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

[Soloman1]

A 501(c)(6) nonprofit certainly cannot restrain trade, act as a for profit company would related to competition, collude with others to restrain trade or promote only one brand. It must promote all forms of professional golf for its members. Which, by the way, is the expressed purpose of the PGA Tour 501(c)6) in its filings - to promote professional golf worldwide.

 

LIV is not a nonprofit, so it can do as it wishes.

[lowndes]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

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.

It’s hard to compare everyday businesses to what arguably the PGA Tour is.  When you are the only game in town then that is really when anti-trust and monopoly laws come into play.  That’s why I said we are conflating issues a bit.  For two reasons, (1) PGA tour players are not employees and (2) arguably the PGA Tour is the only game in town.

 

In your situation, let’s say you are a salesman at a widget company.  Could that company state you could go consult for ABC widget company but not XYZ widget company?  And if you work for XYZ widget company then we will terminate your employment.  Yes, I think that is perfectly legal.

 

obligatory this is a greatly simplified post since some on here don’t realize we are not writing legal memos.  Just having fun on a golf message board.

 

 

[FriedEgg]

bottom line of it all - the lawyers always WIN!

 

 

 

[oikos1]

41 minutes ago, physasst said:

I think every player on the PGAT signed with the understanding that they were to abide by tour guidelines. 

Correct.  And now they are challenging whether or not the PGA Tour has the right to impose and act upon such guidelines.

 

By the way, this has happened with business's over the course of history.  Imposing rules and requiring employees to sign contracts that when actually challenged in a court of law do not hold up and said business is required, by law, to change it's practices.

 

In other words, just because the PGA Tour puts wording in it's contracts that require players to do certain things doesn't necessarily mean it follows the law.

[Danielson]

43 minutes ago, Shortgamemagic said:

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

 

You leaving your job for a company you helped create, then suing the old one. It's even better.

[m052310]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I think you could argue that the PGAT, which they would otherwise have qualified for, carry a tour card, and be exempt upon, is the only realistic avenue for earning enough OWGR points to qualify for the majors.

 

Restricting them from continuing to play the FEC and other PGAT events, then, is far MORE than purely monetary, and stopping their access to those majors that they otherwise could earn spots in is irreparable harm. 

Absolutely they can argue that, and they pretty much are in the motion for the TRO (page 22-23). Whether that get's the judge there, well, that's up to the judge. And, of course, irreparable harm is only one of the things needed for the injunction.    

[jgonz69]

6 minutes ago, Pastit said:

I’d like to thank everyone posting in here today and distracting me from the Muirfield golf. The ladies couldn’t get it up to the hole from what little I saw. 
 

I’m off for fish and chips now so thanks to everyone for the great banter - even the lawyer with a fool for a client. Y’all have a nice day now. 

Thanks for admitting you were just here to troll and insult certain members. That explains a lot of your responses.

[Krt22]

31 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.

 

If there was no contract with stipulations to be a PGAT member, we would not be having these discussions, the players would be free to do as they wish.

 

I most certainly cannot go consult outside of my company in the same space. I am reminded yearly in compliance training of all the things I cannot do that might turn into a conflict of interest or IP issue. 

 

In sectors where labor is more of a commodity, these sorts of stipulations typically don't exist.  In sectors where the labor/talent is integral to the business, you don't have that freedom without risking termination from either side. 

 

[maowv]

Well, you fellas have been busy this morning.

 

Read the entire 106 page complaint with the required level of interest that my 25 year litigation lawyer brain demanded. A lot to unpack but some things appear quite certin at this stage.

 

1. Lawyers are going to milk this case for years so they can feed at the Saudi trough just like the 11 plaintiffs have.

 

2. This is not going to be good for anyone involved and most certainly not going to "grow the game" in any manner whatsoever. This is going to be ugly for the sport, no way around that now.

 

3. Injunctive relief? They filed in a likely favorable venue but that will still be determined more by the judicial draw than by the venue itself. 

