doublebogey7
Head Pro
Week in, week out????, can you show me the field for LIV this week
LIV Golf
- Thread starter MarkT
- Start date
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
No problem. Please see below for the full list of players at this week's LIV tournament......
The end.
Not sure where people stand on the women playing the Aramco Series. Meg MacLaren has given most of them a swerve and I'm pretty sure Mel Reid won't play in them - for most players it's the only way they've got a chance of making a living on the LET
https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/th...-for-these-girls-to-compete-dame-laura-davies
https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/th...-for-these-girls-to-compete-dame-laura-davies
rksquire
Head Pro
Appreciate Boxing is not golf related, but given the fight this weekend and a number of shared issues I think it is appropriate to conflate / compare how Saudi funded golf & boxing are being portrayed.
Sky Sports, re: LIV golf - outspoken with regard to opposition, particularly in their podcasts.
Sky Sports, re: Boxing (AJ vs Usyk) - outspoken with it's support and promotion as it is broadcasting the event.
Competitors, golf: ", not a politician, just to here to play golf" - vilified in most media quarters.
Competitors, boxing: "I'm here for boxing" - media comment that apparently it's a complicated issue but not competitor is not vilified.
Poulter questioned as to whether he would play anywhere for money (comparing Saudi to Moscow)
Usyk asked by no-one if he would fight anywhere for money (no-one yet comparing Jeddah to Moscow).
AJ - still seemingly has enough to offer that he remains an English media darling and all round good guy
Westwood / Bland / Poulter - greedy also rans who possibly are, collectively, the devil incarnate.
Is it safe to assume that those who are anti-LIV but also boxing fans will be boycotting the Jeddah event? Golf seems to have entrenched itself in a position of them and us; Boxing has managed, like other sports, to blur the lines sufficiently. Of course the difference is the existential threat to an established tour that is not at the party; Boxing / Tennis / F1 etc ruling organisations remain a stakeholder... the PGAT does not, and, as yet, refuses to be engaged. Of course this gives the PGAT the moral high ground but it's only for selfish reasons (in my opinion).
Sky Sports, re: LIV golf - outspoken with regard to opposition, particularly in their podcasts.
Sky Sports, re: Boxing (AJ vs Usyk) - outspoken with it's support and promotion as it is broadcasting the event.
Competitors, golf: ", not a politician, just to here to play golf" - vilified in most media quarters.
Competitors, boxing: "I'm here for boxing" - media comment that apparently it's a complicated issue but not competitor is not vilified.
Poulter questioned as to whether he would play anywhere for money (comparing Saudi to Moscow)
Usyk asked by no-one if he would fight anywhere for money (no-one yet comparing Jeddah to Moscow).
AJ - still seemingly has enough to offer that he remains an English media darling and all round good guy
Westwood / Bland / Poulter - greedy also rans who possibly are, collectively, the devil incarnate.
Is it safe to assume that those who are anti-LIV but also boxing fans will be boycotting the Jeddah event? Golf seems to have entrenched itself in a position of them and us; Boxing has managed, like other sports, to blur the lines sufficiently. Of course the difference is the existential threat to an established tour that is not at the party; Boxing / Tennis / F1 etc ruling organisations remain a stakeholder... the PGAT does not, and, as yet, refuses to be engaged. Of course this gives the PGAT the moral high ground but it's only for selfish reasons (in my opinion).
GB72
Money List Winner
It is a fair point. Other sports, including F1 as well, do not seem to get the same attention that golf is and that is due to the LIV tour going against the current establishment and so are not only lacking that level of PR backing in the media spotlight but it also serves the establishment well to emphasise the distasteful source of the funding. Now, as I have said before, I have an equal dislike the whole process of sportswashing but there are some pretty hypocritical attitudes in the overall coverage of varying sports depending on whether it suits the media or the sporting bodies to carry and emphasise the sports washing element. I am not saying that LIV should not be held to account, more to the point I think that all sporting bodies should be held to account but the expected tirade about sportswashing seems strangely absent from, for example, currnet social media boxing threads.
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
Maybe the forum rules could be aligned with the magazine sites, would make your job a lot easier surely!!!
