PGATour Running Commentary January 2022

First topic message reminder :

Happy New Year.  After a nearly a year and half, its time for a new thread.

39 ofthe 40 Players eligible to play Sentry ToC are playing.  Only one missing is Rory McIlroy.

beninho wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

beninho wrote:But, just because something is in a contract doesn't mean its legal or binding.  Saying you can only play golf for me and no other person without my express say so, seems pretty restrictive to be in a legally binding contract, especially when not employed.

Exclusivity provisions aren't particularly rare in contracts.  Difficult to give an opinion on this with any degree of certainty without seeing the terms which players sign up to, but preventing someone playing on another tour without consent from the PGA would probably only have a chance of being deemed to be unduly restrictive if the player was also prevented from playing on the PGA Tour at the same time (which isn't happening).  

But isn't it something to do with employment? No player is employed by the pga tour, they aren't paid for working on the pga tour. They are paid winnings? So it's saying you are only allowed to enter competitions with us, no one else. Which seems restrictive?

I'm sure there is some sort of safeguard, it just seems overly harsh.

Why do you keep bringing up employment? Its about the rules of MEMBERSHIP

beninho wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

beninho wrote:But, just because something is in a contract doesn't mean its legal or binding.  Saying you can only play golf for me and no other person without my express say so, seems pretty restrictive to be in a legally binding contract, especially when not employed.

Exclusivity provisions aren't particularly rare in contracts.  Difficult to give an opinion on this with any degree of certainty without seeing the terms which players sign up to, but preventing someone playing on another tour without consent from the PGA would probably only have a chance of being deemed to be unduly restrictive if the player was also prevented from playing on the PGA Tour at the same time (which isn't happening).  

But isn't it something to do with employment? No player is employed by the pga tour, they aren't paid for working on the pga tour. They are paid winnings? So it's saying you are only allowed to enter competitions with us, no one else. Which seems restrictive?

I'm sure there is some sort of safeguard, it just seems overly harsh.

I think the argument would be that it's not restrictive on the basis that players are not required to sign up to be members of the PGA.  If you do join, then you're subject to certain rules and you're free to leave at any time.

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:But I dont get how, one place can dictate what soneone else can do. Especially when that person is not and never has been employed by that place.

Is there a legal basis to refuse soneone entry into a competition, because they entered another competition?

It just seems madness. I get protecting the brand, but It just seems like a racket

Its simple, its their tour, and if you want to be part of it, you follow their rules, just like all those Premiership and European teams backtracked on the breakaway league.

It doesnt matter if they aren't employed by that tour, the rules are a contingent part of their membership.

But, im not sure if the Premier league said you cant play our league if you enter that league? I could be wrong.

superflyweight wrote:

beninho wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

beninho wrote:But, just because something is in a contract doesn't mean its legal or binding.  Saying you can only play golf for me and no other person without my express say so, seems pretty restrictive to be in a legally binding contract, especially when not employed.

Exclusivity provisions aren't particularly rare in contracts.  Difficult to give an opinion on this with any degree of certainty without seeing the terms which players sign up to, but preventing someone playing on another tour without consent from the PGA would probably only have a chance of being deemed to be unduly restrictive if the player was also prevented from playing on the PGA Tour at the same time (which isn't happening).  

But isn't it something to do with employment? No player is employed by the pga tour, they aren't paid for working on the pga tour. They are paid winnings? So it's saying you are only allowed to enter competitions with us, no one else. Which seems restrictive?

I'm sure there is some sort of safeguard, it just seems overly harsh.

I think the argument would be that it's not restrictive on the basis that players are not required to sign up to be members of the PGA.  If you do join, then you're subject to certain rules and you're free to leave at any time.

But why would they allow members of other tours to also be members of the pga tour? Is it fair to have different rules for different tours?

I will add, im not overly fussed about the Saudi thing or tge Pga tour rules, just the more I think about it the stranger it seems.

I cant imagine it being allowed in many other environments.

beninho wrote:I will add, im not overly fussed about the Saudi thing or tge Pga tour rules, just the more I think about it the stranger it seems.

I cant imagine it being allowed in many other environments.

Course it would. Can Celticband Rangers just up sticks and move to the Premiership? Its about brand protection and happens more often than youd thibk

beninho wrote:

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:But I dont get how, one place can dictate what soneone else can do. Especially when that person is not and never has been employed by that place.

Is there a legal basis to refuse soneone entry into a competition, because they entered another competition?

It just seems madness. I get protecting the brand, but It just seems like a racket

Its simple, its their tour, and if you want to be part of it, you follow their rules, just like all those Premiership and European teams backtracked on the breakaway league.

It doesnt matter if they aren't employed by that tour, the rules are a contingent part of their membership.

