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

[Pastit]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

How can the plaintiffs assert that the pga tour has a monopoly when

 

Within months they organized a rival tour with 8 events, half in the US, and expanding to 14 events within one year. 
 

And they have hired a large percent of their players from the pga tour. 
 

The liv itself is proof there is no monopoly. 
 

The tour may have had an issue if liv wasn’t one or two events that the pga tour forbade players to participate in. But clearly an entire rival league is something that the pga tour would suspend/ban players who joined. 

It’s more what we call here a restrictive practice than a monopoly. I.E by seeking to exclude a section of the community from entry to events. 

[m052310]

7 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

How long does it take you to read a 106 page long complaint

Dunno (yet) but the 80ish pages I made it through (skipping jurisdictional stuff and skimming summary/repeat portions) took an hour and a half-ish. I read a lot of these things for work, though - and I read closer in some parts than others. I wouldn't say that's my normal reading speed (not a speed-reader), but I read close enough to appreciate the lawyers putting out a good filing. It's double or 1.5 spaced, so its not *really 106 pages....

[capking]

16 minutes ago, RobS said:

I don't know much about Monahan but negotiating long term TV deal at a 70% premium for a sport that not many people watch shows at least some degree of competency. 

To be fair I think every sports league has had a dramatic increase in TV revenue 

[bladehunter]

5 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I have introduced many people to the game over the years.  Most like the game, hate the image and cost of it.  Its a snooty sport imo.  I think it can stand to get a face lift.

I don’t doubt that.  But we should be railing against the lax world. Not embracing the no care attitude.  In my opinion.   
 

at any rate. Why do people join something and immediately want to change it ?   The game as you said includes the idea that your playing the sport of kings that is played by the common man too.  You get to be exceptional for the day .  If it’s took down the level of a 12 year olds birthday party.  Well - what’s special about that ? Anywho. 
 

the _LIV lawsuit is an attempt at their players to stay relevant.  Their exhibition needs their guys to retain their  current tier so that they have any hopes of playing majors and getting world rankings points a couple years down the road.  Otherwise it doesn’t fit.  Why are a bunch of guys who claimed they don’t want to play 15 events , trying to now play 29 events on two tours ??? Loads of lying going on.  

[Titleist99]

18 minutes ago, Pmookie said:

Good Lord, they joined another Tour, GO AWAY! If a kid leaves a college and goes to play for another school, his previous school isn’t going to let him play for them on his off weeks! This is idiotic.

Quit a company, go to a competitor,  then go back and ask to play in the company softball tournament from your prior employer. Yeah. How would that work?!

Just go away!!!!!

Totally agree.....I guess Professional golf works different than everyday life........

[Soloman1]

If the LIV players are a bunch of no talent, B flight hacks and has beens, why do people care?

 

Why do people carry the water for the PGA Tour or LIV?

 

It’s like taking sides between Sam’s Club and Costco or McDonald’s and Burger King. Unless you’re cashing checks from either one, I just don’t get it.

 

They’re different and neither affects your life, your work, your family, your income or your love/hate of playing golf. I think it’s like watching little old ladies bickering about needlepoint.

[capking]

It’s going to be interesting to see how many more jump ship after the Fed Ex Cup, seems like international players are more prone to it.

[johnseg]

This whole thing goes back to the James Hahn tweet. It is all related. We now see players suing the Tour even though they wanted to play on another tour because it is unfair.

 

If you aren't happy walk away and don't look back. The Majors? Walk away and don't look back. You don't want to be part of it, cut all ties.

[bscinstnct]

11 minutes ago, Pastit said:

It’s more what we call here a restrictive practice than a monopoly. I.E by seeking to exclude a section of the community from entry to events. 

 

Well they refer to it as a monopoly repeatedly. 
 

And while they position the issue as the tour not allowing players to, “play in events sponsored by the new entrant”

 

I assume the tour will assert liv is an entire golf tour in direct competition as an entity and liv players have commitments to this new tour and are employed by it.

