is one of the reasons that I didn't give Mike Whan a high mark for his tenure.

 

Mike has a good card (LPGA) to play, but he didn't get much out of it between 2015 and 2020.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2021 by 18majors

[OBbogey5]

Ohh boyy. I enjoy the LPGA Tour. I go to the Dinah Shore almost every year. It is what it is. Obviously, almost all arguments, in any direction, have merit unless they’re just completely ignorant. I will say though, women are on the course at your local muni or CC at like 1 to 20 or 30 men. This 2014 article claims 20 percent.. I’m not buying that at all. Of course, we should know the exact number because every course has a tee sheet.. but we don’t. Maybe if the powers at be cared, they’d throw a little money on some research of those numbers and find ways to target parts of the population that could really grow the game.. 

 

With women not on the course, I don’t see how the leap to a massive increase in sponsorship monies increases. Numbers talk. And the men’s side of things isn’t going to just hand over large sums of cash because it’s the right thing to do. They don’t work like that. 

 

https://www.thengfq.com/2014/04/the-female-factor-in-golf/

[2bGood]

6 hours ago, OBbogey5 said:

Ohh boyy. I enjoy the LPGA Tour. I go to the Dinah Shore almost every year. It is what it is. Obviously, almost all arguments, in any direction, have merit unless they’re just completely ignorant. I will say though, women are on the course at your local muni or CC at like 1 to 20 or 30 men. This 2014 article claims 20 percent.. I’m not buying that at all. Of course, we should know the exact number because every course has a tee sheet.. but we don’t. Maybe if the powers at be cared, they’d throw a little money on some research of those numbers and find ways to target parts of the population that could really grow the game.. 

 

With women not on the course, I don’t see how the leap to a massive increase in sponsorship monies increases. Numbers talk. And the men’s side of things isn’t going to just hand over large sums of cash because it’s the right thing to do. They don’t work like that. 

 

https://www.thengfq.com/2014/04/the-female-factor-in-golf/

 20% of golfers are women. This is true and believable. But women play less than 5% of rounds of golf do to men playing far more rounds on average.

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by 2bGood

[Strategery]

3 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 20% of golfers are women. True and believable. But women play less than 5% of rounds of golf to do men playing for more rounds on average.

 

You are not making a useful point.

The LPGA is a struggling business, particularly in the west. We all know why. Should we care any more than we care about any other struggling business?

[18majors]

8 minutes ago, Strategery said:

 

You are not making a useful point.

The LPGA is a struggling business, particularly in the west. We all know why. Should we care any more than we care about any other struggling business?

 

 

How is LPGA a struggling business?

 

This year less than 200 players will play for almost $80.0 million; which averages out to more than $400,000 per.  Moreover, many top players make much more in endorsements than earnings.

 

As a business, it's almost as good as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or Facebook.   

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, Strategery said:

 

LMFAO, you're so full of sh$t. Women's pro golf is just thriving.

You and @18majors appear to be in violent agreement.  Excellent!

[TobesSC]

19 hours ago, 18majors said:

 

 

How is LPGA a struggling business?

 

This year less than 200 players will play for almost $80.0 million; which averages out to more than $400,000 per.  Moreover, many top players make much more in endorsements than earnings.

 

As a business, it's almost as good as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or Facebook.   

 

 

Average is kinda pointless when only the top 25% or so actually achieve that number. 

[18majors]

25 minutes ago, TobesSC said:

Average is kinda pointless when only the top 25% or so actually achieve that number. 

 

 

Average is used to illustrate LPGA isn't a struggling business.  It isn't intended to guarantee every player earns a good living.

 

It's a meritoratic system, people need to decide whether the system suits them.  PGA is a rich tour with an annual purse of more than $430.0 million (including FedEx bonuses); but a player could still earn nothing if he doesn't make cuts.

[TobesSC]

24 minutes ago, 18majors said:

 

 

Average is used to illustrate LPGA isn't a struggling business.  It isn't intended to guarantee every player earns a good living.

 

It's a meritoratic system, people need to decide whether the system suits them.  PGA is a rich tour with an annual purse of more than $430.0 million (including FedEx bonuses); but a player could still earn nothing if he doesn't make cuts.

 

Then what is the point of this thread then?  You said LPGA is on par with the likes of Facebook as a business but at same time say Whan was horrible commissioner.  Which one is it?

