LIV Tour Discussion Thread (*** NO POLITICS ***)

[cristphoto]

Attention lawyers:

 

How is the PGA Tours ban/suspension for LIV players worded?  Didn't they say any player playing the LIV tour is not allowed to play the PGA tour? I ask because the US Amateur champ (James Piot) was never a member of a pro tour and went direct to LIV and thus never broke any PGA Tour rules.  If he is banned from PGA or DP Tour I believe he would win that case.  

[mitchl]

21 minutes ago, Pastit said:

OK - let’s try this: freedom to work where they wish. 

fantastic.   
 

folks, I am going to be working in the next two LIV events.   You’ll see me at position 49 on the leaderboard.   

[CaseyC]

Just now, physasst said:

Okay, so that would only apply if ALL PGA tour members could also play LIV. Which they cannot.....

 

John Daly was told he couldn't work on the LIV Tour....  

[physasst]

3 minutes ago, farmer said:

You cannot be under contract to the 49er's and go play for the Browns on the bye week.  You cannot be an engineer working on framework at IBM and go work for Samsung during your vacation.  LIV guys are not prevented from working, they just cannot work for a competing company.

Exactly. My employer has language in our contract that prevents me from working for a competing healthcare organization at the same time. I knew that signing up. NOW, if you didn't sign that, or were never made aware, that would be a different matter, but I think every player on the PGAT signed with the understanding that they were to abide by tour guidelines. 

[Pastit]

Just now, physasst said:

Okay, so that would only apply if ALL PGA tour members could also play LIV. Which they cannot.....

No idea what LIV does - that’s probably why they are not in the court action. 
 

Two wrongs do not make a right. Solve what’s in front of you.

[UncleJohn’sBand]

3 minutes ago, mitchl said:

fantastic.   
 

folks, I am going to be working in the next two LIV events.   You’ll see me at position 49 on the leaderboard.   

Lol not if Andy Ogltree is playing. 

[Perrkka]

As I understand it you can play the PGAT and events from the Sunshine tour, the Asian tour, the Ecco tour, the Nordic league etc. But you can not play PGAT and events on LIV. And the argument for this is that the other tours do not have events in the US. Right?

 

How is it with the Swing Thought tour (previously called the Hooters tour)? Can you play PGAT and events on the Swing Thought tour? If you can, then how is that OK and not to play on LIV?

[betarhoalphadelta]

11 minutes ago, dhacker56 said:

Last I knew the PGAT was a PRIVATE company.  and players that choose be a part of it are PRIVATE contractors and sign a contract with certain language.  As with all such contract if a contractee decides he does not want to follow the contract he may be let go with or without cause. 

 

Yes and no... If the contract contains unlawful provisions then those provisions cannot be legally enforced. That's what the lawsuit is about. 

 

Here in California it's regularly known that non-compete clauses for an employee leaving your company are unenforceable. If I got a better offer from a competitor, I can quit my job and go. However, some employers wrote non-compete clauses into contracts that employees signed. The employees left, went to a competitor, were sued, and won in court. (Note: there are some cases where a non-compete is enforceable, but for general rank-and-file employees, it's basically unenforceable.)

 

The players are arguing that the Competing Event and Media Rights provisions of the player agreement are illegal provisions and thereby unenforceable. It remains to be seen what the courts will say, but an illegal provision inside a contract may as well not be there. 

[Shortgamemagic]

Me leaving a job for 100 million on my own and then suing that job. LOL

 

15 hours ago, CaseyC said:

 

John Daly was told he couldn't work on the LIV Tour....  

he should sue because he’s “handicapped” (ie unhealthy obese whole life so knee goes out)

Edited August 4, 2022 by Shortgamemagic

[smashdn]

3 minutes ago, farmer said:

You cannot be under contract to the 49er's and go play for the Browns on the bye week.  You cannot be an engineer working on framework at IBM and go work for Samsung during your vacation.  LIV guys are not prevented from working, they just cannot work for a competing company.

 

I think that is the issue, they are not under contract to work solely for the PGAT.  They feel they are and have been treated as independent contractors in the past.

 

I most certainly can and could choose to consult outside of my fulltime employer on an independent basis or as an employee/agent as another firm.

 

The two issues I see at play are 1) the punishment for something that had been allowed in the past (going against precedent due to the PGAT v. LIV Golf competition) and 2) the PGAT's near monopolization of the highest level of professional golf in the US.