But, im not sure if the Premier league said you cant play our league if you enter that league? I could be wrong.

Its an implication. They arent legally saying you cant play in LIV, theyre saying that if you want to remain a member of the PGA you cant just play LIV wjen it suits you because they see it as a commercial threat to the PGA if they lose enough players, something that doesnt happen with the DP Tour double dippers etc .
You're a clever bloke Ben, read between the lines
A player is free to leave the PGA anytime they like, juat dont expect to come back. Thats all they are saying

I saw someone explain it as a big bank, telling any financial advisors that if they use a new bank they will not do business with them again. Which is anti competition, and apparently illegal.

The FTC carried out an investigation into the PGA tour in the 90's to look into whether or not it broke anti trust laws. Which I believe are to do with whether or not PGAT membership can include restrictions on player other tours.

Someone with a legal background can maybe dig this out?

This might cover it, or maybe I have got the cases mixed up.

https://www.lyingfour.com/conversations-blog/2021/11/10/is-there-a-bullet-in-the-pga-tours-biggest-gun

That's an interesting article. Tge non profit status bit especially so. Challenge that and you could see them changing their stance

beninho wrote:I saw someone explain it as a big bank, telling any financial advisors that if they use a new bank they will not do business with them again. Which is anti competition, and apparently illegal.

Jesus, you dont get it do you.
Do you think the Premier League would allow Arsenal, City, Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool etc flounce off and play in a new league and come back to play Premier League? There's nothing illegal about it.

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:I saw someone explain it as a big bank, telling any financial advisors that if they use a new bank they will not do business with them again. Which is anti competition, and apparently illegal.

Jesus, you dont get it do you.
Do you think the Premier League would allow Arsenal, City, Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool etc flounce off and play in a new league and come back to play Premier League? There's nothing illegal about it.

Not sure you are comparing apples to apples. If one of those teams decided to leave the Premier league, they would be allowed back, if they rejoined the league and gained promotion to the Premier league. Its a promotion and relegation system.

But the Premier league doesn't ban people from playing in well paid exhibition matches all over the world. And, I still don't think it threatened to kick them out the Premier league over the SL.

Maybe there is another instance where a non employer puts restrictions on who can enter its competitions?

Ben

It is a member run organisation. Where the commissioner works on behalf of the members (the players).

I am sure you can think of many member run organisations where they are allowed to set rules that members must obey to remain part of it.

But are they working on behalf of the players if they refuse to allow the players free will in where they want to play golf?

Can you name me another that restricts what someone can do in their own free time?

beninho wrote:But are they working on behalf of the players if they refuse to allow the players free will in where they want to play golf?

The players "made the rules".

Ben wrote:Can you name me another that restricts what someone can do in their own free time?

Is it not the case that you can be chucked out a political party if you are found to have voted for someone else?

If you break etiquette rules at your golf club you could be asked to leave.

Really just think of anything you are a member of and there will be some way to get kicked out.

beninho wrote:But are they working on behalf of the players if they refuse to allow the players free will in where they want to play golf?

Can you name me another that restricts what someone can do in their own free time?

I think there is a difference btw working on behalf of the players as a whole and working on behalf og each individual player.

McLaren wrote:Ben

It is a member run organisation. Where the commissioner works on behalf of the members (the players).

I am sure you can think of many member run organisations where they are allowed to set rules that members must obey to remain part of it.

Exactly Mac, im not sure why Ben is having a problem understanding this incredibly simple situation.

When you join a tour there are contractual rules to adhere to to remain a member.

The thing that seems particularly obvious with regards to PGAT membership is the idea that maintaining the status of the tour is beneficial to all the members, and therefore why would they let some individuals try and harm that for everyone else?

Greg Norman on the khashoggi mishap.

The Shark wrote:Everybody has owned up to it, right? It has been spoken about, from what I’ve read, going on what you guys reported. Take ownership, no matter what it is. Look, we’ve all made mistakes and you just want to learn from those mistakes and how you can correct them going forward.

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2022/5/11/greg-norman-on-murder-and-beheading-prone-saudi-arabia-weve-all-made-mistakes-and-i-heard-about-it-and-just-kept-moving-on?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

McLaren wrote:The thing that seems particularly obvious with regards to PGAT membership is the idea that maintaining the status of the tour is beneficial to all the members, and therefore why would they let some individuals try and harm that for everyone else?

Precisely. Its self preservation and you cant blame the PGA for embedding it in their membership rules.

McLaren wrote:Greg Norman on the khashoggi mishap.  

The Shark wrote:Everybody has owned up to it, right? It has been spoken about, from what I’ve read, going on what you guys reported. Take ownership, no matter what it is. Look, we’ve all made mistakes and you just want to learn from those mistakes and how you can correct them going forward.

