LIV Golf

[Lord Tyrion]

PGA members are not required to play any particular tournaments, as long as they fulfil the 15 event minimum (unless lifetime exempt)

That has been tweaked slightly I think. Certain golfers, the more popular ones, are required to play in a tournament that they have not taken part in during the last 4 years. The idea being to make sure the smaller, less attractive comps are not completely ignored by the big boys. I can't discover what rankings this relates to but it does seem to be a thing.

 

[Robster59]

On a thought process. If I left my job and went to another one that paid me more money, would my old company allow me to go back to their place and use their facilities, etc.?

 

[slowhand]

That has been tweaked slightly I think. Certain golfers, the more popular ones, are required to play in a tournament that they have not taken part in during the last 4 years. The idea being to make sure the smaller, less attractive comps are not completely ignored by the big boys. I can't discover what rankings this relates to but it does seem to be a thing.

I think that rule applies to all the tour members, but the aim is, as you say, to get some of the bigger names to tournaments they may otherwise have skipped

 

[Val]

Agreed! I've had that offer and just need to confirm that it includes Golf
Either way, your post 5047 was simply wrong!

What's wrong about it? I'm merely suggesting it's weird someone thinks it costs £1000k a year to watch golf.

 

[Swango1980]

On a thought process. If I left my job and went to another one that paid me more money, would my old company allow me to go back to their place and use their facilities, etc.?

Not sure, but I doubt your old company would pay you

 

[Lord Tyrion]

On a thought process. If I left my job and went to another one that paid me more money, would my old company allow me to go back to their place and use their facilities, etc.?

Golfers don't uniquely play on one tour though. Quite a number already play on a couple of tours so the analogy doesn't quite fit. The template of flitting around tours is already set out.

As we also keep hearing, the PGA do not employ them in the way your old company employed you. They are contractors, popping in and out.

 

[Mel Smooth]

The job analogy is fundamentally flawed, still, hasn't stopped it being brought up about thirty times on this thread.

At least we're not talking about how the players have no motivation cos there's no cut, and they are guaranteed to get paid something, even though that also applies to every player making the cut at any tour event.

 

[Foxholer]

The job analogy is fundamentally flawed, still, hasn't stopped it being brought up about thirty times on this thread.
...

And I'm certain it will be in the court case! It, or the contract, is extremely relevant; just a bit awkward from a LIV point of view!

...
At least we're not talking about how the players have no motivation cos there's no cut, and they are guaranteed to get paid something, even though that also applies to every player making the cut at any tour event.

What a ridiculously stupid statement! Even by your recent 'standard'!

 

[Blue in Munich]

Why does everyone always mention the LIV tour players as being money grabbing, like when they were playing the PGA Tour they did it for free and the adulation only? Come on, surely when golfers start playing for million dollar purses, and not entering every event available then they are choosing to chase the money, even if its the PGA tour.

Because PGA Tour members are not guaranteed money. They have earned the right to play with the opportunity to win money based on their performance; LIV Tour players have received money for signing on, which I believe the PGA Tour members don't get, & they win money at each tournament for finishing last, which I believe PGA Tour players don't get.

interesting to see the words used by the pga tour press release. when talking about pga tour players they are "members", but when they leave they have become employees of the LIV tour !

Employees are paid workers for their company. LIV have paid these players to turn up and play. They're employees. It's not difficult.

 

[Foxholer]

Employees are paid workers for their company. LIV have paid these players to turn up and play. They're employees. It's not difficult.

While it's more likely that LIV players will be employees, it will still depend on the actual contract as to whether they are deemed employers or, like PGAT players, independent contractors.

And something that most on here don't seem to realised - or at least haven't mentioned - is that the lawsuit is an Antitrust one, not an Employment one. The employment status of players is largely irrelevant to such a lawsuit. It's how the defendant (The PGA Tour) has acted (e.g Monopolistically or as a Cartel) that is the key argument to be ruled on.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Golfers don't uniquely play on one tour though. Quite a number already play on a couple of tours so the analogy doesn't quite fit. The template of flitting around tours is already set out.

As we also keep hearing, the PGA do not employ them in the way your old company employed you. They are contractors, popping in and out.

But they sign contracts to play the pga tour, & therefore should stick to the conditions of that contract.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

But they sign contracts to play the pga tour, & therefore should stick to the conditions of that contract.

My post related to a specific comparison.

The contract aspect is one that is going to be tested it seems. No longer on forums but in court.

 

[BTatHome]

So when a player is asked to play a specific tournament, and is given an appearance fee then their status is no longer a member ?

 

[Foxholer]

So when a player is asked to play a specific tournament, and is given an appearance fee then their status is no longer a member ?

Maybe; maybe not! It depends on how they are 'asked'. Any Appearance Fee, or other incentive, is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[BTatHome]

Golfers don't uniquely play on one tour though. Quite a number already play on a couple of tours so the analogy doesn't quite fit. The template of flitting around tours is already set out.

It appears that you can only play other tours when PGA tour allows it though

I seem to remember someone (a player) saying that playing elsewhere without approval from the tour was not allowed, except they had occasions when approval wasn't granted (or asked), and yet no sanctions were brought against them. I guess that'll be brought up in the courts too (will try and find out who said that)[/QUOTE]

 

[doublebogey7]

So when a player is asked to play a specific tournament, and is given an appearance fee then their status is no longer a member ?

Those that play on the PGAT are called members because like a member of a golf club, they have a say in how the organisation is run. In that way it differs vastly from LIV, where PIV control everything. This seems to be a point missed completely on this thread. Those players who have a gripe against the PGAT, essentially have lost the argument within the PGAT membership and are now throwing their dollies out.

 

[Foxholer]

Those that play on the PGAT are called members because like a member of a golf club, they have a say in how the organisation is run. In that way it differs vastly from LIV, where PIV control everything. This seems to be a point missed completely on this thread. Those players who have a gripe against the PGAT, essentially have lost the argument within the PGAT membership and are now throwing their dollies out.

That may be the case, but is irrelevant to the Antitrust lawsuit - that is solely about The PGA Tour!

 

[doublebogey7]

That may be the case, but is irrelevant to the Antitrust lawsuit - that is solely about The PGA Tour!

I'm not sure I said it was.

 

[Foxholer]

I'm not sure I said it was.

Agreed. I'm just tying to clarify what the lawsuit is actually about - and it ain't LIV! LIV was/is only the cause/trigger.

 

[doublebogey7]

Agreed. I'm just tying to clarify what the lawsuit is actually about - and it ain't LIV! LIV was/is only the cause/trigger.

Having re-read what I said and listened to a couple of PGAT players, it had everything to do with the Lawsuit. LIV players are the plaintiffs against the PGAT which effectively means they are taking their fellow players through the court, given that the PGAT is a member won't organisation, which is the real point I was trying to make.