PGA Tour Pension

[lumberman2462]

Does anyone have the details on how it is set up?

 

I've heard of players earning a pension "point" for making a cut. But I've wondered if it's set up so that the players have input into how the funds are invested in their "account" or if the Tour just takes care of it.

 

I've also wondered if a player can elect to contribute a certain portion of his winnings each week?

 

 

This I've heard directly from a PGA Tour player, "Our pension is pretty $& good."

[Tmiller72]

A few years old, but this might help.

[url="http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-11-13/a-tour-pros-nest-egg"]http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-11-13/a-tour-pros-nest-egg[/url]

[Pert1862]

Wow. Didn't know all that! Great read. Thanks for sharing.

[justinp766]

Yea that sounds amazing!! .... didnt get to read how much vijay sings total pension could potentially be ...its 2:23 am and I am not a mathematics major.....

anyone who is good at math ... If you can figure out Tiger woods potential pensions , Vijays Pensions , Ernie and Phils Pension ....that would be pretty awesome of you ... pretty please!

[DLiver]

There are some guys who are getting (or going to get) huge payouts. A guy like Jay Haas, who has played well for a long time, is eligible for something like $225,000 a month according to some PGA guys I know.

The Tour also has ways to distribute funds to older players who missed out on the pension. Some of the older seniors (70+) play in 4-6 team events a year and are paid something like $16,000 an event plus prize money.

There is a mind boggling amount of $$$ in the PGA Tour.

[lumberman2462]

That's what I was looking for. Pretty interesting and the potential payouts are huge.

I couldn't even begin to calculate how much Phil, Tiger, Ernie or Vijay is going to have coming down the pike.

Think about guys like Tom Kite, Kenny Perry, Jay Haas, Fred Funk.....They are rarely considered in the list of All-Time-Greats but they played well and won tournaments for a long time. I'll bet their pensions are fully vested and huge. Champions Tour pension earnings can really help the cause too.

Wasn't the first year of the $10 MM FedEx Cup bonus paid directly into the pension plan?? I think I remember reading or hearing that somewhere. A ten-million dollar bump into your retirement plan would certainly help anyone's peace of mind about their old age.

[Mainlinegolfer]

And I thought the PGA Tour was "all about charities and giving back to local communities". Millionaire pros playing in tournaments (and relying on volunteers?) as if the tournament is equivalent to a society black-tie ball to raise money for local charities? The concept seems positively quaint in today's world of professional sports. (Not that there is anything wrong with professional sports).

The hypocrisy of the non-profit PGA Tour inherent in promoting its image and charitable endeavors while negotiating ever-larger contracts with sponsors and TV networks so even journeymen pros can earn prize money and pensions beyond their dreams is truly remarkable.

[Malvern]

With zero interest rates and a flat to declining stock market some of the projections won't get realised, nevertheless, it aint a bad little earner. Anyone in the US care to tell me what tax they will pay, assume it will be minimal.

[lumberman2462]

It'll be taxed as ordinary income as they withdraw the money. Who knows what that rate will be when Tiger starts to draw his pension but I'm sure it'll be up there pretty good in that Tax Bracket.

[lumberman2462]

[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' timestamp='1343738115' post='5383196']
And I thought the PGA Tour was "all about charities and giving back to local communities". Millionaire pros playing in tournaments (and relying on volunteers?) as if the tournament is equivalent to a society black-tie ball to raise money for local charities? The concept seems positively quaint in today's world of professional sports. (Not that there is anything wrong with professional sports).

The hypocrisy of the non-profit PGA Tour inherent in promoting its image and charitable endeavors while negotiating ever-larger contracts with sponsors and TV networks so even journeymen pros can earn prize money and pensions beyond their dreams is truly remarkable.
[/quote]

What's the alternative? If the Tour went to being a For Profit C-Corporation or even an LLC then it's payroll would explode and expenses would chew up money that otherwise goes to charity. The volunteers that make the Tour possible would have to become employees. The local and national charities benefit. Could it be more? Maybe, but we had an LPGA event in my hometown for years and that one tournament raised more money in a week than the remaining fundraisers did for the other 51 weeks of the year.

[spitfisher]

[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' timestamp='1343738115' post='5383196']
And I thought the PGA Tour was "all about charities and giving back to local communities". Millionaire pros playing in tournaments (and relying on volunteers?) as if the tournament is equivalent to a society black-tie ball to raise money for local charities? The concept seems positively quaint in today's world of professional sports. (Not that there is anything wrong with professional sports).

The hypocrisy of the non-profit PGA Tour inherent in promoting its image and charitable endeavors while negotiating ever-larger contracts with sponsors and TV networks so even journeymen pros can earn prize money and pensions beyond their dreams is truly remarkable.
[/quote]

Im sure there is a occupyers tent city somewhere for everyone to listen of how unfair this is. My opinion is that its an extremely well run entertainment business, a sucessful one at that, that takes care of its own later in life.

[Anchor44]

I know the PGA pension is a very lucrative one. That's ok but what boggles my mind is how a few players can hang around for many, many years , NEVER win a tournament and literally make in the millions, just for making a sufficient amount of cuts. Bret Quigley, and Ken Duke, and Johnny Walker come to mind but there are dozens of others also.

