PGA Tour non-profit status

[betarhoalphadelta]

6 minutes ago, PorkChopExpress said:

 

Is this the reason they instituted that every pro has to play each tournament every 3 years? Or something like that?

 

Tour doesn't pay the appearance fees, pretty sure they have some influence though hahahaha

 

Looking at the 2019-2020 handbook, there is a "one new event played per season" requirement that a player has to play in one event per season that he has not played in during the past four seasons. I don't see anything about playing every tournament on the schedule at least once every three years. (As mentioned, this is the 2019-2020 handbook--if it is in a newer version I don't have access to, I will accept correction.)

 

And as mentioned, the current guideline is that guaranteed appearance fees are PROHIBITED from anyone, not just the Tour. So they don't have influence on appearance fees that they don't allow to exist...

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 minutes ago, idrive said:

 

You do realize RBC dropped DJ like a hot potato when he joined the exhibition and subsequently skipped the RBC this year?

 

Yes. Which is the only example that came to mind of a player skipping his sponsor's own tournament. As did Graeme.

 

But I wanted to reference it without necessarily dragging into this particular thread *why* they skipped it and for what alternative opportunity. 

[RichieHunt]

On 6/26/2022 at 11:59 PM, NMBob said:

so they would never do things like call themselves a business on worldwide tv or try to limit  competition lol.   

 

 

 

 

 

A non-profit organization is a business entity.  So they are perfectly correct in identifying as a business.

 

If the PGA Tour did not suspend the players for playing on the LIV Tour (and the LiV Tour was eligible for OWGR points), the PGA Tour would become a feeder Tour for the LIV Tour. 

 

The players that would make it on the LIV Tour, particularly those that got the big contract deals, would just play LIV Tour events, the majors and maybe 1-2 Tour events off sponsor exemptions each year.  There would be little motivation for somebody like Bryson DeChambeau to do otherwise and they certainly would not play in the required minimum of events.

 

That's why the PGA Tour suspended the players that went to the LIV Tour.  It has nothing to do with the Saudis and even Jay Monahan has acknowledged that.  

 

In turn, the PGA Tour has not done anything to actually limit the LIV Tour.  They are not suing the LIV Tour nor are they suing any of the players that go to the LIV Tour.  They are just not allowing players to play both Tours at the same time because it's the only recourse the PGA Tour has to prevent from killing off the PGA Tour or greatly diminishing the PGA Tour.

 

Imagine if you had a non-profit labor union and then a new labor union came along looking to take their members.  Much like the PGA Tour, that labor union is going to suspend or ban those members  that go to the new labor union.  Not because they are making a profit when they are a non-profit organization, but because they would cease to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

 

[Soloman1]

I think they can coexist. The PGA Tour is a nonprofit with the explicitly stated function in tax filings to expand golf globally. A nonprofit business league must be to promote an industry or trade group and cannot be used to advance the interests of a specific company. The PGA Tour is not a union to better the benefits or working conditions of itself.

 

Wheels will be turning about this. Another bill has been introduced to specifically curtail the tax-exempt status of the tour.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Soloman1

[RichieHunt]

25 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

I think they can coexist. The PGA Tour is a nonprofit with the explicitly stated function in tax filings to expand golf globally. A nonprofit business league must be to promote an industry or trade group and cannot be used to advance the interests of a specific company. The PGA Tour is not a union to better the benefits or working conditions of itself.

 

Wheels will be turning about this. Another bill has been introduced to specifically curtail the tax-exempt status of the tour.

 

 

 

I don't see how they can coexist other than it making the PGA Tour a feeder tour for the LIV Tour.

 

The minimum payout for a LIV player is $120K.  In order to make $120K in your regular PGA Tour event you have to finish about 15th-20th out of roughly 145 players.  

 

If a LIV Tour plays each event next year and finishes last in each event, they are going to make nearly $1.7M for the year in just 14 events.  For a player on the PGA Tour to make $1.7M for the season, they would have to finish around 65th (out of nearly 200 golfers) on the money list and do it in nearly 25 events.