D
Deleted member 1147
Guest
Or, it isn’t as good as the tours because there are barely any events
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/box...g-Saudi-Arabia-Oleksandr-Usyk-boxing-news/amp
Been a fair amount of criticism towards the boxing going there
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2...e-to-speak-out-says-drivers-association-chair
And F1 looks like they have come close to boycotting
GB72
Money List Winner
Strangely an article about boxing actually appears to have more column inches about LIV whilst only posting the most tame of questioning to AJ ('Have you heard about sportswashing' 'No' 'OK then next question'). Really not much vitriol, just the most basic of questioning to avoid being accused of skirting the issue.
Second article seems to simply say that drivers want their say going forward. Specifcally states that the Saudi Grand Prix will continue.
Neither of these seem to have any of the vitriol aimed at golf and that is wrong.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
I made the point, about 4000 posts ago...
13 wrongs don't make a right.
13 wrongs don't make a right.
D
Deleted member 29109
Guest
A number of F1 drivers spoke out about the human rights issues.
They are racing there for one race. It’s not like the drivers are choosing to be directly employed by the Saudis as the golfers are.
They are racing there for one race. It’s not like the drivers are choosing to be directly employed by the Saudis as the golfers are.
Swango1980
Well-known member
The moral high ground argument is a beautiful argument. If somebody doesn't like something (i.e. LIV golf), using the moral argument is genius if you can make it fit. Because, no one can genuinely disagree with the nasty human rights record in Saudi Arabia (at least in this forum, or in the west generally), so the moral argument cannot be directly challenged as being incorrect. However, LIV golf is not really all about morals. It is a golf tour, people get paid to take part and the hope is fans will enjoy it. So, the real argument is really about is it a good golf tour, is is better than the tours already out there or is it doomed to fail. But, if you try and discuss ALL the other factors about what you think of LIV, the ones that don't like it and stick to the moral argument just take the nuclear option, and question your own moral beliefs. They will twist it that, if you offer any positive comment about LIV, you are effectively a supporter of every single aspect of Saudi Arabian life and the appalling human rights record.
Sure, all else being equal, if there were no other differences at all between playing on LIV or PGA (in terms of amount of golf played or money earned), then you could wonder why a golfer would elect to play on LIV rather than PGA. You could question why they would choose to do that, given that the moral element may be the only difference between the 2. So, I've no issue with the moral element being included in the conversation, but if people hang that up as the major part of the argument, I wonder is it simply because they have little other to offer as genuine reasons against LIV?
However, the moral element only ever seems to come into the equation when people don't like something. But, if they do like something (or certainly no other reason to dislike it), then the moral element is just conveniently swept under the carpet. I've rarely heard a person or business genuinely say they turned down a huge opportunity simply down to moral grounds. Even if they did, you would often doubt their word, as there were probably other significant factors that went into that decision, and using the moral high ground reason afterwards just makes them look better.
Genuine question, but just exactly why is the climax of the European Tour in the Middle East? Is it money related? Could the climax have not been held is southern Europe (weather) or many other places that are less controversial? Was it even controversial, or do people just accept that because it was simply part of the European Tour, it didn't challenge the European Tour. Therefore, there was no threat, thus no reason to use human rights as an argument against it. Yet with LIV, which is a competitor of the Tours fans enjoy, suddenly human rights is a major issue.
Don't get me wrong, personally I'm not a fan of LIV. All for golfing reasons (I also don't like the human rights records in the Middle East, but for me it is not the key issue. I get what sports washing is made out to be, but ironically I think it can actually do the exact opposite. Countries put their reputation out there my investing in big global projects, it can actually accelerate their improvement on human rights as they want to improve their global standing, not worsen it).
If LIV genuinely takes off, and really manages to establish itself to the major global tour, you can guarantee Sky Sports will be interested in getting the broadcasting rights. Suddenly their moral beliefs will be put to the side, or they will come up with some excuse like "we have seen improvements in the human rights records, and a real determination to make improvements going forward, blah blah". Fans will start watching it. There may be a few stubborn ones that stop watching golf (or watch all the lesser players on other tours), but many that have been dead against LIV for moral reasons will end up watching it if it becomes the biggest golf on TV. The same ones that probably watch the boxing, Formula 1 that is hosted in the Middle East or China or watch Manchester City or Newcastle play on television. I get it that people can't research every single aspect of the things they invest in to see if any sources are from the Middle East, or be expected to not fuel their car simply because of where the petrol came from. However, they certainly don't HAVE to watch Man City games for example. They could just make a stand and boycott them altogether, really stand for what they believe in. Bet they don't though. They'll probably look forward to watching a big game between Man City and their own team, or another big team, because they enjoy it. Don't let morals get in the way of that. I bet some of them also have Haaland and/or DeBruyne in their fantasy football team
GB72
Money List Winner
I very much agree, the argument is not that LIV do not deserve the criticism but rather that this should be aimed at all sports participating in sport washing events. At present, it would appear that this angle is being used simply where it suits and that there is a massive amount of hypocrisy both in the media and in the governing bodies of many sports as to what they deem worthy of increased sctuitiny and vitriol for the use of Saudi money.