[18majors]

32 minutes ago, TobesSC said:

 

Then what is the point of this thread then?  You said LPGA is on par with the likes of Facebook as a business but at same time say Whan was horrible commissioner.  Which one is it?

 

 

No, I don't think Mike Whan has been an effective commissioner for LPGA.

 

LPGA maybe on par with Facebook in average earning, but an average LPGA player is 10 times more talented than an average Facebook employee.  Mike Whan failed to deliver the goods even though he was given tons of resources.

 

As I've said many times before, I credit USGA more in helping raising the purses than to Mr. Whan.

Edited February 13, 2021 by 18majors

[Hawkeye77]

11 minutes ago, 18majors said:

 

 

No, I don't think Mike Whan has been an effective commissioner for LPGA.

 

LPGA maybe on par with Facebook in average earning, but an average LPGA player is 10 times more talented than an average Facebook employee.  Mike Whan failed to deliver the goods even though he was given tons of resources.

LOL, you can't say it's a great business and not give credit to the person managing it.

 

One of many, and not as in depth as some, articles chronicling Whan's contributions.  Probably the best Commissioner they've had and in many ways you aren't comprehending from the armchair.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/sports/golf/lpga-commissioner-mike-whan.html

[18majors]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

LOL, you can't say it's a great business and not give credit to the person managing it.

 

One of many, and not as in depth as some, articles chronicling Whan's contributions.  Probably the best Commissioner they've had and in many ways you aren't comprehending from the armchair.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/sports/golf/lpga-commissioner-mike-whan.html

 

 

People are entitled to their opinions. so am I.

[TobesSC]

32 minutes ago, 18majors said:

 

 

People are entitled to their opinions. so am I.

 So nearly doubling the total purse during his tenure counts as failing to deliver the goods...

[18majors]

2 minutes ago, TobesSC said:

 So nearly doubling the total purse during his tenure counts as failing to deliver the goods...

 

 

Yes.

[TobesSC]

Just now, 18majors said:

 

 

Yes.

What could he have done to meet your expectations?

[18majors]

1 minute ago, TobesSC said:

What could he have done to meet your expectations?

 

$150.0 million in 2021, with a chance to reach 60-70% of PGA Tour in time.

[TobesSC]

So from losing ~30% of total purse before he got there you expected him to grow it ~400%...gotcha. 

[Titleist_PT23]

6 hours ago, TobesSC said:

 So nearly doubling the total purse during his tenure counts as failing to deliver the goods...

I don't have a strong opinion on Whan either way.  But I think looking at just the total prize money from his start to finish may be a bit misleading.  If I recall correctly, he started after a major contraction post the financial bust.  The number of tournaments (especially in the U.S.) shrunk, and in some ways created an artificially low starting point. 

 

Undoubtedly, it is impossible to say what the LPGA would have done under someone else's leadership (could have been better or worse).  But I think if you look at where the LPGA was pre-financial bust and where it is now the growth has trailed that of other major sports (at least this was the case a few years ago).  So I could make the argument that he took over a high beta stock at the bottom (sponsors cut dollars to LPGA first) and rode the wave back up (sponsor dollars and tournaments came back as soon as the economy was better).  Under this view, he didn't screw it up but the narrative would be far from some Tom Brady like messiah.

[Stooch]

Don't worry the way governments around the world are printing money there will be 5 million dollar purses at every LPGA event in no time, although it probably won't be able to buy you as much as the purses do today.

[18majors]

8 hours ago, agolf1 said:

I don't have a strong opinion on Whan either way.  But I think looking at just the total prize money from his start to finish may be a bit misleading.  If I recall correctly, he started after a major contraction post the financial bust.  The number of tournaments (especially in the U.S.) shrunk, and in some ways created an artificially low starting point. 

 

Undoubtedly, it is impossible to say what the LPGA would have done under someone else's leadership (could have been better or worse).  But I think if you look at where the LPGA was pre-financial bust and where it is now the growth has trailed that of other major sports (at least this was the case a few years ago).  So I could make the argument that he took over a high beta stock at the bottom (sponsors cut dollars to LPGA first) and rode the wave back up (sponsor dollars and tournaments came back as soon as the economy was better).  Under this view, he didn't screw it up but the narrative would be far from some Tom Brady like messiah.

 

Well said, much better you articulated than I!