 

As opposed to a struggling little “new entrant”  with a couple of events. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by bscinstnct

[aus10KC]

Just now, capking said:

It’s going to be interesting to see how many more jump ship after the Fed Ex Cup, seems like international players are more prone to it.

 

Both Cam and Hideki would probably have an LIV even in their respective home countries. I know Cam has complained about not being able to play in the Australian Open previously, not sure what would stop him this time? Hero World Challenge? When Tiger calls you answer, lol. 

[jdl]

17 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

How can the plaintiffs assert that the pga tour has a monopoly when

 

Within months they organized a rival tour with 8 events, half in the US, and expanding to 14 events within one year. 
 

And they have hired a large percent of their players from the pga tour. 
 

The liv itself is proof there is no monopoly. 
 

The tour may have had an issue if liv was one or two events that the pga tour forbade players to participate in. But clearly an entire rival league is something that the pga tour would suspend/ban players who joined. 

And they're making big $$!

 

[bladehunter]

8 minutes ago, Pastit said:

It’s more what we call here a restrictive practice than a monopoly. I.E by seeking to exclude a section of the community from entry to events. 

Could they not get around that by saying “ ok you broke the bylaws …. You're suspended for 3 years” . Most of them would lose status in that time.  Then make them come through and qualify like anyone else.  That’s not blocking access.  That’s an access pause not a denial.  
 

Then we’d see how many could Monday  qualify or make it through the korn ferry.  That would be good comedy.  
 

i guess I can possibly see them beating a ban.  I don’t know if I see them beating a suspension long enough to lose status. I’d find it hard to believe that any business wile not be allowed to have any teeth in a non compete or for a membership if that’s the angle they’re forced to quantify it in.  We all know that membership has rules.  

[RobS]

10 minutes ago, capking said:

To be fair I think every sports league has had a dramatic increase in TV revenue 

Media right growth rates are at just under 5% annual across major sports.  Timing and market conditions certainly play a factor with increases but I wouldn't use them to discredit anyone negotiating a significant deal.

[jubilee_links]

The existing tours banning players is right in the LIV playbook - the whole concept is a power move  and now they can (try) to prove in court that they are more powerful than PGA tour etc.

 

One thing I have not got my head round was what happens if the PGAt and DPt did nothing. All the rhetoric from them and what thier 'product' is about legacy, history and competition. You would have a few years where existing exemptions would play out but if LIV players were allowed to play in PGA events but end up not playing enough events/win enough to retain cards then the issue is resolved. Coupled with the idea that LIV makes players lazy and uncompetative then they would not be troubling the PGAt leaderboards or fedex cup standings.....

If the PGAt product is so strong then they should feel confident they could retain sponsorship/media deals regardless if whether some top players are not regularly on the tour.....

To me they have been goaded into a trap by LIV with bans and legal action -

[bladehunter]

6 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Well they refer to it as a monopoly repeatedly. 
 

And while they position the issue as the tour not allowing players to, “play in events sponsored by the new entrant”

 

I assume the tour will assert liv is an entire golf tour in direct competition as an entity and liv players have commitments to this new tour and are employed by it.

 

As opposed to a struggling little “new entrant”  with a couple of events. 

Yep. Monopoly is the wrong angle. It’s like if Vanderbilt starts an oil company and hits it big with contacts for most  railroads (which he owns ) , the military and the hospitals for the whole country ( remember they still used oil and kerosene for light ).  And then sued standard oil  and claimed a monopoly-   They’d be laughed out of court.    
 

this smells the same to me.   Only angle I see if players getting banned after being granted x # of years exemptions.  
 

if they had rules on paper that gave out suspensions greater than those years of exemption- then that’s a de facto ban. And that type ban should stand up.  So it depends on how in a row their ducks were.  If they were playing loose and issuing suspensions from their back pockets. Then they may have issues. Only out then maybe if the players advisory votes on the suspensions and they have precedent  to show from the past to support the lengths.  
 