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2022/5/11/greg-norman-on-murder-and-beheading-prone-saudi-arabia-weve-all-made-mistakes-and-i-heard-about-it-and-just-kept-moving-on?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"We've all made mistakes". WTF? Who is he trying to fool?

I get they have rules. I get they want to preserve the good times.

But, if a rule is at the detriment of a person financially, by restraint of trade is it fair, and is it legal. As mentioned in the article, it may not be, and a legal challenge on stopping something else could have a massive impact on the game. The non profit status being one.

That article laid it out a lot more then just, it's the rules.

I'm surprised people can't see it's probably a lot more shades of grey then just black and white.

beninho wrote:I get they have rules. I get they want to preserve the good times.

But, if a rule is at the detriment of a person financially, by restraint of trade is it fair, and is it legal. As mentioned in the article, it may not be, and a legal challenge on stopping something else could have a massive impact on the game. The non profit status being one.

That article laid it out a lot more then just, it's the rules.

I'm surprised people can't see it's probably a lot more shades of grey then just black and white.

You still dont get it. Its not about restraint of trade. The player is irrelevant in all of this.

Apparently it's a shotgun start for the June LIV event. Don't know if that's for all three days or what.

Ben

I think what is being pointed out is that there has been a misunderstanding by fans, the media and even some players about what the PGAT actually is. The idea of independent contractors turning up and playing whatever a separate entity (the PGAT) have organised is wide of the mark.

The model is more along the lines of the PGAT being for the players and by the players. It is essentially a charity run for its members (the players) by PGAT inc.

So the grey area of which you speak is somewhere around the point where a player is complaining about not being able to play the bone saw national due to rules they have consented to (and technically voted for) whether they realised it or not.

McLaren wrote:Ben

I think what is being pointed out is that there has been a misunderstanding by fans, the media and even some players about what the PGAT actually is. The idea of independent contractors turning up and playing whatever a separate entity (the PGAT) have organised is wide of the mark.

The model is more along the lines of the PGAT being for the players and by the players. It is essentially a charity run for its members (the players) by PGAT inc.

You read the article, why do they have tax exempt status? Because they believe they benefit golf. Not to benefit the pga tour. Trying to shut down a rival organisation by refusing players entry, does that benefit golf and golfers or does that benefit the pga tour?

Now, if they want to be a normal business, they can't have tax exempt status?

I agree I may have read it wrong though.

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:I get they have rules. I get they want to preserve the good times.

But, if a rule is at the detriment of a person financially, by restraint of trade is it fair, and is it legal. As mentioned in the article, it may not be, and a legal challenge on stopping something else could have a massive impact on the game. The non profit status being one.

That article laid it out a lot more then just, it's the rules.

I'm surprised people can't see it's probably a lot more shades of grey then just black and white.

You still dont get it. Its not about restraint of trade. The player is irrelevant in all of this.

Hey? How is the player irrelevant? When the pga tour are using those sane players to try and damage another organisation?

McLaren wrote:So the grey area of which you speak is somewhere around the point where a player is complaining about not being able to play the bone saw national due to rules they have consented to (and technically voted for) whether they realised it or not.

But are rules of an organisation legally binding. And considering the pga tour is the main tour in golf, are they in a position to both try and damage a rival tour by using their status or in a position to ban people from playing with them again. As I said, if this was a major bank, who stopped all financial advisors from using a smaller newer bank under fear if being frozen out, woukd that be lawful?

What I'm getting in an argument back seems to be.

The players are irrelevant from Super R
This is all for the players from Macca

Are the players irrelevant or is this to protect the players?

The article that Mac linked to does raise an interesting point, which you have highlighted Ben. How does the statement that the PGA Tour wants to grow the game square with "preventing" players playing in conflicting events. (By the way, the PGAT is not "preventing" players from playing in the LIV series, it just means, as I understand it, that they will no longer be able to play on the PGAT).

It does raise the question of how an organisation like the PGAT got non profit status.

What Super is saying is don't look at the players as employees. They are members. Different rules apply. The players choose to join the PGAT and implicit with that, is that they conform to the rules.

I believe the PGAT is trying to protect its product. It has built up relationships with courses, sponsors, players over a period of time and wants to keep the status quo. Whether it will succeed is probaly in the realms of the courtroom

I really hope it goes to court. Or lots of backroom dealings, a la Suits. I would guess something will be agreed as a compromise. But will get nasty. I don't think the PGA tour will want to get dragged through the open courts.

It's interesting, and I still don't think its as black and white as being made out. Just reading a few articles different lawyers come up with different conclusions.