 

There's not a chance that any LIV Tour player will also play the minimum amount of PGA Tour events if the suspensions were lifted.  

 

They are simply going to try to make sure they get on every LIV Tour event they can and playing PGA Tour events becomes a low priority.

 

I respect the LIV Tour pros for making their decision.  It's a tough decision to make.  But as I've said numerous times...the PGA Tour aren't the bad guys here and when compared to other sports leagues they treat their athletes far better, mainly because you don't have team owners involved.  

 

The main point is that Jay Monahan is doing exactly what anybody else in his position would be doing and that includes posters on this forum.

 

And if he weren't, he'd be fired for gross incompetence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

 

 

 

[Soloman1]

This is about the tax-exempt, nonprofit status of the tour. The topic will likely get locked or moderated by bringing the “competing” tour up.

 

A tax-exempt, nonprofit is prohibited from acting in any manner as a for profit company would act. A chamber of commerce cannot take any action to prohibit members from joining a separate but similar business league. A tax-exempt, nonprofit business league may not take any action to stifle competition in any manner similar to how a for profit company would act.

 

That’s written in the tax code, not my opinion.

 

My opinion is that either the tour successfully lobbies to have a special rule created, or it will face significant government or legislative scrutiny forcing the tour to become a for profit organization, like MLB, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, etc.

 

And what is wrong with that?

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Soloman1

[Krt22]

16 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

 

My opinion is that either the tour successfully lobbies to have a special rule created, or it will face significant government or legislative scrutiny forcing the tour to become a for profit organization, like MLB, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, etc.

 

And what is wrong with that?

 

 

 

Hopefully it eliminates the excruciating 4-5 minute announcer babble about the tour's altruism 

[aus10KC]

13 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

 

A tax-exempt, nonprofit is prohibited from acting in any manner as a for profit company would act. A chamber of commerce cannot take any action to prohibit members from joining a separate but similar business league. A tax-exempt, nonprofit business league may not take any action to stifle competition in any manner similar to how a for profit company would act.

 

 

 

 

 

PGAT has not done anything to keep players from going to LIV. Unless you're referring to enforcing rules they had in place before LIV was around. Nor has the PGAT done anything to stifle competition from holding golf events. 

 

 

 

 

[Soloman1]

Except for the $500,000+ lobbying money paid to influence the executive and legislative branches to ban the competing tour. Lobbying has always been the PGA Tour’s first line of defense against all challenges.

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

This is about the tax-exempt, nonprofit status of the tour. The topic will likely get locked or moderated by bringing the “competing” tour up.

 

A tax-exempt, nonprofit is prohibited from acting in any manner as a for profit company would act. A chamber of commerce cannot take any action to prohibit members from joining a separate but similar business league. A tax-exempt, nonprofit business league may not take any action to stifle competition in any manner similar to how a for profit company would act.

 

That’s written in the tax code, not my opinion.

 

My opinion is that either the tour successfully lobbies to have a special rule created, or it will face significant government or legislative scrutiny forcing the tour to become a for profit organization, like MLB, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, etc.

 

And what is wrong with that?

 

 

 

If the PGATOUR was a for profit organization, would they be able to contract players as they enter the Tour by way of .....College, Q-school, Korn Ferry, DP World Tour, Exemptions ....etc...??

[aus10KC]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

Except for the $500,000+ lobbying money paid to influence the executive and legislative branches to ban the competing tour. Lobbying has always been the PGA Tour’s first line of defense against all challenges.

 

They are a professional organization to advance professional golf for their members. Of course they are going to lobby when that is threatened. Welcome to America.

[Soloman1]

Yes. It can offer contracts to whomever and for whatever it wants to offer. They would be free to act without dancing around the tax code like a thief in the night.

