LIV Golf

[Swango1980]

So Poulters main aim apart from money was to be able to play less and have more family time - yet he is now looking to appeal so that he can play more ?‍

And did they really not understand the consequences ?

It was interesting that he said he fully supports the ET - yet he has played 8 times in 3 years there. 3 of them in the Middle East , the Scottish Open to try and get into the Open

They don’t support the ET - they play when the convienent to him and I’m guessing he needs to play scotland to get in the Open

I don't think he said that he would ONLY play in LIV events though, did he?

Are you saying that because he wants to play in an event outside the LIV Tour, that now means he would actually be playing more golf than when LIV did not exist? Personally, I think your opening line is completely baseless (plus also forgetting that in LIV he also gets an extra day in the week off).

As for the rest, I don't know the detail of Poulter's previous playing record. Has he played the minimum number of events the European Tour require for most seasons? If so, he is effectively supporting them under the guidelines they set out. Outside of that, all players will set their schedule to best suit them. They are not charity cases, they are effectively running their own business, and also trying to set out their schedules to try and optimise their performances when it matters.

 

[Foxholer]

Augusta National is absolutely an invite only place, but the Masters Tournament is not an invitational. The qualification routes are published, and I don't believe the Masters Committee can uninvite someone who has qualified:

• Masters Tournament Champions (Lifetime)
• US Open Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
• British Open Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
• PGA Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
• Winners of The Players Championship (Three years)
• Current Olympic Gold Medalist (One year)
• Current US Amateur Champion (Honorary, non-competing after 1 year) and the runner-up to the current US Amateur Champion
• Current British Amateur Champion (Honorary, non-competing after 1 year)
• Current Asia-Pacific Amateur Champion
• Current Latin America Amateur Champion
• Current US Mid-Amateur Champion
• The first 12 players, including ties, in the previous year's Masters Tournament
• The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's US Open Championship
• The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's British Open Championship
• The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's PGA Championship
• Winners of PGA Tour events that award a full-point allocation for the season-ending Tour Championship, from previous Masters to current Masters
• Those qualifying for the previous year's season-ending Tour Championship
• The 50 leaders on the Final Official World Golf Ranking for the previous calendar year
• The 50 leaders on the Official World Golf Ranking published during the week prior to the current Masters Tournament

These are the published qualification routes. The committee can invite people who have not qualified with these methods. It is usually only 1 or 2, they have in the past invited players on the Asian Tour in an attempt to get more viewers, they have also invited big names who have possibly dropped down, I think Montgomery was invited once a few years back.

Langer qualifies by being a former champion, he is not invited, he has a lifetime exemption, but despite this, I am not so sure about that anecdote because I don't think members can play on the course for a couple months before the Masters, and past champions can't just rock up whenever they want to play

I believe you've got it slightly wrong....
Those criteria are the qualifying criteria for receiving an invite to The Masters - subtle but important difference - as it's not just the golf that's part of 'The Masters tradition'.

 

[AussieKB]

Augusta National is absolutely an invite only place, but the Masters Tournament is not an invitational. The qualification routes are published, and I don't believe the Masters Committee can uninvite someone who has qualified:

• Masters Tournament Champions (Lifetime)
• US Open Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
• British Open Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
• PGA Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
• Winners of The Players Championship (Three years)
• Current Olympic Gold Medalist (One year)
• Current US Amateur Champion (Honorary, non-competing after 1 year) and the runner-up to the current US Amateur Champion
• Current British Amateur Champion (Honorary, non-competing after 1 year)
• Current Asia-Pacific Amateur Champion
• Current Latin America Amateur Champion
• Current US Mid-Amateur Champion
• The first 12 players, including ties, in the previous year's Masters Tournament
• The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's US Open Championship
• The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's British Open Championship
• The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's PGA Championship
• Winners of PGA Tour events that award a full-point allocation for the season-ending Tour Championship, from previous Masters to current Masters
• Those qualifying for the previous year's season-ending Tour Championship
• The 50 leaders on the Final Official World Golf Ranking for the previous calendar year
• The 50 leaders on the Official World Golf Ranking published during the week prior to the current Masters Tournament

These are the published qualification routes. The committee can invite people who have not qualified with these methods. It is usually only 1 or 2, they have in the past invited players on the Asian Tour in an attempt to get more viewers, they have also invited big names who have possibly dropped down, I think Montgomery was invited once a few years back.