[Mainlinegolfer]

A few years ago Justin Leonard estimated his total pension fund would reach $60 - $100 million. Now you know why guys hang on and try to make cuts. No need to win anymore to make a great living and have the best retirement plan in sports.

Everyone say, "Thank you Deane Beman" (and Arnold Palmer and Tiger Woods).

[schmatt]

[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' timestamp='1343738115' post='5383196']
And I thought the PGA Tour was "all about charities and giving back to local communities". Millionaire pros playing in tournaments (and relying on volunteers?) as if the tournament is equivalent to a society black-tie ball to raise money for local charities? The concept seems positively quaint in today's world of professional sports. (Not that there is anything wrong with professional sports).

The hypocrisy of the non-profit PGA Tour inherent in promoting its image and charitable endeavors while negotiating ever-larger contracts with sponsors and TV networks so even journeymen pros can earn prize money and pensions beyond their dreams is truly remarkable.
[/quote]

I'm amazed at how some people can find something bad about everything successful. Is the PGA Tour somehow cheating people out of this money? Why is it that when some person or enterprise is successful in its endeavor, it has to be because they cheated or lied or broke the law to get there?

The PGA Tour happens to be a very successful business that has benefits millions of people. They provide great entertainment throughout the year for all of us. They give millions to charity every year. They provide great paychecks to those that have the skills to play the game well. They are taking some of that money and socking it away for their players to live on in the future when they no longer have the skills. The sponsors are getting great advertising for the money they provide to the tournaments. It's a win-win for everyone involved.

[Mainlinegolfer]

[quote name='schmatt' timestamp='1343769156' post='5385986']
[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' timestamp='1343738115' post='5383196']
And I thought the PGA Tour was "all about charities and giving back to local communities". Millionaire pros playing in tournaments (and relying on volunteers?) as if the tournament is equivalent to a society black-tie ball to raise money for local charities? The concept seems positively quaint in today's world of professional sports. (Not that there is anything wrong with professional sports).

The hypocrisy of the non-profit PGA Tour inherent in promoting its image and charitable endeavors while negotiating ever-larger contracts with sponsors and TV networks so even journeymen pros can earn prize money and pensions beyond their dreams is truly remarkable.
[/quote]

I'm amazed at how some people can find something baabout everything successfuld . Is the PGA Tour somehow cheating people out of this money? Why is it that when some person or enterprise is successful in its endeavor, it has to be because they cheated or lied or broke the law to get there?

The PGA Tour happens to be a very successful business that has benefits millions of people. They provide great entertainment throughout the year for all of us. They give millions to charity every year. They provide great paychecks to those that have the skills to play the game well. They are taking some of that money and socking it away for their players to live on in the future when they no longer have the skills. The sponsors are getting great advertising for the money they provide to the tournaments. It's a win-win for everyone involved.
[/quote]

Calm down. I'm amazed how some people can miss a point. "Some people" [u]did not[/u] "find something bad about everything successful". No one said it "cheated or lied or broke the law to get there"? Did anyone say it does not provide "great entertainment.." (or, really, any of the other points you ascribe to me)?

I just find it "interesting" that the PGA Tour has a business model that no other professional sport has and assiduously protects its model, not to mention its brand, by promoting its contributions to charity. Is it primarily an altruistic charitable organization? Contrary to its image, no. All professional sports provide "great paychecks" and pensions to players and give sponsors "great advertising". The PGA has a unique model left over from the days when itinerant pros came to town to put on a show organized by civic leaders and club members to raise money for local charities. It just seems somewhat naive or disingenuous to think of it the same way now that it has clearly outgrown that.

I think it's similar to the quaint idea that the Ryder Cup or the Olympics are still simple little amateur events for ladies and gentlemen played for God, Country and Love of the Game.

[duffer888]

Regarding making cuts and getting a pension, somebody has to lose to the Tigers, VJs and Phils of the PGA tour.

This is also why, even though given the opportunity, refuse to 'volunteer' at a tournament. And you have to pay to 'volunteer'. what a joke.

[lumberman2462]

[quote name='duffer888' timestamp='1343776388' post='5386588']
Regarding making cuts and getting a pension, somebody has to lose to the Tigers, VJs and Phils of the PGA tour.

This is also why, even though given the opportunity, refuse to 'volunteer' at a tournament. And you have to pay to 'volunteer'. what a joke.
[/quote]

Absolutely! If you're willing to spend 20 years getting your butt kicked by the current top 10.....you oughta get a multimillion dollar pension. It's tough to lose consistently for a long time. Mental Anguish....it's almost like a disability.

[spitfisher]

[quote name='schmatt' timestamp='1343769156' post='5385986']
[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' timestamp='1343738115' post='5383196']
And I thought the PGA Tour was "all about charities and giving back to local communities". Millionaire pros playing in tournaments (and relying on volunteers?) as if the tournament is equivalent to a society black-tie ball to raise money for local charities? The concept seems positively quaint in today's world of professional sports. (Not that there is anything wrong with professional sports).

The hypocrisy of the non-profit PGA Tour inherent in promoting its image and charitable endeavors while negotiating ever-larger contracts with sponsors and TV networks so even journeymen pros can earn prize money and pensions beyond their dreams is truly remarkable.
[/quote]

I'm amazed at how some people can find something bad about everything successful. Is the PGA Tour somehow cheating people out of this money? Why is it that when some person or enterprise is successful in its endeavor, it has to be because they cheated or lied or broke the law to get there?