 

My opinion is that the PGA Tour is too tied to the model built by the innovated and brilliant Dean Beman, and subsequent commissioners have been unimaginative, mouthpiece managers coasting without adapting to a different generation and world. Finchem was a lobbyist so he lobbied. Monaham worked his way up the PGA Tour HQ and was marketing weenie.

 

I believe the tour doesn't need to wave the charity flag. It's deceitful, since the tournaments do the heavy lifting for charity. The NFL, NBA, MLB and NASCAR all get plenty of PR with charity press releases. The local tournaments can still be non-profits.

[Ghost of Snead]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

Except for the $500,000+ lobbying money paid to influence the executive and legislative branches to ban the competing tour. Lobbying has always been the PGA Tour’s first line of defense against all challenges.

 

No different than big pharma lobbying Congress for faster FDA trials and advantages for their products

 

[2bGood]

On 7/26/2022 at 12:38 PM, Soloman1 said:

 A nonprofit business league must be to promote an industry or trade group and cannot be used to advance the interests of a specific company. The PGA Tour is not a union to better the benefits or working conditions of itself.

 

 Close, but you missed the mark a bit. A business league can exist to better the conditions for their members (all their members) in their common business interests. They don't need to promote rival business leagues in the same industry. The other tour might arguably be good for the industry, but it is not good for common interest of all PGAT members. The PGAT can exist to better the benefits of the working conditions of itself (itself being it's members as a group).

 

On 7/26/2022 at 3:02 PM, Soloman1 said:

This is about the tax-exempt, nonprofit status of the tour. The topic will likely get locked or moderated by bringing the “competing” tour up.

 

A tax-exempt, nonprofit is prohibited from acting in any manner as a for profit company would act. A chamber of commerce cannot take any action to prohibit members from joining a separate but similar business league. A tax-exempt, nonprofit business league may not take any action to stifle competition in any manner similar to how a for profit company would act.

 

That’s written in the tax code, not my opinion.

 

My opinion is that either the tour successfully lobbies to have a special rule created, or it will face significant government or legislative scrutiny forcing the tour to become a for profit organization, like MLB, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, etc.

 

And what is wrong with that?

 

 

 

 

You would have to refer me to where this is written in the tax code as I am not familiar with this clause. 

 

501C6 normally have no significant legal restriction on what terms they can set to be eligible for membership*. This includes having a clause in their bylaws that you can not belong to another 'rival' 501C6. This is actually a pretty common clause that is in place to prevent a hostile take over of a member organisation, ie members have a duty of loyalty. It does get abused, but also is needed in many cases as 501C6 covers lots of more grass route orgs were it might only take 10 or 20 to come in and vote for change that would alter the organisation in harmful ways.

 

* in order to be a 501C6 you do need to prove your membership criteria meets the threshold of shared business interest. Ruling 59-391 is interesting in this regard. 

 

On 7/26/2022 at 4:54 PM, Soloman1 said:

Yes. It can offer contracts to whomever and for whatever it wants to offer. They would be free to act without dancing around the tax code like a thief in the night.

 

My opinion is that the PGA Tour is too tied to the model built by the innovated and brilliant Dean Beman, and subsequent commissioners have been unimaginative, mouthpiece managers coasting without adapting to a different generation and world. Finchem was a lobbyist so he lobbied. Monaham worked his way up the PGA Tour HQ and was marketing weenie.

 

I believe the tour doesn't need to wave the charity flag. It's deceitful, since the tournaments do the heavy lifting for charity. The NFL, NBA, MLB and NASCAR all get plenty of PR with charity press releases. The local tournaments can still be non-profits.

 I agree. I am not completely clear on why the PGAT wants to keep the 501C6 status. It creates a very complicated structure for them, forces them to be much more transparent with their accounting and despite popular assumption does not necessarily provide them a huge tax benefit. For instance the NFL's move away from being 501C6 resulted in..... wait for it..... $9M in taxable income. Not $9M in tax, $9M that could be taxed. This was the case as the teams, players, employees were already taxable entitites. I am not going to hazard a guess in how much in taxes the NFL League Office pays, but it is not (relatively) that much.Okay I will hazard a guess - ???less than $2m in tax (21%)???