[Holy Moses]

9 hours ago, agolf1 said:

I don't have a strong opinion on Whan either way.  But I think looking at just the total prize money from his start to finish may be a bit misleading.  If I recall correctly, he started after a major contraction post the financial bust.  The number of tournaments (especially in the U.S.) shrunk, and in some ways created an artificially low starting point. 

 

Undoubtedly, it is impossible to say what the LPGA would have done under someone else's leadership (could have been better or worse).  But I think if you look at where the LPGA was pre-financial bust and where it is now the growth has trailed that of other major sports (at least this was the case a few years ago).  So I could make the argument that he took over a high beta stock at the bottom (sponsors cut dollars to LPGA first) and rode the wave back up (sponsor dollars and tournaments came back as soon as the economy was better).  Under this view, he didn't screw it up but the narrative would be far from some Tom Brady like messiah.

Since Whan took over, the LPGA has seen 45% purse growth while the PGA Tour has only seen 20%. Not sure if the FedEx Cup is included in that, but still impressive for the LPGA.

[Titleist_PT23]

8 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

Since Whan took over, the LPGA has seen 45% purse growth while the PGA Tour has only seen 20%. Not sure if the FedEx Cup is included in that, but still impressive for the LPGA.

Im not disputing that the numbers are up since he took over.  But you need to look at exactly when he started and how much LPGA was down then. If you think it was all him that made it it go up, then OK.  But there's a strong case it was a rising tide and LPGAs tide had gone out the most right before he started.  At one point, I had looked at growth in average purse per tournament, and I think this made LPGA look much more pedestrian.  Of course, one can say he added tournaments.  But did he really add them or did the ones that were cut just come back (different sponsors and locations yes but the point remains)?

 

Again, I don't think he did a bad job but I think nominal purse growth from his start to finish is a highly misleading statistic.

 

What is LPGA purse growth in last 5 years vs PGA or other major sports?  If this is still greatly ahead then I will clap.  The rough numbers/situation I am describing above was a few years ago so maybe it looks better now.  But while doubling sounds great I think it is pretty normal with what's going on in other sports.  Look at the QB market or 2nd tier NBA stars vs a decade ago.  Everything is a rocket ship 🚀🚀🚀.

 

 

 

[18majors]

 

LPGA Total Purse ($ millions)

LPGA

 

2008                                    60.3

2009                                    47.6

2010                                     41.4

2011                                     41.5

2012                                     47.0

2013                                     48.9

2014                                     57.6

2015                                     49.1

2016                                    63.0

2017                                     67.7

2018                                    67.0

2019                                    70.2  (+16.4% since 2008, +49.4% since 2012)

 

PGA Purse ($ millions)

PGA

 

2008                                   279.0

2019                                   413.0   (+48.0%)             (including FedEx)

 

As I've argued before, USGA has been the main driving force for LPGA's purde incereases, Mike Whan hasn't done nothing for USGA:

USWO

 

2008                                   3.25

2019                                    5.50   (+69.2%)

 

USWO is responsible for most of the recent purse increases of all LPGA majors.

 

LPGA is a low-hanging fruit, like a start-up company, gorwth should be taken for granted. 

Especially since 2011, LPGA has infusion of so many great talents from Korea, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Europe and the Americas.   But, Mike Whan has failed to take advantage of them and make LPGA one of the most exciting game in all of sports.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by 18majors

[Holy Moses]

You can’t use purses before Whan’s tenure when judging him, economic crisis or not

[North Texas]

22 minutes ago, 18majors said:

 

LPGA Total Purse ($ millions)

LPGA

 

2008                                    60.3

2009                                    47.6

2010                                     41.4

2011                                     41.5

2012                                     47.0

2013                                     48.9

2014                                     57.6

2015                                     49.1

2016                                    63.0

2017                                     67.7

2018                                    67.0

2019                                    70.2  (+16.4% since 2008, +49.4% since 2012)

 

PGA Purse ($ millions)

PGA

 

2008                                   279.0

2019                                   384.0   (+37.6%)             (including FedEx)

 

As I've argued before, USGA has been the main driving force for LPGA's purde incereases, Mike Whan hasn't done nothing for USGA:

USWO

 

2008                                   3.25

2019                                    5.50   (+69.2%)

 

USWO is responsible for most of the recent purse increases of all LPGA majors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the 2019 LPGA purse comparison, you could have just as easily done this.