The PGA Tour happens to be a very successful business that has benefits millions of people. They provide great entertainment throughout the year for all of us. They give millions to charity every year. They provide great paychecks to those that have the skills to play the game well. They are taking some of that money and socking it away for their players to live on in the future when they no longer have the skills. The sponsors are getting great advertising for the money they provide to the tournaments. It's a win-win for everyone involved.
[/quote]

Schmatt, ,your 100% right, there is a disturbing undercurrent in this country right now that says if you're successfull you should be giving more to someone else or success is a bad thing. When I was young boy I was walking with my dad on the sidewalk when our neighbor drove by in a beautiful red mustang convertible, this was in early 60s. We both admired the car, my father stopped and then turned to me looked me right in the eyes. He said isn't that a beautiful car, Mr Perednia works his a** off, he strives to be the best and brings everyone around him to strive and work harder. You can have a car like that if you work as hard he does.

Now a days its we should be throwing a rock at Mr Perednia's car. Good for the PGA, those that think this wrong, great go watch something else then.

[schmatt]

[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' timestamp='1343771332' post='5386198']
Calm down. I'm amazed how some people can miss a point. "Some people" [u]did not[/u] "find something bad about everything successful". No one said it "cheated or lied or broke the law to get there"? Did anyone say it does not provide "great entertainment.." (or, really, any of the other points you ascribe to me)?

I just find it "interesting" that the PGA Tour has a business model that no other professional sport has and assiduously protects its model, not to mention its brand, by promoting its contributions to charity. Is it primarily an altruistic charitable organization? Contrary to its image, no. All professional sports provide "great paychecks" and pensions to players and give sponsors "great advertising". The PGA has a unique model left over from the days when itinerant pros came to town to put on a show organized by civic leaders and club members to raise money for local charities. It just seems somewhat naive or disingenuous to think of it the same way now that it has clearly outgrown that.

I think it's similar to the quaint idea that the Ryder Cup or the Olympics are still simple little amateur events for ladies and gentlemen played for God, Country and Love of the Game.
[/quote]

I didn't miss the point at all. You think the PGA Tour is misrepresenting itself by saying they donate money to charities. You think they should give more money to charity. The fact is, they don't misrepresent themselves. They do give millions of dollars to charities every year. How much of the money that comes in they decide to give to charity is up to them. What other sport even gives a tiny percentage of the money earned in the event to charities? No other sport does this during normal operations. Sure, other sports have charity fundraisers. But no other sport donates to charity as a part of the revenues of all events.

If you want to personally donate more or all of your money to charities, no one is stopping you. Also, no one should tell you how much of your money you should donate to charity. That's your decision, just like it's the PGA Tour's decision with their revenue.

[jim rockford]

wow, great stuff. thanks to people for sharing.......... pga's projected pensions seem way, way too high given how financial markets have performed and where interest rates are at (i realize that was an old article). justin leonard at $60MM to $100MM pension plan value seems LOL even based on optimistic projections. i assume he was only referencing the pga tour's portion. obviously he made a ton of money and invested it himself)

always surprised how low NBA pensions are. the shaq example and this. you'd think gary payton would make more than that in his pension. i wrongly thought that guys like antoine walker and rumeal robinson (google his name. sad entertainment) were getting hundreds of thousands per year when they reached age 40 but that was way, way off (i did read that in article but they had it wrong. might have confused value of pension with annual payment)

After playing in the NBA for three seasons a player is vested for a pension. The pension pays $306 for every month in the NBA (e.g. Gary Payton played in the NBA for 17 seasons or 204 months. 204x306=62,424. Gary Payton's pension will be $62,424 per year or $5,202 per month. A player with only three years in the NBA would get $11, 016 per year or $918 per month.) Players start collecting the pension at the age of 50. A player can opt to collect the pension at the age of 45 but only two-thirds of what it would be at 50.
[color=#000000][left][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]
Read more: [url="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_NBA_player_qualify_for_NBA_pension#ixzz22Jv99DjQ"]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_NBA_player_qualify_for_NBA_pension#ixzz22Jv99DjQ[/url][/background][/left][/color]

[Mainlinegolfer]

[quote name='schmatt' timestamp='1343836273' post='5390018']
[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' timestamp='1343771332' post='5386198']
Calm down. I'm amazed how some people can miss a point. "Some people" [u]did not[/u] "find something bad about everything successful". No one said it "cheated or lied or broke the law to get there"? Did anyone say it does not provide "great entertainment.." (or, really, any of the other points you ascribe to me)?

I just find it "interesting" that the PGA Tour has a business model that no other professional sport has and assiduously protects its model, not to mention its brand, by promoting its contributions to charity. Is it primarily an altruistic charitable organization? Contrary to its image, no. All professional sports provide "great paychecks" and pensions to players and give sponsors "great advertising". The PGA has a unique model left over from the days when itinerant pros came to town to put on a show organized by civic leaders and club members to raise money for local charities. It just seems somewhat naive or disingenuous to think of it the same way now that it has clearly outgrown that.

