Should the PGA Tour allow players to receive appearance money?

[muttleee]

Following on from the thread about Tiger's fee for playing in Abu Dhabi, should the PGA Tour allow players to be paid just for turning up? Tim Finchem is dead against the idea but I'm sure there are tournament sponsors who would gladly pay to guarantee that some of the top names would attend their event. Why shouldn't they be allowed to if they want to?

 

[pbrown7582]

i dont see a problem with it, if the sponsors want pay out let the players accept.

 

[muttleee]

I think Finchem's worry is that the tour will turn into a 2-tier system where the rich sponsors get all the good players to appear and the poorer ones don't.

 

[One Planer]

I don't have a particular issue with it, so long as it is proportional to the prize fund for the event.

Having someone (a la Tiger) earn more in appearance money than appears on the winner cheque just seems a little bizarre/daft to me.

 

[Piece]

Personally, I say no appearance fee. The likelihood is that if they start paying then it becomes less of a "Tour" and more about individual events.

 

[Oddsocks]

Hmmmm a tricky one, by having now appearance money you get people committed to the series for the win purse only, I could see it having negative effects as some rounds would no doubt attack bigger sponsors making other rounds look poor

 

[USER1999]

It is like boot money in football. How would you police it? Who would know it had been paid?

It is what it is, and I am fine with it.

If someone offered money to me to play in the next medal, I'd play in it. Why should a top golfer be any different?

If I was Barclays, and I want Phil M to be at my tournament, I could pay him to appear, or I could sponsor him to wear my logo on his shitrt, and tell him he needs to go there or I'll stop sponsoring him. He gets the same money, and turns up. What's the difference?

 

[Val]

If its the sponsors money then so be it however if it affects the prize fund it shouldnt be allowed, the problem for the European tour is getting top PGA pros to play their events, the prize money on offer in the US is so high they've no need to travel anywhere else other than to The Open Championship.

 

[Oddsocks]

Personally, I say no appearance fee. The likelihood is that if they start paying then it becomes less of a "Tour" and more about individual events.

Far better worded but exactly what I was getting at,

 

[Philm]

the problem as it would be minimalised if we had a WORLD TOUR made up of the top XXno. of players who play a high lucrative competition once a month anywhere in the world

and then two lower tours in Europe and the US. and a constant promotion and relegation between the two tiers of players.

would certainly provide a premier league for the top guys


^^^what a load of waffle.

Phil

 

[Philm]

If I was Barclays, and I want Phil M to be at my tournament, I could pay him to appear, or I could sponsor him to wear my logo on his shitrt, and tell him he needs to go there or I'll stop sponsoring him. He gets the same money, and turns up. What's the difference?

i dont like how i appear to be on your mind.

im a married man.



Phil

 

[muttleee]

If someone offered money to me to play in the next medal, I'd play in it.

But what about your amateur status..?!

 

[USER1999]

i dont like how i appear to be on your mind.

im a married man.



Phil

Ahh, but you are Philm, rather than Phil M.

 

[USER1999]

But what about your amateur status..?!

It would have to be less than £500 then.

 

[Monty_Brown]

The whole business of golf tournament sponsorship and appearance fees is governed by market forces, like anything else.

Anyone who sees the sparse crowds at many European Tour events can surmise that it's not the gate fees that are funding the $2 million prize fund each week. It's sponsors.

And these are multi-million/billion dollar companies in many cases. They are smart cookies who emply serious number crunchers and market analysts to work out exactly what value they are getting for their sponsorship money. Brand exposure to the relatively well-off TV audiences that golf gets is worth a fortune to them.

If it wasn't worth it, there are plenty of smart people in these firms who would tell them otherwise. And we'd see them run for the hills.

Interestingly, for some sponsors, that cut-off point is being reached, as ther dwindling marketing budgets can't cope with the costs of sponsoring tournaments. Whether that will result in the natural market re-adjustment, time will tell. Perhaps Tiger has re-appeared in the nick of time?

 

[DCB]

Look at some of the American golfers who will travel over to Europe to play in some insignificant little event just because the sponsor pays big bucks for their attendance at a dinner and at a client event. The same Americans then seen to have all the reasons for not travelling to play in The Open.

Appearance money is here to stay unfortunately, as long as it's not a direct payment from the event to the player, fair enough as far as I'm concerned. If events start paying appearance directly, then that's a different matter altogether and not a healthy one at that.

 

[bladeplayer]

I think John D has been seen to abuse it so he is fast running out of options on it .. personaly i dont think it should be allowed , sponsors & players are verrrrrry important but they inevitably come & go , nothing should be as important as the Tour itself , there is more than enough winnings out there to be had , seriously what need has tiger woods & the top players for appearence money? millions off sponsors , millions in earnings , get loadsa stuff free , they should be giving that to their foundations or charitys , & i would be all for that .. as for extra money for the multi millionare to just turn up .... not in my opinion ta...

 

[Val]

I think John D has been seen to abuse it so he is fast running out of options on it .. personaly i dont think it should be allowed , sponsors & players are verrrrrry important but they inevitably come & go , nothing should be as important as the Tour itself , there is more than enough winnings out there to be had , seriously what need has tiger woods & the top players for appearence money? millions off sponsors , millions in earnings , get loadsa stuff free , they should be giving that to their foundations or charitys , & i would be all for that .. as for extra money for the multi millionare to just turn up .... not in my opinion ta...

Im almost certain some will, Tiger in particular funds his foundations well as does Lee Westwood.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I think John D has been seen to abuse it so he is fast running out of options on it .. personaly i dont think it should be allowed , sponsors & players are verrrrrry important but they inevitably come & go , nothing should be as important as the Tour itself , there is more than enough winnings out there to be had , seriously what need has tiger woods & the top players for appearence money? millions off sponsors , millions in earnings , get loadsa stuff free , they should be giving that to their foundations or charitys , & i would be all for that .. as for extra money for the multi millionare to just turn up .... not in my opinion ta...

Tiger donated every penny of his winnings from the tournament he won at the end of last year to his and other charities making it £10M donated from that tournament alone and I'm sure he doesn't stop there. I'm sure he's not the only one. Intersting that we all here about the "Tiger's gone for the money" headlines but not about what he gives to charity.

If the sponsers want to pay the dough to get the top players then that's their business and frankly if it means I get to watch Luke, Tiger and Rory tee it up in the same group it's good with me. After all, that's what we all want to se isn't it, the best players in the world competing against each other.

 

[bladeplayer]

Im almost certain some will, Tiger in particular funds his foundations well as does Lee Westwood.

Tiger donated every penny of his winnings from the tournament he won at the end of last year to his and other charities making it £10M donated from that tournament alone and I'm sure he doesn't stop there. I'm sure he's not the only one. Intersting that we all here about the "Tiger's gone for the money" headlines but not about what he gives to charity.

If the sponsers want to pay the dough to get the top players then that's their business and frankly if it means I get to watch Luke, Tiger and Rory tee it up in the same group it's good with me. After all, that's what we all want to se isn't it, the best players in the world competing against each other.

Happy days so if those who need it, get it from those who have it it can only be good , id have no complaints in the appearence fees if this is the case ..