That $200m dollars the tour saved in tax may come in handy against the pif from Saudi amd uts billions.

https://insidesources.com/calling-the-pga-tours-bluff/

This was from February, the whole thing is fascinating. Probably more interesting then most pga events.

Have thr tour mentioned lifetime bans much recently?

Wow Mickelson has withdrawn from the PGA Championship next week - incredible to think it was only a year ago he was back atop the golf world and a year later it’s all come to this for him.
Those gambling debts must be *insane*

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Wow Mickelson has withdrawn from the PGA Championship next week -  incredible to think it was only a year ago he was back atop the golf world and a year later it’s all come to this for him.
Those gambling debts must be *insane*

Did you hear Shipnuck talking about Phils gambling debts on this weeks no laying up? I think he had at least one year where his gambling debts reached the tens of millions. And it seems the insider trading he got caught up in was something to do with trying to pay back a big debt he owed some guy. Madness from Phil to get into this situation.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Wow Mickelson has withdrawn from the PGA Championship next week -  incredible to think it was only a year ago he was back atop the golf world and a year later it’s all come to this for him.
Those gambling debts must be *insane*

It is pathetic he has pulled out.

And it does seem like this has been Phils decision rather than the PGAofA. The speculation being that he is not ready to face his peers.

McLaren wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Wow Mickelson has withdrawn from the PGA Championship next week -  incredible to think it was only a year ago he was back atop the golf world and a year later it’s all come to this for him.
Those gambling debts must be *insane*

Did you hear Shipnuck talking about Phils gambling debts on this weeks no laying up? I think he had at least one year where his gambling debts reached the tens of millions. And it seems the insider trading he got caught up in was something to do with trying to pay back a big debt he owed some guy. Madness from Phil to get into this situation.

I finished listening to it yesterday - sounds like the book will be a decent read. The gambling stuff is madness, and as you say the insider trading stuff too...and with him seemingly still very much in (I expect he can't actually financially face getting "out") of this Saudi stuff, you have to assume he is in financial strife - which is incredible considering the amounts he's made on and off the course.

I do have to agree with Super - it is a bit pathetic that he has pulled out, and he didn't even announce it himself, or put out any sort of statement alongside it. Basically can't face facing his fellow players and the press?

Why wouldn't he want to face others?

I'm unsure if it's pathetic or not that he has withdrawn, as I don't know why he has withdrawn. I guess very few do know the reasons.

FIGJAM pulling out of the PGA Championship ... good grief, at some point he's going to have to face the press if he wants to play in professional golf tournaments.

Dude's a bit of a mess - I'm guessing he's about to go the way of John Daly.

McLaren wrote:And it does seem like this has been Phils decision rather than the PGAofA. The speculation being that he is not ready to face his peers.

I dont know why he's so bothered, given that the PGA is full of Republican voting fundamentalist Christians who are probably fine with the stance on aboloshing abortion rights I dont see his comments as being esoecially contentious in the context of what usually gets talked about on tour.

Like a lot of yanks, likes a bit of bluster, but too scared to actually back it up. Hardly like hes likely to face much opposition from his fellow players.

I'm never wrong wrote:Apparently it's a shotgun start for the June LIV event.

I'm sure some Saudi joke can be made out of that..

Shotrock wrote:FIGJAM pulling out of the PGA Championship ... good grief, at some point he's going to have to face the press if he wants to play in professional golf tournaments.

Dude's a bit of a mess - I'm guessing he's about to go the way of John Daly.

Tbh I'm bit surprised how much this case seems to have affected Phil. He always seemed like a guy who didn't care too much about what other people thought of him. Yes, he's defending champion and he will get a lot of attention, but he's an experienced guy and has handled the press for 30 years, so I'm surprised why he doesn't just turn up and play (and maybe make a few $ to pay off his debts).

Maybe the Saudis have warned Phil off playing events where he would face a questioning media. Let's face it he hasn't been the best at the sportswashing game so far. And they will be paying him quite a lot to do their bidding.

Nicklaus says he was offered >$100m to front the Saudi breakaway tour (a job similar to the one Norman now has). Pretty serious money to turn down.

Juat watching a preview show of the PGA Championship at Southern Hills. They showed a graphic of the hole layout and there is the potential for some delays. That's because some tee shots will be across greens of previous holes, or across fairways. Obviously the organisers can minimise the problems, but the potential is there.

INW - Can't imagine the logistics of play hasn't been thought through, but you never know.

I do think Southern Hills will play better this time of year as compared to the old August date for the PGA.

Will be interesting to see if Oak Hill gets hit with a cold snap (it happens in upstate NY in Spring) for the 2023 contest. You need pretty decent weather leading up to the event to get not just the course ready but the surrounding areas, too.

A fine start by Rory. Would like to see him keep it going.