I think it's similar to the quaint idea that the Ryder Cup or the Olympics are still simple little amateur events for ladies and gentlemen played for God, Country and Love of the Game.
[/quote]

I didn't miss the point at all. You think the PGA Tour is misrepresenting itself by saying they donate money to charities. You think they should give more money to charity. The fact is, they don't misrepresent themselves. They do give millions of dollars to charities every year. How much of the money that comes in they decide to give to charity is up to them. What other sport even gives a tiny percentage of the money earned in the event to charities? No other sport does this during normal operations. Sure, other sports have charity fundraisers. But no other sport donates to charity as a part of the revenues of all events.

If you want to personally donate more or all of your money to charities, no one is stopping you. Also, no one should tell you how much of your money you should donate to charity. That's your decision, just like it's the PGA Tour's decision with their revenue.
[/quote]

Sigh. Schmatt, Schmatt, Schmatt, you still overreact and STILL don't get the point and you STILL keep ascribing (look it up) things to me that I did not think, say, or write.

Even you have to acknowledged that PGA Tour golf is a business (albeit the PGA Tour is a non-profit, tax exempt entity). From the PGA Tour website: "The PGA TOUR is a tax-exempt membership organization of professional golfers. The mission of the PGA TOUR is to expand domestically and internationally to substantially increase player financial benefits while maintaining its commitment to the integrity of the game. The PGA TOUR events are also committed to generating revenue for charitable causes in their communities." So, I choose to focus on the objective that the mission of the PGA Tour is primarily to enhance the earnings (and pensions) of its members, NOT to be a charity.

Monies raised for charities derive from the tournaments' positive revenues (if any), and not any actual monetary donation from the PGA Tour, whose purse monies and expenses are guaranteed. Volunteers are enticed to give their time because they believe money is being raised for local charities.

As Tim Finchem said in an interview,
[i]"There is usually a 501(c)(3) organization that is a charitable entity that partners with us by contract. We bring the sponsorship, typically, and we bring the sport, the television, the operations, the staging. And then the tournament host organization markets the tournament, sells the inventory — the pro-ams (tournaments where playing spots with pro players are sold to amateurs), tickets, corporate hospitality — to raise money and pay off expenses. They put up from that money about one-third of the purse; we put up about two-thirds. All the net proceeds go to charity. The board of that group — they are all audited, all have board of directors — determines year-in and year-out how they are going to distribute the charitable proceeds to the community."[/i]

[i]The important thing about all this is if more people know that the PGA Tour stands for charity, the better chance we have to harness their financial support. It's easier to excite people because [url="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Athletes/Golf/David+Toms"]David Toms[/url] or [url="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Athletes/Golf/Tiger+Woods"]Tiger Woods[/url] is doing something. When we say, "Together, anything's possible," we mean that by rallying behind the common cause of charitable giving, we can create greater awareness and elevate our overall impact. [/i]


Even a Golfwrx member (TexasAg) once wrote,
[i]"Every [color="#ff0000"][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color="#ff0000"][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] event is run as a non-profit (501-c3) who's main goal is to raise money for a local charity. This has been a requirement of the [color="#ff0000"][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] since 1979. It's central to the functioning of [color="#ff0000"][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color="#ff0000"][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] events. Do you think that hundreds of people would volunteer their time every week to stand outside in the heat/rain in order to make a [color="#ff0000"][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color]nament promoter rich? Tournament purses would be non-existent if promoters had to pay people to be marshals, scorers, parking lot attendants, etc. [color="#ff0000"][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color="#ff0000"][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] events can't function without volunteers and they can't get volunteers if the end goal isn't to raise money for a local charity."[/i]


So, again, there is nothing wrong with seeking to enhance revenues, as most non-profts try to do (and it's even OK to run a business where the objective is to make a profit (albeit not to also be tax exempt). It is fine for sponsoring companies to choose to advertise using professional sport and athletes to promote their products. It's quite OK for businesses to make charitable donations (to a point) to enhance their business image. And it's certainly fine for individuals to donate money to charities, directly or through foundations.

I just find it "interesting" as I wrote, that the PGA Tour's primary mission to enhance the benefits for its "members" relies promoting its huge role with using local charities and volunteers to make it all work. I don't believe any other professional sport functions this way. And, by definition, professional sports is a business to make money to benefit owners (or PGA Tour players, in this case) and a charity's raison d'etre centers on philanthropic goals (e.g. charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public interest or common good).

[bub72ck]

[quote name='jim rockford' timestamp='1343845612' post='5391006']
wow, great stuff. thanks to people for sharing.......... pga's projected pensions seem way, way too high given how financial markets have performed and where interest rates are at (i realize that was an old article). justin leonard at $60MM to $100MM pension plan value seems LOL even based on optimistic projections. i assume he was only referencing the pga tour's portion. obviously he made a ton of money and invested it himself)

always surprised how low NBA pensions are. the shaq example and this. you'd think gary payton would make more than that in his pension. i wrongly thought that guys like antoine walker and rumeal robinson (google his name. sad entertainment) were getting hundreds of thousands per year when they reached age 40 but that was way, way off (i did read that in article but they had it wrong. might have confused value of pension with annual payment)

After playing in the NBA for three seasons a player is vested for a pension. The pension pays $306 for every month in the NBA (e.g. Gary Payton played in the NBA for 17 seasons or 204 months. 204x306=62,424. Gary Payton's pension will be $62,424 per year or $5,202 per month. A player with only three years in the NBA would get $11, 016 per year or $918 per month.) Players start collecting the pension at the age of 50. A player can opt to collect the pension at the age of 45 but only two-thirds of what it would be at 50.
[left]
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Read more: [url="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_NBA_player_qualify_for_NBA_pension#ixzz22Jv99DjQ"]http://wiki.answers....n#ixzz22Jv99DjQ[/url][/background][/left]

[/quote]

According to The Bleacher Report Gary Payton has earned $104,367,629 in career contract earnings. If he doesn't invest some of that money that's his fault.