Langer qualifies by being a former champion, he is not invited, he has a lifetime exemption, but despite this, I am not so sure about that anecdote because I don't think members can play on the course for a couple months before the Masters, and past champions can't just rock up whenever they want to play

Just for you....
https://golf.com/news/tournaments/augusta-national-members-masters/

 

[Imurg]

I don't think he said that he would ONLY play in LIV events though, did he?

Are you saying that because he wants to play in an event outside the LIV Tour, that now means he would actually be playing more golf than when LIV did not exist? Personally, I think your opening line is completely baseless (plus also forgetting that in LIV he also gets an extra day in the week off).

As for the rest, I don't know the detail of Poulter's previous playing record. Has he played the minimum number of events the European Tour require for most seasons? If so, he is effectively supporting them under the guidelines they set out. Outside of that, all players will set their schedule to best suit them. They are not charity cases, they are effectively running their own business, and also trying to set out their schedules to try and optimise their performances when it matters.

Poulter has played 11 times on the DPWT in the past 2 years not including Majors and WGCs which count for the R2D as well - he'd be playing those if he wasn't a DPWT member
6 out of 27 events last year were solely DPWT events..

 

[Swango1980]

Poulter has played 11 times on the DPWT in the past 2 years not including Majors and WGCs which count for the R2D as well - he'd be playing those if he wasn't a DPWT member
6 out of 27 events last year were solely DPWT events..

Does that tie in with Liverpoolphils statement that he has played 8 times in 3 years there? I also suspect Covid had an impact within the last 3 years?

 

[Mel Smooth]

Poulter will also be fighting for his right to be considered for future Ryder Cup rolls, and those others that have chosen to play LIV. It’s much bigger than one or two players, the legality of the suspensions and bans needs to be challenged and hopefully overturned - for the long term benefit of the game.

 

[Imurg]

Does that tie in with Liverpoolphils statement that he has played 8 times in 3 years there? I also suspect Covid had an impact within the last 3 years?

Looking back to 2018/19 he played 7 and 9 DPWT events out of 27 and 26 events played....so not turned his back on DPWT but not exactly making it a priority

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The ET did a lot of bending to ensure that the guys that mainly played on the PGA tour were still eligible to play in the Ryder Cup - rules were changed to suit them and to ensure they at least contributed to the ET

They aren’t going to bend the rules for the players that have gone to the LIV and they shouldn’t - Poulter and Co fully understood the risks of playing in events that needed a release - events that went up against ET events that have been around for a while - if Poulter and Co really cared about the ET and Ryder Cup they would have been in Ireland not Portland

They want to have a piece of cake from it all without any personal sacrifices - well it doesn’t work like that , let’s hope that a young pro that needs a kick start doesn’t miss out in Scotland now

And there needs to stop these taglines “benefit of the game” - what benefit does the game get from players being given multi millions just turn up for events ? How is that benefitting golf ?

 

[Mel Smooth]

The ET did a lot of bending to ensure that the guys that mainly played on the PGA tour were still eligible to play in the Ryder Cup - rules were changed to suit them and to ensure they at least contributed to the ET

They aren’t going to bend the rules for the players that have gone to the LIV and they shouldn’t - Poulter and Co fully understood the risks of playing in events that needed a release - events that went up against ET events that have been around for a while - if Poulter and Co really cared about the ET and Ryder Cup they would have been in Ireland not Portland

They want to have a piece of cake from it all without any personal sacrifices - well it doesn’t work like that , let’s hope that a young pro that needs a kick start doesn’t miss out in Scotland now

And there needs to stop these taglines “benefit of the game” - what benefit does the game get from players being given multi millions just turn up for events ? How is that benefitting golf ?

The benefit is it’s fun, and easy to watch. Golf is an afternoon or morning out with your mates having fun, not a 4 day tournament where you get told to fk off after two days if you’ve played badly.
I absolutely guarantee that watching LIV golf will raise the awareness of the game to those that have shown no or only a passing interest, way more than the vast majority of tour events that are behind a paywall will.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

All tournaments should be restricted to 54 players...that's how you grow the game.
Fewer players = bigger game

 

[Ethan]

One notion that has been dragged up with LIV is the idea that it is unfair that these professional golfers don't get paid if they miss the cut, and this has been compared to baseball and basketball where a lot of players get megabucks whether their teams win, lose or draw.