 

If the PGAT went this route, the events would still be 501C3's, players and employees taxes would not change, earning going into  and patient going out f the pension plan would be taxed the same way. I suspect net earnings that could be taxed would be relatively minimal.  

 

I would assume they will move away from 501C6 status soon as it would allow them more creative options for player compensation. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by 2bGood

[Titleist99]

52 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 Close, but you missed the mark a bit. A business league can exist to better the conditions for their members (all their members) in their common business interests. They don't need to promote rival business leagues in the same industry. The other tour might arguably be good for the industry, but it is not good for common interest of all PGAT members. The PGAT can exist to better the benefits of the working conditions of itself (itself being it's members as a group).

 

 

You would have to refer me to where this is written in the tax code as I am not familiar with this clause. 

 

501C6 normally have no significant legal restriction on what terms they can set to be eligible for membership*. This includes having a clause in their bylaws that you can not belong to another 'rival' 501C6. This is actually a pretty common clause that is in place to prevent a hostile take over of a member organisation, ie members have a duty of loyalty. I get abused, but also is needed in many cases as 501C6 covers lots of more grass route orgs were it might only take 10 or 20 to come in and vote for change that would alter the organisation. 

 

* in order to be a 501C6 you do need to prove your membership criteria meets the threshold of shared business interest. Ruling 59-391 is interesting in this regard. 

 

 I agree. I am not completely clear on why the PGAT wants to keep the 501C6 status. It creates a very complicated structure for them, forces them to be much more transparent with their accounting and despite popular assumption does not necessarily provide them a huge tax benefit. For instance the NFL's move away from being 501C6 resulted in..... wait for it..... $9M in taxable income. Not $9M in tax, $9M that could be taxed. This was the case as the teams, players, employees were already taxable entitites. I am not going to hazard a guess in how much in taxes the NFL League Office pays, but it is not (relatively) that much.

 

If the PGAT went this route, the events would still be 501C3's, players and employees taxes would not change, earning going into the pension plan would be taxed the same way. I suspect net earnings that could be taxed would be relatively minimal.  

 

I would assume they will move away from 501C6 status soon as it would allow them more creative options for player compensation. 

My theory is that the PGATOUR will eventually make the players contracted employees thereby making the players more difficult to poach and making the Tour the sole negotiator for the players.......I would think that this is the most simplistic way to go providing that it does not affect their tax status,,,,,

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

My theory is that the PGATOUR will eventually make the players contracted employees thereby making the players more difficult to poach and making the Tour the sole negotiator for the players.......I would think that this is the most simplistic way to go providing that it does not affect their tax status,,,,,

Making all the players contractors would likely mean that the PGAT could no longer be a non-profit. Funny enough, not because they are paying the players, non profits can have contracts and employees, but because they need members (that are not being compensated) to keep the 501c6 status. Paying the players would likely mean they no longer meet the definition of members needed to be tax-exempt.

 

All the same, I do think they will go down this road. Maybe they have a clever means to keep 501c6 status, or maybe they pay a few million in taxes and give up their non profit status.  

Edited July 27, 2022 by 2bGood

[Titleist99]

7 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

Making all the players contractors would likely mean that could no longer be a non-profit. Funny enough, not because they are paying the players, non profits can have contracts and employees, but because they need members (that are not being compensated) to keep the 501c6 status. Paying the players would likely mean they no longer meet the definition of members needed to be tax-exempt.

 

All the same, I do think they will go down this road. Maybe they have a clever means to keep 501c6 status, or maybe they pay a few million in taxes and give up their non profit status.  

Contract them for five years entering the Tour through all the means......college, Korn Ferry, etc.....and at the end of the contract they can become free agents.....