Unlike most other mainline sports (thinking football,basketball,baseball) there is no team structure in golf to sign players to big contracts and earn money before they ever take a snap or shot. In golf you have to win to make money. Imagine if the NFL were set up that way. If your team wins you get paid. If not, you don't. So many of these mainstream athletes get huge contracts and blow the money on "stuff". Look up Jamal Mashburn. That guy had some smarts and invested his money into 34 Outback Steakhouse and 37 Papa Johns franchises along with other businesses. He doesn't need the NBA pension of $3,672 per month that he got from his 12 seasons. Odds are he is reinvesting it anyway.

The NBA pension program is low because the league hasn't taken the players future into consideration. They want the big contracts now and leave it up to the players to fend for themselves after they retire.

[schmatt]

[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' timestamp='1343860126' post='5392484']
Sigh. Schmatt, Schmatt, Schmatt, you still overreact and STILL don't get the point and you STILL keep ascribing (look it up) things to me that I did not think, say, or write.

Even you have to acknowledged that PGA Tour golf is a business (albeit the PGA Tour is a non-profit, tax exempt entity). From the PGA Tour website: "The PGA TOUR is a tax-exempt membership organization of professional golfers. The mission of the PGA TOUR is to expand domestically and internationally to substantially increase player financial benefits while maintaining its commitment to the integrity of the game. The PGA TOUR events are also committed to generating revenue for charitable causes in their communities." So, I choose to focus on the objective that the mission of the PGA Tour is primarily to enhance the earnings (and pensions) of its members, NOT to be a charity.

Monies raised for charities derive from the tournaments' positive revenues (if any), and not any actual monetary donation from the PGA Tour, whose purse monies and expenses are guaranteed. Volunteers are enticed to give their time because they believe money is being raised for local charities.

As Tim Finchem said in an interview,
[i]"There is usually a 501©(3) organization that is a charitable entity that partners with us by contract. We bring the sponsorship, typically, and we bring the sport, the television, the operations, the staging. And then the tournament host organization markets the tournament, sells the inventory — the pro-ams (tournaments where playing spots with pro players are sold to amateurs), tickets, corporate hospitality — to raise money and pay off expenses. They put up from that money about one-third of the purse; we put up about two-thirds. All the net proceeds go to charity. The board of that group — they are all audited, all have board of directors — determines year-in and year-out how they are going to distribute the charitable proceeds to the community."[/i]

[i]The important thing about all this is if more people know that the PGA Tour stands for charity, the better chance we have to harness their financial support. It's easier to excite people because [url="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Athletes/Golf/David+Toms"]David Toms[/url] or [url="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Athletes/Golf/Tiger+Woods"]Tiger Woods[/url] is doing something. When we say, "Together, anything's possible," we mean that by rallying behind the common cause of charitable giving, we can create greater awareness and elevate our overall impact. [/i]


Even a Golfwrx member (TexasAg) once wrote,
[i]"Every [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] event is run as a non-profit (501-c3) who's main goal is to raise money for a local charity. This has been a requirement of the [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] since 1979. It's central to the functioning of [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] events. Do you think that hundreds of people would volunteer their time every week to stand outside in the heat/rain in order to make a [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color]nament promoter rich? Tournament purses would be non-existent if promoters had to pay people to be marshals, scorers, parking lot attendants, etc. [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] events can't function without volunteers and they can't get volunteers if the end goal isn't to raise money for a local charity."[/i]


So, again, there is nothing wrong with seeking to enhance revenues, as most non-profts try to do (and it's even OK to run a business where the objective is to make a profit (albeit not to also be tax exempt). It is fine for sponsoring companies to choose to advertise using professional sport and athletes to promote their products. It's quite OK for businesses to make charitable donations (to a point) to enhance their business image. And it's certainly fine for individuals to donate money to charities, directly or through foundations.

I just find it "interesting" as I wrote, that the PGA Tour's primary mission to enhance the benefits for its "members" relies promoting its huge role with using local charities and volunteers to make it all work. I don't believe any other professional sport functions this way. And, by definition, professional sports is a business to make money to benefit owners (or PGA Tour players, in this case) and a charity's raison d'etre centers on philanthropic goals (e.g. charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public interest or common good).
[/quote]

Explain how you think the PGA Tour is "using" local charities to enhance member benefits. Like Finchem said, bringing more people and more money brings more dollars to the charities. Based on his explanation, excess monies go to charities. So how is bringing more people in to a tournament "using" local charities? It sounds like you're saying that extra dollars coming in will automatically go to the golfers. Also, just getting people aware of the charitable giving and the difference it is making results in them being more inclined to participate in the giving as well.

And please don't quote some random member as if this is what I am saying. Either quote me or someone, like Finchem, who matters in this conversation.