But the players on those teams don't claim to be "independent contractors", they don't get to chose to play one match and then skip the next, or clear off to play baseball in another country.

One other difference between golf and other sports is the variation in performance. Look at world number 1, Scottie Scheffler. Despite choosing his events, his recent finishes have ranged from 1st to missed cut (PGA) and T55 (Players). You don't see Steph Curry score 30 points in one game, then 2 points in the next. Usain Bolt didn't win one race and come 7th in the next.

Golf performance is inherently more variable and it seems simply wrong to pay players for finishing in the bottom half of the field. It is a meritocracy and the players get plaid pretty damn well.

Charles Howell III has won $42 million career dollars, plus endorsements. Undoubtedly a very good player, but he has 3 career victories in 22 years as a pro, and typically has 3 or 4 top 10 finishes a season. Last season he pulled in almost a million dollars with T9 in The Players his best finish. I don't think he needs paid for missing the cut too.

 

[Slab]

Just an FYI, the field size of the Scottish Open will be increased. No one will be dropped

 

[Swango1980]

The ET did a lot of bending to ensure that the guys that mainly played on the PGA tour were still eligible to play in the Ryder Cup - rules were changed to suit them and to ensure they at least contributed to the ET

They aren’t going to bend the rules for the players that have gone to the LIV and they shouldn’t - Poulter and Co fully understood the risks of playing in events that needed a release - events that went up against ET events that have been around for a while - if Poulter and Co really cared about the ET and Ryder Cup they would have been in Ireland not Portland

They want to have a piece of cake from it all without any personal sacrifices - well it doesn’t work like that , let’s hope that a young pro that needs a kick start doesn’t miss out in Scotland now

And there needs to stop these taglines “benefit of the game” - what benefit does the game get from players being given multi millions just turn up for events ? How is that benefitting golf ?

So, the European Tour were willing to bend the rules to suit the themselves. So, the ET want their cake and eat it as well.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The benefit is it’s fun, and easy to watch. Golf is an afternoon or morning out with your mates having fun, not a 4 day tournament where you get told to fk off after two days if you’ve played badly.
I absolutely guarantee that watching LIV golf will raise the awareness of the game to those that have shown no or only a passing interest, way more than the vast majority of tour events that are behind a paywall will.

Who benefits from Poulter being given x amount of millions for turning up ?

Golf or Poulter ?

what about the £125mil plus BDC was given ? Is that a benefit to the sport or to BDC ?

you can keep going but sport doesn’t always benefit when vast amounts of money are brought into an already rich game

There will be many who believe that the riches offered within football have ruined the game

Here is a bunch of events that have huge amounts of money , are restricted by invite only and have reduce the amount of golf on show ? Is less more now ?

LiV golf is not been done for the benefit of the game , it’s not been done to grow the game , it’s someone trying to rock the boat , muscle in and create something that wasn’t needed , is sportswashing and using billions to fund it

People will look at the level of money being given - the source of the money and be appalled by it

 

[Swango1980]

One notion that has been dragged up with LIV is the idea that it is unfair that these professional golfers don't get paid if they miss the cut, and this has been compared to baseball and basketball where a lot of players get megabucks whether their teams win, lose or draw.

But the players on those teams don't claim to be "independent contractors", they don't get to chose to play one match and then skip the next, or clear off to play baseball in another country.

One other difference between golf and other sports is the variation in performance. Look at world number 1, Scottie Scheffler. Despite choosing his events, his recent finishes have ranged from 1st to missed cut (PGA) and T55 (Players). You don't see Steph Curry score 30 points in one game, then 2 points in the next. Usain Bolt didn't win one race and come 7th in the next.

Golf performance is inherently more variable and it seems simply wrong to pay players for finishing in the bottom half of the field. It is a meritocracy and the players get plaid pretty damn well.

Charles Howell III has won $42 million career dollars, plus endorsements. Undoubtedly a very good player, but he has 3 career victories in 22 years as a pro, and typically has 3 or 4 top 10 finishes a season. Last season he pulled in almost a million dollars with T9 in The Players his best finish. I don't think he needs paid for missing the cut too.