2019    70.2 (+69.5% since 2010)

Right in line with the USWO increase, if my math is correct 😉

 

Here's my take on it. 

Between the USGA, PGA, and LPGA, Mike Whan started out with far less to work with than the other two organizations. And I'm not sure that anyone can logically debate that. Although they may try. 

 

You can say what you want, but the starting line for Mike Whan when he took over the LPGA was miles behind the PGA and USGA. IMHO, that is a factor that has to be considered in all this discussion.

[Stooch]

Any issues I have with Whan are in regards to television and coverage of the LPGA.  The LPGA is always gonna have to fight hard for any coverage but I think he missed the boat on the digital aspect and really missed on the global appeal of the LPGA, especially in Asia.

 

As for grow in purses, there is no doubt the economic crisis really hurt LPGA purse size and you also can't discount how horrible Bivens was before him.  Like @agolf1 said maybe another could have done the same thing or maybe not, but Whan did greatly increase the purse money since the start of tenure and this a fact and I'm not sure that aspect can be discounted.  Could another have done better? maybe but if Whan was the CEO of a fortune 500 company, he would be raking huge bonuses for what he was able to accomplish.

[Titleist_PT23]

For those that say the starting point and what happened before it doesn't matter, consider this.  If a president takes office right after a major recession starts, he/she will start off with very high unemployment.  4-8 years later unemployment is likely to be much lower.  Would you give all of the credit to him/her?  I would argue 80%-90% of what happened would have happened if any one of 325 million people were put in office.  So yes, unemployment dropped under his/her stewardship but he/she didn't do a darn thing.

 

I think Whan did well but much of the base demand was there.  Just look at where the $$$ where before he started.  The economic crash was why the dollars went away.  He steadied the ship, got Asia to replace US in some instances, and from a low base the results look great.

[Titleist_PT23]

7 hours ago, Stooch said:

As for grow in purses, there is no doubt the economic crisis really hurt LPGA purse size and you also can't discount how horrible Bivens was before him.  Like @agolf1 said maybe another could have done the same thing or maybe not, but Whan did greatly increase the purse money since the start of tenure and this a fact and I'm not sure that aspect can be discounted.  Could another have done better? maybe but if Whan was the CEO of a fortune 500 company, he would be raking huge bonuses for what he was able to accomplish.

Everything you say is true here, but I would argue this is one fallacy nearly everyone makes.  Success is attributed nearly entirely to individual skill, effort, knowledge while failure if blamed on bad luck, had a bad day, the industry is bad, blah, blah, blah.

 

The best CEO in the world can't grow a company that's in a dying industry.  An average CEO can produce growth/look good in a company in an industry that doubles every three years.

 

Again, it's impossible to say whether the purses would be here had "anyone else" taken over.  Maybe he did do great to get back the lost dollars.  But for all of those who say the LPGA was/is "underpaid" then his "recovery" wasn't such a hard feat.  It was like selling umbrellas in a rainstorm.  All you had to do was be there and be open for business.

 

There's a lot more randomness and right place, right time (or wrong place, wrong time) then people like to acknowledge.

Edited February 14, 2021 by agolf1
addition.

[Titleist_PT23]

7 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by agolf1
.

[18majors]

22 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

Everything you say is true here, but I would argue this is one fallacy nearly everyone makes.  Success is attributed nearly entirely to individual skill, effort, knowledge while failure if blamed on bad luck, had a bad day, the industry is bad, blah, blah, blah.

 

The best CEO in the world can't grow a company that's in a dying industry.  An average CEO can produce growth/look good in a company in an industry that doubles every three years.

 

Again, it's impossible to say whether the purses would be here had "anyone else" taken over.  Maybe he did do great to get back the lost dollars.  But for all of those who say the LPGA was/is "underpaid" then his "recovery" wasn't such a hard feat.  It was like selling umbrellas in a rainstorm.  All you had to do was be there and be open for business.

 

There's a lot more randomness and right place, right time (or wrong place, wrong time) then people like to acknowledge.

 

 

Again, you brought up great ponints.  But, like everything else, we probably won't ever reach a conclusion that suits everyone.

 

Each of us is shaped by our own personal, professional and business experience; and porbably we all have a different one.

 

However, I've enjoyed the discourse we went through; it has been a good one!

 

What I'm the most looking forward to is that Nelly Korda and the gangs do their jobs to help double the purse in the next 5-6 years.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by 18majors