[cdnglf]

[quote name='schmatt' timestamp='1343946731' post='5398554']
[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' timestamp='1343860126' post='5392484']
Sigh. Schmatt, Schmatt, Schmatt, you still overreact and STILL don't get the point and you STILL keep ascribing (look it up) things to me that I did not think, say, or write.

Even you have to acknowledged that PGA Tour golf is a business (albeit the PGA Tour is a non-profit, tax exempt entity). From the PGA Tour website: "The PGA TOUR is a tax-exempt membership organization of professional golfers. The mission of the PGA TOUR is to expand domestically and internationally to substantially increase player financial benefits while maintaining its commitment to the integrity of the game. The PGA TOUR events are also committed to generating revenue for charitable causes in their communities." So, I choose to focus on the objective that the mission of the PGA Tour is primarily to enhance the earnings (and pensions) of its members, NOT to be a charity.

Monies raised for charities derive from the tournaments' positive revenues (if any), and not any actual monetary donation from the PGA Tour, whose purse monies and expenses are guaranteed. Volunteers are enticed to give their time because they believe money is being raised for local charities.

As Tim Finchem said in an interview,
[i]"There is usually a 501©(3) organization that is a charitable entity that partners with us by contract. We bring the sponsorship, typically, and we bring the sport, the television, the operations, the staging. And then the tournament host organization markets the tournament, sells the inventory — the pro-ams (tournaments where playing spots with pro players are sold to amateurs), tickets, corporate hospitality — to raise money and pay off expenses. They put up from that money about one-third of the purse; we put up about two-thirds. All the net proceeds go to charity. The board of that group — they are all audited, all have board of directors — determines year-in and year-out how they are going to distribute the charitable proceeds to the community."[/i]

[i]The important thing about all this is if more people know that the PGA Tour stands for charity, the better chance we have to harness their financial support. It's easier to excite people because [url="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Athletes/Golf/David+Toms"]David Toms[/url] or [url="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Athletes/Golf/Tiger+Woods"]Tiger Woods[/url] is doing something. When we say, "Together, anything's possible," we mean that by rallying behind the common cause of charitable giving, we can create greater awareness and elevate our overall impact. [/i]


Even a Golfwrx member (TexasAg) once wrote,
[i]"Every [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] event is run as a non-profit (501-c3) who's main goal is to raise money for a local charity. This has been a requirement of the [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] since 1979. It's central to the functioning of [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] events. Do you think that hundreds of people would volunteer their time every week to stand outside in the heat/rain in order to make a [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color]nament promoter rich? Tournament purses would be non-existent if promoters had to pay people to be marshals, scorers, parking lot attendants, etc. [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color=#ff0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] events can't function without volunteers and they can't get volunteers if the end goal isn't to raise money for a local charity."[/i]


So, again, there is nothing wrong with seeking to enhance revenues, as most non-profts try to do (and it's even OK to run a business where the objective is to make a profit (albeit not to also be tax exempt). It is fine for sponsoring companies to choose to advertise using professional sport and athletes to promote their products. It's quite OK for businesses to make charitable donations (to a point) to enhance their business image. And it's certainly fine for individuals to donate money to charities, directly or through foundations.

I just find it "interesting" as I wrote, that the PGA Tour's primary mission to enhance the benefits for its "members" relies promoting its huge role with using local charities and volunteers to make it all work. I don't believe any other professional sport functions this way. And, by definition, professional sports is a business to make money to benefit owners (or PGA Tour players, in this case) and a charity's raison d'etre centers on philanthropic goals (e.g. charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public interest or common good).
[/quote]

Explain how you think the PGA Tour is "using" local charities to enhance member benefits. Like Finchem said, bringing more people and more money brings more dollars to the charities. Based on his explanation, excess monies go to charities. So how is bringing more people in to a tournament "using" local charities? It sounds like you're saying that extra dollars coming in will automatically go to the golfers. Also, just getting people aware of the charitable giving and the difference it is making results in them being more inclined to participate in the giving as well.

And please don't quote some random member as if this is what I am saying. Either quote me or someone, like Finchem, who matters in this conversation.
[/quote]

I think what he might be saying is essentially this: the PGA Tour rolls into town, gets a charity to run the tournament with/for them. Because its "for charity", people are more willing to volunteer (ie work for free), and companies are more willing to kick in sponsorship money. At the end of the week, they divvy up the proceeds: $6M in purse to the players; X to charity. Is X an amount that makes it a good deal for the charity? Is the charity getting fairly compensated for the volunteers' efforts? I don't know.

If the PGA Tour ran as a straight-up business - that is, they had to pay all (or most of) the staff required for a tournament, and weren't able to offer sponsors the "charity" cachet, they might be looking at smaller purses. If this is true, then I think it could be argued the PGA Tour is "using" local charities.

[Mainlinegolfer]

[quote name='schmatt' timestamp='1343946731' post='5398554']
[quote name='Mainlinegolfer' timestamp='1343860126' post='5392484']
Sigh. Schmatt, Schmatt, Schmatt, you still overreact and STILL don't get the point and you STILL keep ascribing (look it up) things to me that I did not think, say, or write.