I'll leave it up to the lawyers to draw up the language......LOL!

Pgatour as the sole negotiator....

 

What's the downside for this?

[2bGood]

6 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Contract them for five years entering the Tour through all the means......college, Korn Ferry, etc.....and at the end of the contract they can become free agents.....

I'll leave it up to the lawyers to draw up the language......LOL!

Pgatour as the sole negotiator....

 

What's the downside for this?

I agree, I could see this happening. 

[RobS]

32 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

My theory is that the PGATOUR will eventually make the players contracted employees thereby making the players more difficult to poach and making the Tour the sole negotiator for the players.......I would think that this is the most simplistic way to go providing that it does not affect their tax status,,,,,

Many of the players are set up as LLC's or S Corps to most effectively manage income, expenses, taxes and provide liability protection.  They may not be resistant to signing agreements but the established and higher earners would likely prefer to remain contractors and not become employees.  If the players are employees, the Tour would also be responsible to payroll taxes and workers comp and any benefits required by law.  They would also withhold taxes on the players.

[Soloman1]

Per the IRS:

 

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/business-leagues

 

“A business league is an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit.”

 

The 30 TPC properties owned by the tour are of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit. I notice that my previous post about this has been ignored, since it’s hard to challenge or justify.

 

”The term line of business generally refers either to an entire industry or to all components of an industry within a geographic area.  It does not include a group composed of businesses that market a particular brand within an industry.”

 

It could be reasonably argued that the PGA Tour is marketing a particular brand in its lobbying efforts to ban a competing tour. It can only lobby to advance it stated purpose of “promoting professional golf worldwide” and lobby to maintain its nonprofit status.

 

Anyway, I think the tour will have a hard time maintaining nonprofit status at the same time it challenges other tours from existing.

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

I agree, I could see this happening. 

I started a thread on the contracting of PGAtour players, but the moderators locked it for reasons unknown......I guess they thought this could never happen./

In my mind this is the only way to stop the influx of unlimited money by the Saudi Golf league.

[Titleist99]

48 minutes ago, RobS said:

Many of the players are set up as LLC's or S Corps to most effectively manage income, expenses, taxes and provide liability protection.  They may not be resistant to signing agreements but the established and higher earners would likely prefer to remain contractors and not become employees.  If the players are employees, the Tour would also be responsible to payroll taxes and workers comp and any benefits required by law.  They would also withhold taxes on the players.

Small price to pay for self-preservation......of course they could grandfather in the top ten players seeing as how they're already loyal to the PGATOUR.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

Per the IRS:

 

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/business-leagues

 

“A business league is an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit.”

 

The 30 TPC properties owned by the tour are of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit. I notice that my previous post about this has been ignored, since it’s hard to challenge or justify.

 

”The term line of business generally refers either to an entire industry or to all components of an industry within a geographic area.  It does not include a group composed of businesses that market a particular brand within an industry.”

 

It could be reasonably argued that the PGA Tour is marketing a particular brand in its lobbying efforts to ban a competing tour. It can only lobby to advance it stated purpose of “promoting professional golf worldwide” and lobby to maintain its nonprofit status.

 

Anyway, I think the tour will have a hard time maintaining nonprofit status at the same time it challenges other tours from existing.

A 501c6 purpose can not be to engage in a regular business, but they can actually run an unrelated business. This business interest is taxed, but still lives under the 501C6. I am not saying that is what the TPC properties are, as you need to keep in mind golf courses and clubs can be set up as 501c7 which is another category of non-profit. As such golf courses and clubs are not always consider a regular business by the IRS and many are tax exempt. 

 

As for your second point - I agree. With each passing day the PGAT does push the boundaries of being a 501c6 and I think they will change as I could see the 501c6 status not serving their needs. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, RobS said:

Many of the players are set up as LLC's or S Corps to most effectively manage income, expenses, taxes and provide liability protection.  They may not be resistant to signing agreements but the established and higher earners would likely prefer to remain contractors and not become employees.  If the players are employees, the Tour would also be responsible to payroll taxes and workers comp and any benefits required by law.  They would also withhold taxes on the players.