 

4. If/when this gets to the discovery phase, it will get very ugly for many. Phil Mickelson's public reputation may very well be destroyed beyond repair as he has sought out a seat at the head of the table as lead plaintiff (and with his past quotes/apologies/stumbles). He will prove what most of us already know, that he is not as smart as he thinks he is. These players are now swimming with open wounds in Orca-infested waters; very smart Orcas, on both sides; very mean Orcas, on both sides. I don't care which college or university any of these players attended to play their college golf, they are now in far above their intellectual pay grades. it's going to be ugly and it will leak out as it always does. (Yes, I chose Orca-infested rather than shark because Orcas are the apex predator of the ocean, not the Great White Norman).

 

5. The complaint contains a lot of fluff, unnecessary fluff in my opinion, that is intended to harm the PGA Tour as much or more than it can arguably help the plaintiffs. This thing reads like a hostile takeover attempt to me. In essence, the LIV players should get to dictate policy to the PGA Tour, the Euro Tour, the PGA of America, Augusta National, and the R&A. It smells of Greg Norman and Saudi arrogance (but in fairness I am not a fan of Greg Norman nor the Saudis). 

 

6. These 11 players have been economically harmed by the PGA Tour ban? Didn't they leave for greener pastures? Did any single one of them take a pay cut in 2022? Oh, the discovery phase is going to be a mess for them.

 

7. Alleging what amounts to a conspiracy with the PGA of America, Augusta National and the R&A????? Is that an attempt to win over some hearts and minds within those organizations who get a vote on OWGR points issues? By claiming the PGA Tour is strong-arming the PGA, Augusta and the R&A into decisions is indirectly alleging that those organizations are powerless to resist the PGA Tour. Again, is that a winning argument? Are you not forcing those entities to take a position and if so, does anyone think that brings them over in defense of LIV?

 

I could go on but what is the point? My military father taught many life lessons to my brother and I. One of those involved having ones cake and wanting to eat it too. The LIV players want no consequences for their decisions which I suppose is not unique in these times we now live in. Personally, I think they cast too broad of a net with this complaint by trying to take down the entire world of professional golf, by casting Jay Monahan as Golf Emporer and everyone else as helpless refugees just trying to avoid being punished by the Ponte Vedre Police.

 

Whatever ones position is on Norman/Phil and the rest, there is no argument that they have any intention to do something good for the game of golf. They are interested in doing what is best for their own personal bank account and nothing more. Nothing more.

Edited August 4, 2022 by maowv

[TwistedSister]

37 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

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?

My point exactly! My son was a 1099 employee for a while and that's the way his contract worked.  And the Contractor does not have to have cause to terminate the contract.  Though IMO the PGAT has cause as the LIV golfers violated one of the provisions in their contract.

[betarhoalphadelta]

29 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

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.

 

From the 2019-20 PGA Tour Handbook, foreign players who have a "home tour" with which they are aligned by their country of origin do not require releases to play on their home tours. I.e. Ian Poulter can play on the DP World Tour as much as he wants without a release, but can't play on the Asian Tour unless he asks for a release. Hideki can play as much as he wants on the Japan tour without a release, but would require a release to play a tournament on the Asian Tour (which doesn't include Japan). Bryson DeChambeau can't play on any foreign tour without a release, as he is a US-born player. 

 

However, the LIV tour is completely different. The Handbook says that no releases will be granted for events in North America. 5 of 8 LIV events were scheduled for North America. The Handbook says that only 3 releases will be granted for each player, with the potential for an additional release for each (5) PGA Tour tournaments a player participates in above 15. The LIV tour in 2022 is 8 events, moving to 14 in 2023. And LIV's designed format for a 48-man limited field with TEAM PLAY capacity is intended not to have random PGAT members cycling through, each one only playing in 3 events per year. The goal is to have 12 stable teams of 4 players each (future expansion to 6 players with 4 chosen for each event) who play in EVERY event on the LIV circuit. 