Even you have to acknowledged that PGA Tour golf is a business (albeit the PGA Tour is a non-profit, tax exempt entity). From the PGA Tour website: "The PGA TOUR is a tax-exempt membership organization of professional golfers. The mission of the PGA TOUR is to expand domestically and internationally to substantially increase player financial benefits while maintaining its commitment to the integrity of the game. The PGA TOUR events are also committed to generating revenue for charitable causes in their communities." So, I choose to focus on the objective that the mission of the PGA Tour is primarily to enhance the earnings (and pensions) of its members, NOT to be a charity.

Monies raised for charities derive from the tournaments' positive revenues (if any), and not any actual monetary donation from the PGA Tour, whose purse monies and expenses are guaranteed. Volunteers are enticed to give their time because they believe money is being raised for local charities.

As Tim Finchem said in an interview,
[i]"There is usually a 501©(3) organization that is a charitable entity that partners with us by contract. We bring the sponsorship, typically, and we bring the sport, the television, the operations, the staging. And then the tournament host organization markets the tournament, sells the inventory — the pro-ams (tournaments where playing spots with pro players are sold to amateurs), tickets, corporate hospitality — to raise money and pay off expenses. They put up from that money about one-third of the purse; we put up about two-thirds. All the net proceeds go to charity. The board of that group — they are all audited, all have board of directors — determines year-in and year-out how they are going to distribute the charitable proceeds to the community."[/i]

[i]The important thing about all this is if more people know that the PGA Tour stands for charity, the better chance we have to harness their financial support. It's easier to excite people because [url="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Athletes/Golf/David+Toms"]David Toms[/url] or [url="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Athletes/Golf/Tiger+Woods"]Tiger Woods[/url] is doing something. When we say, "Together, anything's possible," we mean that by rallying behind the common cause of charitable giving, we can create greater awareness and elevate our overall impact. [/i]


Even a Golfwrx member (TexasAg) once wrote,
[i]"Every [color=#FF0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color=#FF0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] event is run as a non-profit (501-c3) who's main goal is to raise money for a local charity. This has been a requirement of the [color=#FF0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] since 1979. It's central to the functioning of [color=#FF0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color=#FF0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] events. Do you think that hundreds of people would volunteer their time every week to stand outside in the heat/rain in order to make a [color=#FF0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color]nament promoter rich? Tournament purses would be non-existent if promoters had to pay people to be marshals, scorers, parking lot attendants, etc. [color=#FF0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]PGA[/background][/color] [color=#FF0000][background=rgb(255, 255, 0)]tour[/background][/color] events can't function without volunteers and they can't get volunteers if the end goal isn't to raise money for a local charity."[/i]


So, again, there is nothing wrong with seeking to enhance revenues, as most non-profts try to do (and it's even OK to run a business where the objective is to make a profit (albeit not to also be tax exempt). It is fine for sponsoring companies to choose to advertise using professional sport and athletes to promote their products. It's quite OK for businesses to make charitable donations (to a point) to enhance their business image. And it's certainly fine for individuals to donate money to charities, directly or through foundations.

I just find it "interesting" as I wrote, that the PGA Tour's primary mission to enhance the benefits for its "members" relies promoting its huge role with using local charities and volunteers to make it all work. I don't believe any other professional sport functions this way. And, by definition, professional sports is a business to make money to benefit owners (or PGA Tour players, in this case) and a charity's raison d'etre centers on philanthropic goals (e.g. charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public interest or common good).
[/quote]

Explain how you think the PGA Tour is "using" local charities to enhance member benefits. Like Finchem said, bringing more people and more money brings more dollars to the charities. Based on his explanation, excess monies go to charities. So how is bringing more people in to a tournament "using" local charities? It sounds like you're saying that extra dollars coming in will automatically go to the golfers. Also, just getting people aware of the charitable giving and the difference it is making results in them being more inclined to participate in the giving as well.

And please don't quote some random member as if this is what I am saying. Either quote me or someone, like Finchem, who matters in this conversation.
[/quote]

I can't spoon feed it to you in any smaller, simpler bites. The PRIMARY purpose of the tax-exempt PGA Tour is NOT to be a charity, it is to optimize the financial benefits to the PLAYERS. You appear simply unable to comprehend that establishing a special-purpose charity to hold the tournament is simply the enabling vehicle through which local tournament organizers and sponsors PLUS the PGA Tour contribute prize money, obtain sponsors, TV contracts etc. The players are the hired performers and local volunteers are used (rather than paid employees) to do much of the tournament legwork because they either (1) are happy the tournament will raise money to benefit local chariities ; or, (2) the volunteers are excited to be close to the players and the action.

Generally, the ([i]501-c3) [/i]tournament event makes a profit which is then distributed to designated local charities. The fact that charities benefit makes volunteers and corporate sponsors feel warm and cozy. However, sponsors spending money because it benefits their business (not local charities) and the players are playing to make money for themselves as golf professionals. The PGA Tour is not principally a charity but a tax-exempt organization which wants to do the utmost to benefit its members-- the players.

As far as quoting some "random member" (of Golfwrx) as if this is what [u]you[/u] are saying, this is just additional evidence that you simply cannot comprehend the written word. Contrary to your consistent attempts to put words in MY mouth, in fact I DID NOT quote anything YOU said. I quoted another Golfwrx member AND Finchem (both of whom are essemtoa;;u saying the same thing regard using a local tax-exempt entity to run the tournament event). I suggest you re-read what Finchem said about what the tournament host organization does, what the PGA Tour does, and how, hopefully, there is then lots of money for the tournament host to distribute to local charities and everyone feels good about that. By the way, as with the volunteers, the local golf club hosting the tournament is not making much money, if any.