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
Although its probably not fair to use the inaugural liv season as a measure for number of events
If accurate as reported:
Next year a liv player will be required to play in 14 liv events in the season
A pgat player will be required to play in 15 pgat events in the season
So it seems pretty it'll be pretty even
Plus the pgat player gets to play in events that aren’t really proper pgat events but they’ll still count towards their requirement of 15 (i.e Majors and co-sanctioned, not sure about WGCs too) whereas a liv player will (if allowed) play in Majors, Asia tour, in addition to their requirement of 14
(still not decided if I want the liv)
GB72
Money List Winner
A totally vaoid point. My issue is more that the venom and vitriol aimed from the media and by people on social media does not seem to be equal across various sports. I am not arguing for less criticism of LIV but rather that this spotlight should be put on all such events. The media wants to report on and broadcast the Joshua fight, the boxing authorities don't care and so AJ and his promoters are getting a relatively free ride as far as the sportswashing accusations go. Imagine if any of the LIV golfers had stated that they really quite like Saudi as AJ has done, they would be attacked left right and centre.
Basically it appears that the sportswashing angle is being applied where it suits and when it suits and that is also wrong.
Mel Smooth
Hacker
Yep, the difference being in other sports, there hasn’t been a lobby from a competitor to fuel the controversy- which we’ve seen from the PGA Tour and their media. (Monahan answering direct questions about 9/11 for example).
The PGA have reached straight for the bottom of the barrel in their protection of their tour, and everybody has jumped on board.
We’re now seeing the reaction to that in Reed taking legal action against Chamblee - which he is perfectly entitled to imho.
The alternative path was always better - cooperation between the tours, but that door was firmly closed from day 1.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Imo - we are on a golf forum , most will be looking at golf social media etc so it will look like its a bit more extreme
I also think there are subtle differences - boxing and F1 are one offs , the F1 is part of the calendar to go there
Golf - it’s a rival tour being created and it’s being run vastly different to all the other tours - LIV golf are “poaching” players as such and luring them with vast sums of money to make very rich golfers richer - the arrival of LIV has created division within the sport and the reaction will be diffeentb
Mel Smooth
Hacker
There isn’t a good event that will grab public attention on the PGA tour until The Masters
evemccc
Well-known member
Of course it is though…I may be an old cynic but think I am also right to be
To look for moral consistency or logic from broadcasters such as Sky is sadly foolish when naked self-interest and greed prevails…
I think the LIV-PGA Tour thing is interesting in another way. It’s the first time I can think of when Americans feel threatened and possibly usurped by a foreign league in any sport…in basketball, golf, the NFL, and baseball their league has been dominant
21st globalisation has basically been an extension of their leagues…and now the shoe is on the other foot…it’s the ‘other’ side of globalisation and they’re threatened. And as golf is an establishment sport in the US the establishment is really hating the challenge from LIV
Swango1980
Well-known member
I think your arguments prove exactly why the moral argument is a poor one overall.
You have said yourself, boxing and F1 are one offs and just part of their regular calendar. Whereas in golf, LIV is a rival tour and poaching players from the rival tours. These are perfectly good arguments to accepting something for one sport, but not for another sport. I certainly agree, LIV has created division in golf, I don't think it is a good thing either.
However, the above reasons are not good enough to then use the moral argument for LIV just because you don't like the sporting reasons, yet push it to the side for boxing or F1 just because you don't think it is having a negative impact on the sporting aspect. The moral argument applies to both, and so if one finds it an absolutely crucial part of the argument for one sport then it should be equally important for others. OK, it might be easier for them to get personal in golf and pin a lot of the blame on individual golfers for making that decision. However, arguably even more anger should be placed towards the likes of the FIA, an organisation of people that have collectively decided to go to the Middle East.