 

We’re going to get a peek behind the curtain before this is over with.  But a monopoly?  That’s absolutely hilarious.  

[SheriffBooth]

7 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Well they refer to it as a monopoly repeatedly. 
 

And while they position the issue as the tour not allowing players to, “play in events sponsored by the new entrant”

 

I assume the tour will assert liv is an entire golf tour in direct competition as an entity and liv players have commitments to this new tour and are employed by it.

 

As opposed to a struggling little “new entrant”  with a couple of events. 

 

This is the intellectual leap that I'm having trouble with as well.  Plaintiffs are asserting that the PGA Tour's "monopoly" has destroyed competition, while at the same time Plaintiffs are indeed playing on a competitive tour and making lots of money while doing so.  For a very similar reason I think the monopsony arguments ring hollow too.  Joel Dahmen's point, while simple, is very well taken - go make money and play on LIV if you want, but don't act like the PGA Tour is making you do it, or act entitled to enjoy the benefits of both at the same time.

[bscinstnct]

Well, I hope the tour still got this Skadden dude

 

https://www.skadden.com/professionals/m/mishkin-jeffrey-a

[mokedaddy]

It’s interesting the lawsuit mentions the suspensions of Phil in March for two months and then indefinitely and Bryson through March 2023 for talking to players.  

Edited August 3, 2022 by mokedaddy

[tatertot]

26 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

If the LIV players are a bunch of no talent, B flight hacks and has beens, why do people care?

 

Why do people carry the water for the PGA Tour or LIV?

 

It’s like taking sides between Sam’s Club and Costco or McDonald’s and Burger King. Unless you’re cashing checks from either one, I just don’t get it.

 

They’re different and neither affects your life, your work, your family, your income or your love/hate of playing golf. I think it’s like watching little old ladies bickering about needlepoint.

Because people enjoy the PGA Tour and don't want to see it destroyed?

[idrive]

55 minutes ago, CDM said:

I admit I was one of the few probably that hoped they could work out something.  Say 8 huge world wide events co-sponsored.  PGAT shuts down some the smaller events though I know it hurt some cities, but moves that money into other PGAT events and ALL OF US fans gets to see some better golf.....potentially...  sure looks like that crapped out.

 

Reducing the amount of some of the smaller tournaments, hurting some cities is not how you grow the game.

 

What you are suggesting would be doing just the opposite. I'd be willing the folks in Detroit and all of the other "smaller events" would agree with me.

 

29 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

If the LIV players are a bunch of no talent, B flight hacks and has beens, why do people care?

 

Why do people carry the water for the PGA Tour or LIV?

 

It’s like taking sides between Sam’s Club and Costco or McDonald’s and Burger King. Unless you’re cashing checks from either one, I just don’t get it.

 

They’re different and neither affects your life, your work, your family, your income or your love/hate of playing golf. I think it’s like watching little old ladies bickering about needlepoint.

 

Like you said. "I just don't get it"

 

There's quite a few of us that do.

 

[tatertot]

The PGA Tour is a complete monopoly.

 

Unless you count the:

 

DP World Tour

Japan Golf Tour

Australasia Tour

Sunshine Tour

Challenge Tour

Korn Ferry Tour

 

See ... TOTAL monopoly. Pro golfers only have 1 tour to ply their trade.

 

[jdl]

16 minutes ago, jubilee_links said:

The existing tours banning players is right in the LIV playbook - the whole concept is a power move  and now they can (try) to prove in court that they are more powerful than PGA tour etc.

 

One thing I have not got my head round was what happens if the PGAt and DPt did nothing. All the rhetoric from them and what thier 'product' is about legacy, history and competition. You would have a few years where existing exemptions would play out but if LIV players were allowed to play in PGA events but end up not playing enough events/win enough to retain cards then the issue is resolved. Coupled with the idea that LIV makes players lazy and uncompetative then they would not be troubling the PGAt leaderboards or fedex cup standings.....