I guess one would assume they would have a blended relationship. A contract with the PGAT, but also directly earning income from events which would continue to be their own entities. 

 

If the PGAT went for-profit, they could set up $0 contract with all payment through stock options in the PGAT. Players could time when to exercise them based on the best tax benefit to them. When there is enough money at stake, there are some pretty creative (and legal ways) to minimise tax. It the average guy who does not have many options. 

[dmecca2]

On 7/26/2022 at 10:12 PM, Titleist99 said:

Contract them for five years entering the Tour through all the means......college, Korn Ferry, etc.....and at the end of the contract they can become free agents.....

I'll leave it up to the lawyers to draw up the language......LOL!

Pgatour as the sole negotiator....

 

What's the downside for this?

 Contracts tie the tour to players in a landscape where the top players change frequently and potentially drastically. Look at the top 20 golfers from 2, 3, or 4 years ago. The draw of the tour is that it's where the current best players in the world play. Continue to play well, and you stay there. Play poorly and you lose status. Stop trying to compete with money solutions, the tour will not win.

[cardia10]

On 7/26/2022 at 4:15 PM, RichieHunt said:

 

I don't see how they can coexist other than it making the PGA Tour a feeder tour for the LIV Tour.

 

The minimum payout for a LIV player is $120K.  In order to make $120K in your regular PGA Tour event you have to finish about 15th-20th out of roughly 145 players.  

 

If a LIV Tour plays each event next year and finishes last in each event, they are going to make nearly $1.7M for the year in just 14 events.  For a player on the PGA Tour to make $1.7M for the season, they would have to finish around 65th (out of nearly 200 golfers) on the money list and do it in nearly 25 events.

 

There's not a chance that any LIV Tour player will also play the minimum amount of PGA Tour events if the suspensions were lifted.  

 

They are simply going to try to make sure they get on every LIV Tour event they can and playing PGA Tour events becomes a low priority.

 

I respect the LIV Tour pros for making their decision.  It's a tough decision to make.  But as I've said numerous times...the PGA Tour aren't the bad guys here and when compared to other sports leagues they treat their athletes far better, mainly because you don't have team owners involved.  

 

The main point is that Jay Monahan is doing exactly what anybody else in his position would be doing and that includes posters on this forum.

 

And if he weren't, he'd be fired for gross incompetence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

 

 

 

The only part I disagree with is that the PGA Tour treats their players better. The tour repeatedly lied to players about purses and tv revenue as well as stating there wasn't enough money for insurance for players and caddies. The tour has also called them independent contractors for years to prevent having to pay benefits while the tour leadership and staff are paid in the millions with premium health plans on the backs of the players that play the game. The players leaving are cutting out the middle man that has been withholding profits from the products that produce the profits. The top leadership at the PGA Tour has fumbled the ball and I think it will get worse as soon as the Fed Ex Cup is over. There is a reason that veterans are bailing as it is them who has been constantly lied to. The young guys still are seeing with rose colored glasses.

Edited July 28, 2022 by cardia10

[RichieHunt]

6 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

The only part I disagree with is that the PGA Tour treats their players better. The tour repeatedly lied to players about purses and tv revenue as well as stating there wasn't enough money for insurance for players and caddies. The tour has also called them independent contractors for years to prevent having to pay benefits while the tour leadership and staff are paid in the millions with premium health plans on the backs of the players that play the game. The players leaving are cutting out the middle man that has been withholding profits from the products that produce the profits. The top leadership at the PGA Tour has fumbled the ball and I think it will get worse as soon as the Fed Ex Cup is over. There is a reason that veterans are bailing as it is them who has been constantly lied to. The young guys still are seeing with rose colored glasses.