 

So in order to appease LIV, the PGA Tour would be forced to violate their own handbook by granting releases for North American tournaments, and would be forced to violate their own handbook by granting FAR more releases than the (3) they currently allow. 

 

This is why the lawsuit doesn't claim that the North American provision is unlawful. It's why the lawsuit doesn't claim that the limit on 3 events is unlawful. It claims that the entire Conflicting Event release requirement is unlawful. They're saying the PGA Tournament can't require a player to ask for permission to play elsewhere, any time, for any reason. 

[mokedaddy]

7 minutes ago, maowv said:

Well, you fellas have been busy this morning.

 

Read the entire 106 page complaint with the required level of interest that my 25 year litigation lawyer brain demanded. A lot to unpack but some things appear quite certin at this stage.

 

1. Lawyers are going to milk this case for years so they can feed at the Saudi trough just like the 11 plaintiffs have.

 

2. This is not going to be good for anyone involved and most certainly not going to "grow the game" in any manner whatsoever. This is going to be ugly for the sport, no way around that now.

 

3. Injunctive relief? They filed in a likely favorable venue but that will still be determined more by the judicial draw than by the venue itself. 

 

4. If/when this gets to the discovery phase, it will get very ugly for many. Phil Mickelson's public reputation may very well be destroyed beyond repair as he has sought out a seat at the head of the table as lead plaintiff (and with his past quotes/apologies/stumbles). He will prove what most of us already know, that he is not as smart as he thinks he is. These players are now swimming with open wounds in Orca-infested waters; very smart Orcas, on both sides; very mean Orcas, on both sides. I don't care which college or university any of these players attended to play their college golf, they are now in far above their intellectual pay grades. it's going to be ugly and it will leak out as it always does. (Yes, I chose Orca-infested rather than shark because Orcas are the apex predator of the ocean, not the Great White Norman).

 

5. The complaint contains a lot of fluff, unnecessary fluff in my opinion, that is intended to harm the PGA Tour as much or more than it can arguably help the plaintiffs. This thing reads like a hostile takeover attempt to me. In essence, the LIV players should get to dictate policy to the PGA Tour, the Euro Tour, the PGA of America, Augusta National, and the R&A. It smells of Greg Norman and Saudi arrogance (but in fairness I am not a fan of Greg Norman or the Saudis). 

 

6. These 11 players have been economically harmed by the PGA Tour ban? Didn't they leave for greener pastures? Did any single one of them take a pay cut in 2022? Oh, the discovery phase is going to be a mess for them.

 

7. Alleging what amounts to a conspiracy with the PGA of America, Augusta National and the R&A????? Is that an attempt to win over some hearts and minds within those organizations who get a vote on OWGR points issues? By claiming the PGA Tour is strong-arming the PGA, Augusta and the R&A into decisions is indirectly alleging that those organizations are powerless to resist the PGA Tour. Again, is that a winning argument? Are you not forcing those entities to take a position and if so, does anyone think that brings them over in defense of LIV?

 

I could go on but what is the point? My military father taught many life lessons to my brother and I. One of those involved having ones cake and wanting to eat it too. The LIV players want no consequences for the decisions which I suppose is not unique in these times we now live in. Personally, I think they cast too broad of a net with this complaint by trying to take down the entire world of professional golf, by casting Jay Manahan as Golf Emporer and everyone else as helpless refugees just trying to avoid being punished by the Ponte Vedre Police.

 

Whatever ones position is on Norman/Phil and the rest, there is no argument that they have any intention to do something good for the game of golf. They are interested in doing what is best for their own personal bank account and nothing more. Nothing more.

Don’t forget the skeletons in the closet of the Pga Tour.  This is definitely going to make everyone look bad.

[Krt22]

10 minutes ago, maowv said:

Well, you fellas have been busy this morning.

 

Read the entire 106 page complaint with the required level of interest that my 25 year litigation lawyer brain demanded. A lot to unpack but some things appear quite certin at this stage.