Maybe some of the bigger players realise that, if they choose to play on any regular PGA / ET event, that will automatically make that even more attractive to the fans that follow them, and also make them more attractive in pulling in sponsorship to that event. So, maybe it frustrates them that their presence can generate a huge amount for the event / tour (even if they miss the cut), yet if they then miss the cut, they get no benefit at all.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So, the European Tour were willing to bend the rules to suit the themselves. So, the ET want their cake and eat it as well.

Is that not what the two main tours do ? Protect themselves ? Do you expect the tours to not do that ? The Ryder Cup is huge for them so they will protect it

Should they have just shot themselves in the foot instead ?

Why do you think they are getting closer links to the PGA Tour ?

The ET provide a platform way beyond just the main tour , it’s there to look after all it’s members not just a few

 

[Swango1980]

Is that not what the two main tours do ? Protect themselves ? Do you expect the tours to not do that ? The Ryder Cup is huge for them so they will protect it

Should they have just shot themselves in the foot instead ?

Why do you think they are getting closer links to the PGA Tour ?

The ET provide a platform way beyond just the main tour , it’s there to look after all it’s members not just a few

Absolutely. However, it seems hypocritical to be happy for the tours to "bend rules" to suit themselves, and yet get all angry and upset when players make decisions that they feel benefit themselves.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

If growing the game were the aim, and if paying those in the game that need it more were important, it wouldn''t be the top 54 players that they were looking to invest in. It would be those on lower tours, including the Korn Ferry & Challenge tours.

Alfie Plant's Dad recently posted a video on twitter suggesting that only the top 3 finishers each week come out on top financially.
So I don't think we need worry about the top players and their caddies not getting paid if they miss cuts. It's the future stars, who come from the feeder tours than need to be encouraged and funded better.
That's how they can grow the game. Sod the big names, who should, if they've been sensible with their finances, be financially secure (more than secure).

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Can someone please explain how watching LiV players hit shots is ‘more fun’ than watching non LiV players hit shots?

 

[rksquire]

Views are always bias towards your own personal opinion, but it is unfair to misrepresent of players comments / reasons - regardless of opinion of them and what they are doing. Just because Poulter wants to play the Scottish Open doesn't mean he wants to play more. His appeal is to ensure (only if successful) that he has options to play as many times as he wants which will be less than his schedule for the last 15-20 years but more than just LIV or 0. The criticism really should be that he wants his cake and to eat it too.

I feel the PGA Tour have been much more clear about the consequences - and the thing about consequence is that it has to be clear what rules and membership agreements have been broken. At this moment in time that isn't clear and I haven't actually seen (from my knowledge!) this clarified in 164 pages of forum posts. Pelley's statement also never clear it up; the fine is one thing but the event exclusions were co-sanctioned PGA Tour Events - this would suggest to me it's more clear there's been an infringement of the PGA Tour rules and agreements, but again that's only speculation - the appeal will bring more clarity.

I'm not a fan of any of Pelley's statement thus far; the latest one where it bigs up the charitable status of the McManus event fails to mention some very obvious negative issues... eg 9 of the worlds top 10 players have teed it up at Adare Manor, sandwiched between the Irish Open and the Scottish Open - the timing of the event has surely damaged the field for both ranking tournaments. Yet, presumably, waivers have been handed out for these. Waivers have also been handed out historically, so there's precedent for allowing players to do other things. I understand the argument that it harms the 'product' but as others have pointed out, Poulter, for example, has played 8 times on the DPWT in 3 years, so what harm is there in awarding him his waiver? Also, as Pelley states, the field for the Scottish Open will increase beyond 156 thereby showing some proactivity and a willingness to bend the rules - who'd have thought it's possible to find solutions to problems when you put your mind to it!

GMac at least has indicated he won't follow a legal route at this point; he may benefit from others legal recourse, but despite merited criticism he remains respectfully disrespectful of the hand that fed him for decades.

On a slight side issue, as the Usyk v Joshua build-up gathers momentum as the Saudi make a play to own boxing, I'll be keen to see the link to Usyk being asked "Is there anywhere you wouldn't fight for money? For example if Putin offered $1billion to fight in Moscow...". It won't happen, but there does appear to be a double standard when it comes to the golf and the level of scrutiny being applied - is Golf really the last bastion of sporting integrity?