If the PGAt product is so strong then they should feel confident they could retain sponsorship/media deals regardless if whether some top players are not regularly on the tour.....

To me they have been goaded into a trap by LIV with bans and legal action -

If they do nothing then eventually they become a feeder tour for LIV.

[SheriffBooth]

2 minutes ago, tatertot said:

The PGA Tour is a complete monopoly.

 

Unless you count the:

 

DP World Tour

Japan Golf Tour

Australasia Tour

Sunshine Tour

Challenge Tour

Korn Ferry Tour

 

See ... TOTAL monopoly. Pro golfers only have 1 tour to ply their trade.

 

 

In fairness, the Sherman Act applies to competition in the United States, and Korn Ferry is owned and operated by the PGA Tour.  But, I think I'd also argue that there's lots of ways to make money in the golf business in America, not just playing professional golf on the PGA Tour.  Now, touring pro might be the way to make the most money if you're good enough, but it's not the only way.  

[Soloman1]

9 minutes ago, tatertot said:

Because people enjoy the PGA Tour and don't want to see it destroyed?

 

The PGA Tour has 47 events scheduled for 2023 with massive purse increases.

 

Can you tell me what was destroyed?

[jubilee_links]

4 minutes ago, jdl said:

If they do nothing then eventually they become a feeder tour for LIV.

 

What would that mean in reality- is the aim of the PGAt to have the history, legacy, compatition or to be the richest tour

If the aim is to be the richest tour then they are screwed if someone turns up with more money -

[tatertot]

3 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

The PGA Tour has 47 events scheduled for 2023 with massive purse increases.

 

Can you tell me what was destroyed?

If I have to explain it to you, you haven't been paying attention.

 

You can be intentionally obtuse about anything and make debating impossible.

[jdl]

2 minutes ago, jubilee_links said:

 

What would that mean in reality- is the aim of the PGAt to have the history, legacy, compatition or to be the richest tour

If the aim is to be the richest tour then they are screwed if someone turns up with more money -

Right, they can't compete with the amount of money the LIV tour has. 

[bscinstnct]

22 minutes ago, SheriffBooth said:

 

This is the intellectual leap that I'm having trouble with as well.  Plaintiffs are asserting that the PGA Tour's "monopoly" has destroyed competition, while at the same time Plaintiffs are indeed playing on a competitive tour and making lots of money while doing so.  For a very similar reason I think the monopsony arguments ring hollow too.  Joel Dahmen's point, while simple, is very well taken - go make money and play on LIV if you want, but don't act like the PGA Tour is making you do it, or act entitled to enjoy the benefits of both at the same time.

 

I assume it may boil down to if “non-compete” agreements, in this case, are enforceable for pga tour players as independent contractors 

 

But, I think the primary reason the non-compete would be considered anticompetitive and use of monopoly power, would be if it prevented the players from working in their field 

 

But, in this case, they are working. For more money than they made before!

 

So, I’d think the tour can argue, go work, you just can’t work here ; )

 

 

[Soloman1]

 

 

12 minutes ago, idrive said:

Like you said. "I just don't get it"

 

There's quite a few of us that do.

 

Can you explain what it is you get? I'm not being adversarial, just curious about the reasoning.

 

I would also say that GolfWRX is a tiny percentage of very avid (bordering on obsessed) golfers. I think the average person or golfer doesn't give a hoot. 

[Soloman1]

7 minutes ago, tatertot said:

If I have to explain it to you, you haven't been paying attention.

 

You can be intentionally obtuse about anything and make debating impossible.

 

 

Thanks for the insult, but I pay attention pretty good.

 

I consider this a place for discussion, not a debate forum.

 

The simpler the question, the harder it can be to answer.