[mitchl]

2 minutes ago, cristphoto said:

Attention lawyers:

 

How is the PGA Tours ban/suspension for LIV players worded?  Didn't they say any player playing the LIV tour is not allowed to play the PGA tour? I ask because the US Amateur champ (James Piot) was never a member of a pro tour and went direct to LIV and thus never broke any PGA Tour rules.  If he is banned from PGA or DP Tour I believe he would win that case.  

First, there does not appear to be any lifetime ban.    All along, I have suspected that it would be suspensions, or possibly revoking the card.   
 

Phil was suspended for a couple months at least, and then a year for the first two events.   The suspension is for breaking his membership agreement… if you’re not a member, you don’t fall under the agreement.   
 

I would expect that Piot can follow the normal steps to try and get to the PGA if he likes.

[mokedaddy]

1 minute ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Yes and no... If the contract contains unlawful provisions then those provisions cannot be legally enforced. That's what the lawsuit is about. 

 

Here in California it's regularly known that non-compete clauses for an employee leaving your company are unenforceable. If I got a better offer from a competitor, I can quit my job and go. However, some employers wrote non-compete clauses into contracts that employees signed. The employees left, went to a competitor, were sued, and won in court. (Note: there are some cases where a non-compete is enforceable, but for general rank-and-file employees, it's basically unenforceable.)

 

The players are arguing that the Competing Event and Media Rights provisions of the player agreement are illegal provisions and thereby unenforceable. It remains to be seen what the courts will say, but an illegal provision inside a contract may as well not be there. 

This seems to be where a lot of people get lost.  There is a lot of nuance and intricacies in anti trust law and the people that filed the lawsuit are some of the best in their fields.  They may not win but I’m pretty sure they have a pretty good idea what they are doing.

[Pastit]

2 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Yes and no... If the contract contains unlawful provisions then those provisions cannot be legally enforced. That's what the lawsuit is about. 

 

Here in California it's regularly known that non-compete clauses for an employee leaving your company are unenforceable. If I got a better offer from a competitor, I can quit my job and go. However, some employers wrote non-compete clauses into contracts that employees signed. The employees left, went to a competitor, were sued, and won in court. (Note: there are some cases where a non-compete is enforceable, but for general rank-and-file employees, it's basically unenforceable.)

 

The players are arguing that the Competing Event and Media Rights provisions of the player agreement are illegal provisions and thereby unenforceable. It remains to be seen what the courts will say, but an illegal provision inside a contract may as well not be there. 

Exactly young man, the exception being for work like nuclear weapons’ technology and the like where paid “ gardening leave “ for say 12 months is the norm. U.K. courts take a dim view of unreasonable contract terms. 

[tatertot]

4 minutes ago, Shortgamemagic said:

Me leaving a job for 100 million on my own and then suing that job. LOL

Don't forget ... your old job already made you multi-millionaire 100 times over and allowed you to cash in on celebrity endorsements.

[bladehunter]

44 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Is LIV showing more shots?  Seems to me yes.

Is LIV not showing the extra fluff?  Seems to me yes, less fluff.

Are they showing more caddie/player interaction?  Probably not more.

 

I like the LIV broadcast.  Probably mostly due to no commercials and it is just bang bang golf shots for the most part.  Certainly there are times when they spend too much time on a player prepping to hit for my tastes.  

 

I like Feherty by himself and for his work on the PGAT.  I do not think he added anything to the LIV broadcast the other day however.

You don’t think that teams and the sound effects are fluff ?    It’s just hip fluff vs old fluff.  And again. DVr.  Solves it all. 
 

i thought that you’d have things about the actual tour that you want to seee changed. This is not the tour. This is TV.  
 

we all know that on e the pga tour is dissolved. The LIV will sign Tv and streaming deals. You’ll pay for it , and the sponsor commentators will return. Why ?  It’s at that point that the money source will say “ ok. You should be solvent at this point. Go spread our name on every TV sports Chanel.  “. 
 

the current format and YouTube is a Trojan horse.  It can’t survive as is. No world golf ranking points , and no TV $.  The current funding has a limit.  And that limit is usefulness.  Once the market is saturated and all competitors gone.  Why keep funding it ?  The name recognition is the point. That will at that time be automatic and free. 

[OKMrazor]

1 hour ago, Pastit said:

Sorry, this argument doesn’t work for me. It’s about any restriction and freedom to work IMO. 

But they ARE free to work.  Actually, aren't they contracted to work... by LIV.

[smashdn]

8 minutes ago, CaseyC said:

 

John Daly was told he couldn't work on the LIV Tour....  