 

1. Lawyers are going to milk this case for years so they can feed at the Saudi trough just like the 11 plaintiffs have.

 

 

Winner winner chicken dinner 🤣

[smashdn]

15 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

If there was no contract with stipulations to be a PGAT member, we would not be having these discussions, the players would be free to do as they wish.

 

I most certainly cannot go consult outside of my company in the same space. I am reminded yearly in compliance training of all the things I cannot do that might turn into a conflict of interest or IP issue. 

 

In sectors where labor is more of a commodity, these sorts of stipulations typically don't exist.  In sectors where the labor/talent is integral to the business, you don't have that freedom without risking termination from either side. 

 

 

I think the selective and incongruous enforcement of the stipulations within the contract are an issue.

[Robby_Hughey]

10 minutes ago, maowv said:

Well, you fellas have been busy this morning.

 

Read the entire 106 page complaint with the required level of interest that my 25 year litigation lawyer brain demanded. A lot to unpack but some things appear quite certin at this stage.

 

1. Lawyers are going to milk this case for years so they can feed at the Saudi trough just like the 11 plaintiffs have.

 

2. This is not going to be good for anyone involved and most certainly not going to "grow the game" in any manner whatsoever. This is going to be ugly for the sport, no way around that now.

 

3. Injunctive relief? They filed in a likely favorable venue but that will still be determined more by the judicial draw than by the venue itself. 

 

4. If/when this gets to the discovery phase, it will get very ugly for many. Phil Mickelson's public reputation may very well be destroyed beyond repair as he has sought out a seat at the head of the table as lead plaintiff (and with his past quotes/apologies/stumbles). He will prove what most of us already know, that he is not as smart as he thinks he is. These palyers are now swimming with open wounds in shart-infested waters; very smart sharks, on both sides; very mean sharks, on both sides. I don't care which college or university any of these players attended to play their college golf, they are now in far above their intellectual pay grades. it's going to be ugly and it will leak out as it always does.

 

5. The complaint contains a lot of fluff, unnecessary fluff in my opinion, that is intended to harm the PGA Tour as much or more than it can arguably help the plaintiffs. This thing reads like a hostile takeover attempt to me. In essence, the LIV players should get to dictate policy to the PGA Tour, the Euro Tour, the PGA of America, Augusta National, and the R&A. It smells of Greg Norman and Saudi arrogance (but in fairness I am not a fan of Greg Norman or the Saudis). 

 

6. These 11 players have been economically harmed by the PGA Tour ban? Didn't they leave for greener pastures? Did any single one of them take a pay cut in 2022? Oh, the discovery phase is going to be a mess for them.

 

7. Alleging what amounts to a conspiracy with the PGA of AMerica, Augusta National and the R&A????? Is that an attempt to win over some hearts and minds within those organizatins who get a vote on OWGR points issues? By claiming the PGA Tour is strong-arming the PGA, Augusta and the R&A into decisions is indirectly alleging that those organizations are powerless to resist the PGA Tour. Again, is that a winning argument? Are you not forcing those entities to take a position and if so, does anyone think that brings them over in defense of LIV?

 

I could go on but what is the point? My military father taught many life lessons to my brother and I. One of those involved having ones cake and wanting to eat it too. The LIV players want no consequences for the decisions which I suppose is not unique in these times we now live in. Personally, I think they cast too broad of a net with this complaint by trying to take down the entire world of professional golf, by casting Jay Manahan as Golf Emporer and everyone else as helpless refugees just trying to avoid being punished by the Ponte Vedre Police.

 

Whatever ones position is on Norman/Phil and the rest, there is no argument that they have any intention to do something good for the game of golf. They are interested in doing what is best for their own personal bank account and nothing more. Nothing more.

This sums it up perfectly. Not sure anything can be debated at this point. Well done. 