The tournament host's objective is to optimize contributions for local charities. However, as the PGA Tour clearly states, "the mission of the PGA TOUR is to expand domestically and internationally to [u]substantially increase player financial benefits....[/u]" The sponsors' primary objective is to spend money that enhances their business, reputation, customer relations and employee morale. The players seek to enhance current and future income. That the PGA Tour and players do things for charities is incidental or at least secondary to their primary goals. It simply continues to use its unique business model and brand to provide a product that sponsors pay dearly for and makes the PGA Tour members wealthy. It is great that so many charities benefit from money raised by holding golf tournaments and that individual players elect to contribute their own time and money to enhance the PGA Tour's image and brand (and their own). but it's not the main buisiness of the PGA Tour and players.

As I said, all of this charitable work is great, but it's an interesting, clever, and effective mix of professional athletes, a [u]non-profit entity[/u] (The PGA Tour), large corporate sponsors/advertisers, local volunteers, and local tax-exempt charities. Deane Beman and then TIm Finchem have done a fabulous job for the players in optimizing their financial well-being. But I do not believe the principal objective of the PGA Tour is to act as a charity. It has assiduously worked to created and maintain a brand for itself and the players, and charities and PR efforts are an integral part of that image and brand.

Beyond this, you will have to research it additionally and figure it out for yourself to your own satisfaction because I am done trying to explain my point of view to you.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of all PGA Tour entities or financial statements. And there certainly are PGA Tour-related entities that do act as charities, e.g. the PGA Tour Wives Association, for example.

[lumberman2462]

Wow. This thread surely went in a different direction that I had in mind when I asked a simple question about PGA Tour pensions.

Maybe I can end all of this. I love Tour events: PGA, LPGA, Web.Com (I still call it the Hogan Tour), and Champions Tour.

Golf is great. Charitable contributions are great. My golf game is not Great.

[Mainlinegolfer]

[quote name='lumberman2462' timestamp='1343956830' post='5399266']
Wow. This thread surely went in a different direction that I had in mind when I asked a simple question about PGA Tour pensions.

Maybe I can end all of this. I love Tour events: PGA, LPGA, Web.Com (I still call it the Hogan Tour), and Champions Tour.

Golf is great. Charitable contributions are great. My golf game is not Great.
[/quote]

Well, it's not a very big step from asking about Tour pensions to the fact that they are almost embarrassingly generous (as is the prize money) facilitated by large TV contracts and sponsor fees. More so, perhaps, an all-exempt Tourmakes it easier for players can accummulate a sizable pension through just making cuts and not necessarily winning very often. Players such as Tom Pernice and Jerry Kelly may be nice guys and good players but they are not really players that really move the needle and drive ratings (and revenues). Nevertheless, they willl enjoy sizable pensions through longevity.

From an image, brand and PR point of view, it is important the PGA Tour emphasizes the image of the PGA Tour player as the antithesis of other professional athletes (football, basketball players) and promotes the charitable endeavors, especially when there is so much criticism of rich bankers and 1%ers and payment of "normal" corporate and government pensions is so problematic. Fines for conduct unbecoming, drug use, and the shear commercialism involved are deemphasized in favor obviusly promoting the charitable activities and protecting the PGA Tour brand and the players' image.

Again, business is good, working to make a profit is good, charities are good, even, making a lot of money can be good. Doing it all while promoting "that it's all about charity" seems somehow slightly disingenuous.

[schmatt]

See, here you go again. You just said that the PGA Tour says "that it's all about charity". Tim Finchem and the PGA Tour never say this. They make no bones about the fact that they make a lot of money. But they also provide to charities. So how is saying that they do this and advertising the sums they produce, which are in the millions, being disengenuous? If a golf tournament didn't show up to a particular area, do you think these charities would make more money? They are typically receiving in excess of a million dollars each week for hosting a one week tournament. I haven't seen very many fundraisers that can boast raising anywhere near this amount of money.

You are constantly saying how you have no problem with a corporation making a profit, then you talk down on the PGA Tour because they advertise their charitable side of the business. Based on your first post, you do have problems with the vast sums of money being made here. If you only knew how much more money was going around for the larger pro sports, such as football. Golf is small potatoes. Pro Football advertises their work with the United Way and the Play 60 campaign. Is this being disengenuous?

I know you have a problem with me calling you out, so you have to constantly change your approach and say I don't understand what you are saying. Save me and everyone the dribble and just answer these questions.

[lumberman2462]

I'd be interested to know a % of gross revenue or even net revenue that the PGA Tour donates to charity. I'm pretty sure the IRS has a rule about that.

In fact, I remember reading somewhere about a change in the tax code that made an exemption for something for charitable corporations formed on a certain day. Ironically, that day listed was the same day as the PGA Tour was formed.

[schmatt]

Based on guidestar.org, PGA Tour's annual revenue for 2010 was ~$897 million. Their expenses were ~$871 million. A Reuters article stated between all tournaments, PGA Tour, Champions and Web.com tours, they raised $124 million for charities. Not too bad. I don't know of any other organization that has raised anywhere near that amount, other than a charity for themselves.