 

I would say it is all in the wording.  If LIV allows their employees to work for other tours that is fine and fair.  But since golfers are not employees of the PGAT that agreement (and via precendent) does not apply.

 

If I worked for McDonalds and McDonalds allowed me to flip burgers for Wendy's on the weekends, it doesn't mean that Wendy's has to allow all McDonalds employees the same nor does it mean that Wendy's has to let their full time employees work at McDonalds.

 

So just because the rules are different between the two tours does not change that there could be valid legal argument against one.

[lowndes]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I think that is the issue, they are not under contract to work solely for the PGAT.  They feel they are and have been treated as independent contractors in the past.

 

I most certainly can and could choose to consult outside of my fulltime employer on an independent basis or as an employee/agent as another firm.

 

The two issues I see at play are 1) the punishment for something that had been allowed in the past (going against precedent due to the PGAT v. LIV Golf competition) and 2) the PGAT's near monopolization of the highest level of professional golf in the US.

We are conflating issues a bit but if you are a full time employee and your employer wants to restrict you from consulting for a competitor then they 100% can.  I’m a lawyer and my firm prohibits me from practicing law outside of the firm.  That is certainly legal.

[smashdn]

4 minutes ago, tatertot said:

Don't forget ... your old job already made you multi-millionaire 100 times over and allowed you to cash in on celebrity endorsements.

 

Which in court, likely means squat.

[lowndes]

4 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Which in court, likely means 

Edited August 4, 2022 by lowndes

[Pastit]

6 minutes ago, lowndes said:

We are conflating issues a bit but if you are a full time employee and your employer wants to restrict you from consulting for a competitor then they 100% can.  I’m a lawyer and my firm prohibits me from practicing law outside of the firm.  That is certainly legal.

Looking at this post then even lawyers who could defend themselves would have a fool for a client. In your case, who would employ you with this post on your CV ?
 

You’re comparing apples and pears. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Pastit

[MtlJeff]

27 minutes ago, farmer said:

You cannot be under contract to the 49er's and go play for the Browns on the bye week.  You cannot be an engineer working on framework at IBM and go work for Samsung during your vacation.  LIV guys are not prevented from working, they just cannot work for a competing company.

 

I'm not a lawyer , but for me the interesting element is that if there is some merit to the tour violating some sort of antitrust law, then banning them from the tour while trying to harm a competitor that they play for , maybe there is some legal ground there.

 

I agree with your logic, it's like quitting a company for a competitor and then demanding to work part time there--Makes no sense.

 

But i imagine the lawyers representing the LIV guys aren't dummies, there's gotta be something here in the language.

[TwistedSister]

18 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Yes and no... If the contract contains unlawful provisions then those provisions cannot be legally enforced. That's what the lawsuit is about. 

 

Here in California it's regularly known that non-compete clauses for an employee leaving your company are unenforceable. If I got a better offer from a competitor, I can quit my job and go. However, some employers wrote non-compete clauses into contracts that employees signed. The employees left, went to a competitor, were sued, and won in court. (Note: there are some cases where a non-compete is enforceable, but for general rank-and-file employees, it's basically unenforceable.)

 

The players are arguing that the Competing Event and Media Rights provisions of the player agreement are illegal provisions and thereby unenforceable. It remains to be seen what the courts will say, but an illegal provision inside a contract may as well not be there. 

NOT employees!  they are PRIVATE CONTRACTORS.

[betarhoalphadelta]

10 minutes ago, mokedaddy said:

This seems to be where a lot of people get lost.  There is a lot of nuance and intricacies in anti trust law and the people that filed the lawsuit are some of the best in their fields.  They may not win but I’m pretty sure they have a pretty good idea what they are doing.

 

Per my previous post on the filing itself, it's entirely possible that they view winning this case as a giant hail mary and don't think it's likely, but if they can get a preliminary injunction allowing LIV players to play in PGAT events while this thing drags out in court (which will take months if not longer), then they've already won, even if they eventually lose the case. All the while they can use the discovery process to gain access to material that perhaps becomes terrible PR for the PGAT when "leaked". 

 

There are a lot of ways to "win" without winning this suit. The goal may be to sow FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about the enforceability of the Competing Events and Media Rights clauses, just enough for LIV to get more big names on board and make the PGAT obsolete.