[CDM]

16 hours ago, Ghost of Snead said:

 

The PGA Tour requires that players sign a membership agreement with a non-compete clause. You can bet that membership agreement has been vetted by the Tour's lawyers to see if will stand up in court. This was discussed ad nauseam in the other thread so best we let the lawyers hash it out.

 

I don't think it is a true "non compete"....just saying because if it is a true non-compete the PGAT is in trouble on the sole fact the players are not paid at all, they "dig it out of the dirt" as everyone states.     Under federal law it would violate the freedom of work, right/employment at will aspects and though many say "well they signed it",  just because someone signs it, it does not make it legal in the eyes of law.  Happens all the time though and honestly nothing gets corrected until something goes sideways and ends up in court...   

 

I have a feeling since players can request releases, etc it is not a true non compete which would bode very well for the PGAT.   

[oikos1]

In the past 50 years, how many signed contracts, NDA's and waivers have held up in court?  It sure isn't 100%.  There also is a reason they requested a jury trial to go up against the big bad wolf and all of the complaining about why the players said they were leaving to go play in the LIV is a bunch of minutiae and will be meaningless in court.  This is all about whether the PGA Tour can do what they are doing.

 

And I don't see how it could get any worse for Phil.  What else is there to "discover"?

 

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by oikos1

[PhilsFanDrew]

40 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

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.

 

I think what the players lawyers will try to do is show how the PGA Tour's guidelines and rules are not contractually binding and if they can demonstrate that there have been occasions the tour ignores its own rules/guidelines when it suits their interests they can't simply point to "It's the rules" as enough justification to sanction otherwise qualifying players from competing in tour events. 

 

Even more intriguing is the case Gooch, Swafford, and Jones are presenting.  Now guys like DJ, Brooks, Bryson, and Phil who got large multiyear deals to come to LIV probably wouldn't be able to make their same case.  I'm not 100% sure Gooch, Swafford, or Jones were given any long term contract to come to LIV as it may have just been a guaranteed appearance fee + any winnings.  If that is the case they may be able to demonstrate they did not leave the PGA Tour with the intentions to sign with LIV full time, therefore a sanction that treats them as if they did is unwarranted. 

[Krt22]

3 minutes ago, CDM said:

 

I don't think it is a true "non compete"....just saying because if it is a true non-compete the PGAT is in trouble on the sole fact the players are not paid at all, they "dig it out of the dirt" as everyone states.     Under federal law it would violate the freedom of work, right/employment at will aspects and though many say "well they signed it",  just because someone signs it, it does not make it legal in the eyes of law.  Happens all the time though and honestly nothing gets corrected until something goes sideways and ends up in court...   

 

I have a feeling since players can request releases, etc it is not a true non compete which would bode very well for the PGAT.   

I am not sure if the pay is relevant. The contract they sign is the stipulations to be member of the tour. If you violate those stipulations, you have your membership suspended. You can request a release, that doesn't mean the tour is obliged to grant it. And just because they have granted it in the past, doesn't mean they have to always do it. I am not sure if this has anything to do with federal labor laws

[bscinstnct]

8 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

In the past 50 years, how many signed contracts, NDA's and waivers have held up in court?  It sure isn't 100%.  There also is a reason they requested a jury trial to go up against the big bad wolf and all of the complaining about why the players said they were leaving to go play in the LIV is a bunch of minutiae and will be meaningless in court.  This is all about whether the PGA can do what they are doing.

 

And I don't see how it could get any worse for Phil.  What else is their to "discover"?

 

 

 

The pga tour is the defendant. Just takes one person on the jury to not buy the allegations and the plaintiffs are out of luck. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by bscinstnct

[Krt22]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

 

The pga tour is the defendant. Just takes one person on the jury to not buy the allegations and it the plaintiffs are out of luck. 

Would there be a jury in such a case? 

[oikos1]

3 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

The pga tour is the defendant. Just takes one person on the jury to not buy the allegations and the plaintiffs are out of luck. 

State Court Jury Verdicts: Unanimity Not Always Required

In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, nearly every state requires the jury to produce a unanimous verdict.

For civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.

[bscinstnct]

13 hours ago, Krt22 said:

Would there be a jury in such a case? 

 

I dunno. Was just replying to oik sayin the suit requested one. 

 

13 hours ago, oikos1 said:

State Court Jury Verdicts: Unanimity Not Always Required

In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, nearly every state requires the jury to produce a unanimous verdict.

For civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.

 

Ahh, thanks yes I see this….

 

 

[lowndes]

41 minutes ago, maowv said:

Well, you fellas have been busy this morning.

 

Read the entire 106 page complaint with the required level of interest that my 25 year litigation lawyer brain demanded. A lot to unpack but some things appear quite certin at this stage.

 

1. Lawyers are going to milk this case for years so they can feed at the Saudi trough just like the 11 plaintiffs have.

 

2. This is not going to be good for anyone involved and most certainly not going to "grow the game" in any manner whatsoever. This is going to be ugly for the sport, no way around that now.

 

3. Injunctive relief? They filed in a likely favorable venue but that will still be determined more by the judicial draw than by the venue itself. 

 

4. If/when this gets to the discovery phase, it will get very ugly for many. Phil Mickelson's public reputation may very well be destroyed beyond repair as he has sought out a seat at the head of the table as lead plaintiff (and with his past quotes/apologies/stumbles). He will prove what most of us already know, that he is not as smart as he thinks he is. These players are now swimming with open wounds in Orca-infested waters; very smart Orcas, on both sides; very mean Orcas, on both sides. I don't care which college or university any of these players attended to play their college golf, they are now in far above their intellectual pay grades. it's going to be ugly and it will leak out as it always does. (Yes, I chose Orca-infested rather than shark because Orcas are the apex predator of the ocean, not the Great White Norman).

 

5. The complaint contains a lot of fluff, unnecessary fluff in my opinion, that is intended to harm the PGA Tour as much or more than it can arguably help the plaintiffs. This thing reads like a hostile takeover attempt to me. In essence, the LIV players should get to dictate policy to the PGA Tour, the Euro Tour, the PGA of America, Augusta National, and the R&A. It smells of Greg Norman and Saudi arrogance (but in fairness I am not a fan of Greg Norman or the Saudis). 

 

6. These 11 players have been economically harmed by the PGA Tour ban? Didn't they leave for greener pastures? Did any single one of them take a pay cut in 2022? Oh, the discovery phase is going to be a mess for them.

 

7. Alleging what amounts to a conspiracy with the PGA of America, Augusta National and the R&A????? Is that an attempt to win over some hearts and minds within those organizations who get a vote on OWGR points issues? By claiming the PGA Tour is strong-arming the PGA, Augusta and the R&A into decisions is indirectly alleging that those organizations are powerless to resist the PGA Tour. Again, is that a winning argument? Are you not forcing those entities to take a position and if so, does anyone think that brings them over in defense of LIV?

 

I could go on but what is the point? My military father taught many life lessons to my brother and I. One of those involved having ones cake and wanting to eat it too. The LIV players want no consequences for the decisions which I suppose is not unique in these times we now live in. Personally, I think they cast too broad of a net with this complaint by trying to take down the entire world of professional golf, by casting Jay Manahan as Golf Emporer and everyone else as helpless refugees just trying to avoid being punished by the Ponte Vedre Police.

 

Whatever ones position is on Norman/Phil and the rest, there is no argument that they have any intention to do something good for the game of golf. They are interested in doing what is best for their own personal bank account and nothing more. Nothing more.

Great post - what are your thoughts on potential damages?  The complaint read more like a complaint from LIV than the actual players who filed the complaint.  For example, the complaint mentions that the PGA Tours actions raised the cost of entry by requiring LIV to pay massive signing bonuses.  That is a benefit to the players suing.
 

I personally am going to be surprised if the PGA Tour loses whenever this is ultimately resolved in 10 years or so but at the end of the day just don’t see the economic damages for the players.