 

The players have had insurance thru the Tour for quite a while now.  The caddies didn't, but I never mentioned the caddies.  The caddies are generally treated poorly on the PGA Tour.  This is something I've railed against the Tour for years. 

 

The veterans are bailing out on the LIV Tour because of the money, not because they've been lied to.  Most of the players leaving are not bashing the PGA Tour despite being suspended from the Tour because they know they have little to complain about.  They made fantastic money, they got a higher % of revenues than any other major pro sport league and they have the best retirement pension plan of any of the pro sports leagues...by far.

 

Guys like Mickelson that have complained about the Tour were proven in many cases to be ignorant and not know what they were talking about (i.e. media rights).  And they are basically bashing the Tour because of their ego and they are trying to make themselves feel better about taking money from the Saudis (I respect their decision to go to the LIV Tour, but there's a negative connotation to it, they know it and they are trying to save face at the PGA Tour's expense).

 

No Tour player I know of (and I know plenty) really complains about the traveling expenses because even the low level endorsement deals will pay for the travel expenses in full and then some.  One of my friends played on Tour for a couple of seasons and made less than $100K not too long ago and still had a very profitable year when you consider money he gets from endorsements, appearances, pro-ams, etc.  

 

If there's a problem with travel...it's the travel itself.  That's why in Pat Perez's press conference he never once mentioned and complained about travel expenses.  He complained about the actual amount of travel...which he would still do if the LIV Tour upped their schedule and had mandatory minimum events that had to be played.

 

While I don't get into the Saudi Arabia thing, it's the main argument that LIV Tour critics have with these players...they are treated incredibly well and they could not go on the LIV Tour and still be set for life.  

 

Anybody who thinks that these guys on Tour are not treated extremely well just doesn't understand anything about the inner workings of the Tour, the endorsement and sponsorships that go into the Tour and how the players end up benefiting from it in the end.

 

Compare that to the NFL where only 50% of the revenues go to the players with a lousy retirement plan and the average career lasting about 3 years.  Or in MLB where minor leaguers often have to go on food stamps because they make next to nothing and the MLB has an average career length of 2.7 years.  

 

 

 

 

RH

[cardia10]

4 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

 

The players have had insurance thru the Tour for quite a while now.  The caddies didn't, but I never mentioned the caddies.  The caddies are generally treated poorly on the PGA Tour.  This is something I've railed against the Tour for years. 

 

The veterans are bailing out on the LIV Tour because of the money, not because they've been lied to.  Most of the players leaving are not bashing the PGA Tour despite being suspended from the Tour because they know they have little to complain about.  They made fantastic money, they got a higher % of revenues than any other major pro sport league and they have the best retirement pension plan of any of the pro sports leagues...by far.

 

Guys like Mickelson that have complained about the Tour were proven in many cases to be ignorant and not know what they were talking about (i.e. media rights).  And they are basically bashing the Tour because of their ego and they are trying to make themselves feel better about taking money from the Saudis (I respect their decision to go to the LIV Tour, but there's a negative connotation to it, they know it and they are trying to save face at the PGA Tour's expense).

 

No Tour player I know of (and I know plenty) really complains about the traveling expenses because even the low level endorsement deals will pay for the travel expenses in full and then some.  One of my friends played on Tour for a couple of seasons and made less than $100K not too long ago and still had a very profitable year when you consider money he gets from endorsements, appearances, pro-ams, etc.  

 

If there's a problem with travel...it's the travel itself.  That's why in Pat Perez's press conference he never once mentioned and complained about travel expenses.  He complained about the actual amount of travel...which he would still do if the LIV Tour upped their schedule and had mandatory minimum events that had to be played.

 

While I don't get into the Saudi Arabia thing, it's the main argument that LIV Tour critics have with these players...they are treated incredibly well and they could not go on the LIV Tour and still be set for life.  

 

Anybody who thinks that these guys on Tour are not treated extremely well just doesn't understand anything about the inner workings of the Tour, the endorsement and sponsorships that go into the Tour and how the players end up benefiting from it in the end.