 

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, bladehunter said:

You don’t think that teams and the sound effects are fluff ?  When I say fluff I mean the crap like the 5 minutes every round from the sponsor, the piece about the player's mom, the history of Francis Oimet and his house being sold.  It most times does not add to the broadcast and always takes away from more golf being shown.  I don't care about the team aspect but haven't found it terribly intrusive, as, when they bring it up, it tends to be while showing golf shots being hit.    It’s just hip fluff vs old fluff.  And again. DVr.  Solves it all.  I'm not DVR'ing streamed stuff so can't DVR it.  Also, how do you DVR through the times they show golf in split screen with a commercial?  They have circumvented my dvr ability to skip the commercial without skipping golf.
 

i thought that you’d have things about the actual tour that you want to seee changed. This is not the tour. This is TV.  I don't play on either tour.  I don't care.  I watch golf.  I care what golf product I watch.
 

we all know that on e the pga tour is dissolved. The LIV will sign Tv and streaming deals. You’ll pay for it , and the sponsor commentators will return. Why ?  It’s at that point that the money source will say “ ok. You should be solvent at this point. Go spread our name on every TV sports Chanel.  “. 
 

the current format and YouTube is a Trojan horse.  It can’t survive as is. No world golf ranking points , and no TV $.  The current funding has a limit.  And that limit is usefulness.  Once the market is saturated and all competitors gone.  Why keep funding it ?  The name recognition is the point. That will at that time be automatic and free. 

 

What could potentially happen in the future has no bearing in my ability or inability to be entertained by the current product in its current form and presentation.  It is very cut and dry for me.  Is it worth watching for me now.  If it is a certainty it all implodes two years from now it will not effect my decision to watch the Boston event one bit.  I watch it for the golf.  I don't care about the social implications or the power struggle between the tours or who has the moral high ground.  More golf is more better.

 

14 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

I agree with your logic, it's like quitting a company for a competitor and then demanding to work part time there--Makes no sense.

 

For the ones that quit/resigned, it is a different issue and not the issue.

 

For those who did not, say they met their obligated number of events to keep their card.  The only reason the PGAT now has to discipline them is the going to play on a different tour, which precedent ahs already been set they have allowed in the past.  That is where the restriction may enter into the discussion.

[lowndes]

8 minutes ago, Pastit said:

Looking at this post then even lawyers who could defend themselves would have a fool for a client. In your case, who would employ you with this post on your CV ?
 

You’re comparing apples and pears. 

Well fortunately I don’t need to put posts from a golf message board on my resume.

 

I have no idea what your post means otherwise.  I’m not comparing anything hence why I lead off the previous post as I did.

[betarhoalphadelta]

5 minutes ago, dhacker56 said:

NOT employees!  they are PRIVATE CONTRACTORS.

 

Of course. And this isn't a traditional non-compete agreement either (which is usually used when someone leaves a company).

 

They did sign a membership agreement with the PGA Tour, though. By playing LIV Golf, they have violated the terms of that membership agreement. 

 

So regardless of whether they're employees (they're not) or whether they're contractors (they are), the ONLY question is whether those terms are lawful or unlawful. We don't know which way the courts will rule, but this goes way beyond the employee vs contractor distinction at this point. 

[caniac6]

4 minutes ago, dhacker56 said:

NOT employees!  they are PRIVATE CONTRACTORS.

Doesn’t the person, or company, paying the money get to decide which private contractor works for them? Also, doesn’t the person, or company that hires the private contractor also gets to fire the private contractor if the contractor doesn’t live up to the terms of the contract?

[smashdn]

16 minutes ago, lowndes said:

We are conflating issues a bit but if you are a full time employee and your employer wants to restrict you from consulting for a competitor then they 100% can.  I’m a lawyer and my firm prohibits me from practicing law outside of the firm.  That is certainly legal.

 

Can they pick and choose which competitors they will allow and which they will not?  When you allow players to float between the PGAT and DP Tour and the PGAT and Japan Tour or Asian Tour, how do you then have ground to bar a PGAT player from playing a LIV event?  I run into this a bunch when rules are selectively applied or not applied.  You let so and so get away with X, now that I have done X you can't punish me as you are applying the rules selectively and unfairly.

[Pastit]

1 minute ago, lowndes said:

Well fortunately I don’t need to put posts from a golf message board on my resume.

 

I have no idea what your post means otherwise.  I’m not comparing anything hence why I lead off the previous post as I did.

You are sir. Your contract term is entirely reasonable IMO as you’d likely be using your local connections etc in “ moonlighting “ or whatever. You are the APPLE. 

 

Golf pro’s travel widely by the nature of their tours and no effect is felt by their doing so in connection with their membership of the PGA Tour. As others have just pointed out above, the PGAT allows play on many other tours; save LIV. That looks like a triable issue to me and equals PEARS.