[lowndes]

3 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

State Court Jury Verdicts: Unanimity Not Always Required

In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, nearly every state requires the jury to produce a unanimous verdict.

For civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.

This is in federal court - not state.

[oikos1]

This is where it will all come back to:

 

"Defined under Section 501(c) (6) as “an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest.”

 

I've held this stance from the beginning.  It makes zero sense for the PGA Tour to not allow the players to play in LIV events.

 

"Banning Plaintiffs and other top professional golfers from its own events degrades the Tour's strength of field and diminishes the quality of the product that it offers to golf fans by depriving them from seeing many top golfers participate in Tour events," the lawsuit reads. "The only conceivable benefit to the Tour from degrading its own product in this manner is the destruction of competition. Indeed, the Tour has conceded its nakedly anticompetitive purpose in attacking and injuring the players."

 

https://www.insider.com/liv-golf-antitrust-lawsuit-pga-tour-predatory-behavior-2022-8

[aus10KC]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

Correct.  And now they are challenging whether or not the PGA Tour has the right to impose and act upon such guidelines.

 

By the way, this has happened with business's over the course of history.  Imposing rules and requiring employees to sign contracts that when actually challenged in a court of law do not hold up and said business is required, by law, to change it's practices.

 

In other words, just because the PGA Tour puts wording in it's contracts that require players to do certain things doesn't necessarily mean it follows the law.

 

Players are not employees.

 

PGAT is not their employer, it's an organization in which players are members of. The organization puts on events for their members.

 

Everyone is trying to put a comparison to it, business or other sports league and I just don't know if there is a good comparison as the PGAT is a pretty unique organization. 

 

Do the players even want to be employees? The way it's setup gives them flexibility. 

[bscinstnct]

4 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

This is where it will all come back to:

 

"Defined under Section 501(c) (6) as “an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest.”

 

I've held this stance from the beginning.  It makes zero sense for the PGA Tour to not allow the players to play in LIV events.

 

"Banning Plaintiffs and other top professional golfers from its own events degrades the Tour's strength of field and diminishes the quality of the product that it offers to golf fans by depriving them from seeing many top golfers participate in Tour events," the lawsuit reads. "The only conceivable benefit to the Tour from degrading its own product in this manner is the destruction of competition. Indeed, the Tour has conceded its nakedly anticompetitive purpose in attacking and injuring the players."

 

https://www.insider.com/liv-golf-antitrust-lawsuit-pga-tour-predatory-behavior-2022-8

 

But this is not the Tour arbitrarily discriminating and not allowing “top professionals” in their events.

 

The liv is a rival tour. The LIVs success harms the pga tour. The players they hired compete against the tours own tournaments at the same time. They are competing for the same fan revenue. 
 

It’s so obvious that the tour is under no obligation to allow players who are fully committed and paid to play on a rival golf tour to play in their events. 
 

If liv was a couple of events with no conflict that would be different than and 8 event tour (expanding to 14 events) that is a direct competitor. 

[cristphoto]

Didn't the US Department of Justice begin an anti-trust investigation into the PGA Tour's practices?  If true, that could be problematic.  

[NJBigFish22]

5 minutes ago, lowndes said:

 

I personally am going to be surprised if the PGA Tour loses whenever this is ultimately resolved in 10 years or so but at the end of the day just don’t see the economic damages for the players.

I sort of agree with you, that I don’t see them losing, but at what cost?  In my opinion, I see this moving forward in the courts.  At what point after discovery, does the PGAT take too big of a hit from a PR standpoint?  Not sure if the LIV players care about image at this point.  If the Saudi’s are funding this legal challenge, then the PGAT may actually run out of money (not literally), but there has to be a limit?  At what cost are both parties willing to ruin professional golf worldwide?  Are the economic damages meaningless to the players if the outcome is for them to move fully between both, basically sort of like double dipping? Somehow I see a settlement/merger/alliance happening in late December 2023 by the cover of night.