 

Compare that to the NFL where only 50% of the revenues go to the players with a lousy retirement plan and the average career lasting about 3 years.  Or in MLB where minor leaguers often have to go on food stamps because they make next to nothing and the MLB has an average career length of 2.7 years.  

 

 

 

 

RH

If the PGA was honest to players and treated them well, there would be no competition and players wouldn't leave. The tour hasn't listened to the player council but if you talk to players off social media, they will tell you exactly what I've said. That is how I know as I have heard these things directly. They don't trust Monehan at all as he has lied to them multiple times about inability or money to increase purses, then, all the sudden, he finds all this new money once a competitor comes to light.

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, dmecca2 said:

 Contracts tie the tour to players in a landscape where the top players change frequently and potentially drastically. Look at the top 20 golfers from 2, 3, or 4 years ago. The draw of the tour is that it's where the current best players in the world play. Continue to play well, and you stay there. Play poorly and you lose status. Stop trying to compete with money solutions, the tour will not win.

The money is irrelevant in this plan ........it's all about the Pgatour keeping rival Tours from stealing its Talent with exuberant amounts of money. The Pgatour will need creative and innovative ideas to do so.

 

The Pgatour can't compete with the Saudi Golf league's money machine, but they will need its great thinkers to earn those big salaries////

 

Stop the Saudis player thievery and you stop the Saudis........IMO

With this plan the Tour becomes the sole negotiator for all players going to another league........Just my plan.

 

This may result in the PGATOUR losing their tax status.

Contracting players is the way to go.......IMO

Edited July 28, 2022 by Titleist99

[Titleist99]

49 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

 

The players have had insurance thru the Tour for quite a while now.  The caddies didn't, but I never mentioned the caddies.  The caddies are generally treated poorly on the PGA Tour.  This is something I've railed against the Tour for years. 

 

The veterans are bailing out on the LIV Tour because of the money, not because they've been lied to.  Most of the players leaving are not bashing the PGA Tour despite being suspended from the Tour because they know they have little to complain about.  They made fantastic money, they got a higher % of revenues than any other major pro sport league and they have the best retirement pension plan of any of the pro sports leagues...by far.

 

Guys like Mickelson that have complained about the Tour were proven in many cases to be ignorant and not know what they were talking about (i.e. media rights).  And they are basically bashing the Tour because of their ego and they are trying to make themselves feel better about taking money from the Saudis (I respect their decision to go to the LIV Tour, but there's a negative connotation to it, they know it and they are trying to save face at the PGA Tour's expense).

 

No Tour player I know of (and I know plenty) really complains about the traveling expenses because even the low level endorsement deals will pay for the travel expenses in full and then some.  One of my friends played on Tour for a couple of seasons and made less than $100K not too long ago and still had a very profitable year when you consider money he gets from endorsements, appearances, pro-ams, etc.  

 

If there's a problem with travel...it's the travel itself.  That's why in Pat Perez's press conference he never once mentioned and complained about travel expenses.  He complained about the actual amount of travel...which he would still do if the LIV Tour upped their schedule and had mandatory minimum events that had to be played.

 

While I don't get into the Saudi Arabia thing, it's the main argument that LIV Tour critics have with these players...they are treated incredibly well and they could not go on the LIV Tour and still be set for life.  

 

Anybody who thinks that these guys on Tour are not treated extremely well just doesn't understand anything about the inner workings of the Tour, the endorsement and sponsorships that go into the Tour and how the players end up benefiting from it in the end.

 

Compare that to the NFL where only 50% of the revenues go to the players with a lousy retirement plan and the average career lasting about 3 years.  Or in MLB where minor leaguers often have to go on food stamps because they make next to nothing and the MLB has an average career length of 2.7 years.  

 

 

 

 

RH

Of course you're 100% correct.....but the SGL has it's talking points and they're sticking to it......LOL!