The ideal world or airy fairy land?

[Marko77]

Whilst not just golf, a few incidents in several sports of late has had me questioning how much money is dominating the sports we love to play and watch and how ultimately it could ruin it to a degree.

In golf, we have tournaments and sponsors shelling out far too much in my opinion, to the extent that Tiger probably only plays 7 or 8 regular tour events outwith the majors and world golf championships. Surely its in golfs best interests to see Tiger, Phil, Els and Co out as often as possible on the PGA Tour, likewise, Westwood, Harrington, Clarke, Monty et al in Europe.

Whilst it would never come to pass, I was thinking of what solutions could be implemented across all Professional Golf.

1. All Tour players receive a basic salary. The salary is scaled according to their rank on their registered tour. Rookies receive a starting grade salary.
2. All Tour events* pay out the same money / fedex** points. Sponsors would be encouraged to divide their efforts and team up with smaller events. Tournaments are not allow to “buy” players e.g. Buick Invitational and Tiger
3. The payout* / fedex** points structure is the same structure on every tournament as would world ranking points.
4. The Majors / World Golf Championships can have an increased bonus kitty to reward players who qualify to play in these events.
5. Fedex Cup / Race to Dubai can payout whatever the sponsors can afford. The golfers that make it there obviously deserve to be there.

* Tour event kittys would obviously have to differ across the different tours (PGA / European / Asian) but should be kept as relative as possible
** Where I’ve said Fedex, replace with each tours equivalent (as in whatever the Race to Dubai ends up being called)

Is this just me looking to get into the ideal world or am I not alone in worrying about the long term future of some events or lack of consistent quality fields across both the main Tours?

 

[John_Findlay]

At the end of the day, Mark (cripes, did I just master football speak?!) there are too many events, therefore the best players can pick and choose how to make their millions in any given year.

Not sure if the basic salary thing would work, though.

 

[brendy]

Having a basic salary would indicate that there would be a set number of players, if that was the case new young golfwers would find it hard to get into the game as they would in effect have to wait for someone to duck out.
The current setup with Q school etc is fine, they just need to draw a line at how much they can offer in prize money and quit the personal appearance fees altogether.

 

[madandra]

The thing that really grips my 5h1ter is that most high profile players get MORE in appearance money than they do in prize money.

Thats just sick.

 

[viscount17]

I think I'm registered by now as not a particular fan of Tiger (appreciate his skill but . .), therefore it may come as a shock (as it did to me) when I say it's not Tiger's fault.

The problem as I see it, is that place money is too damn big. There is no real incentive to push for first when second pays off very nicely thank you. In fact it pays off so well there is even less risk taken at the thought of maybe losing that, and so it goes on down the line.

I can see Marko's argument for basic salaries, I think, but that would work only if those below say 100 were cut at the end of the season, and no straight into q-school and back in either.

At that, they are no worse than many footballers; they may be signed on as a striker but they would sooner pass than take the responsibility of going for goal.

I think we have to face it guys - we play sport, to them it's a business.

 

[Marko77]

I would add that all tournaments would have a cap to how much the prize fund could be and appearance money would not be allowed.

I fully agree it is unlikely change will come in the near future but surely its not sustainable the way things are at present what with all the credit crunches, etc. Where do these companies that sponsor the events get their money. Us? if we don't have money to spend with them they will soon stop sponsoring events we enjoy.

I don't begrudge the players the earnings or blame any players for taking advantage of whats on offer, just think long term there will no doubt be changes and hope the powers that be have some sort of plans incase sponsors, backers start withdrawing support.

By making all tournaments equal status, I would hope it would encourage the top players out on a more regular basis as they will need to play frequently to maintain order of merit and world ranking. Players can pick the minimal courses/events that suit them to pick up the points they require.

 

[Marko77]

If anyone from any of the PGA Tours is reading this. I can start tomorrow

 

[Nico]

The issue here is supply and demand. We the paying public have a demand for these tournaments and the tv that goes with it. When that wanes then the money will go away too,simple.

What interests me is the view of Tour players as overpaid. FWIW my opinion is that they earn every penny,have you any idea how good you need to be to even keep your card! I know it is not the same in USA but we must understand that these guys have to pay for everything - travel,hotels,caddies,even entry fees.
Whilst I know it is a rarified atmosphere with courtesy cars etc look at the numbers against the fairy ball guys.

Every year it is only 115 golfers IN THE WHOLE OF EUROPE who keep their cards and there are about 150 who play on tour every week. Last year you needed to earn about £150k to keep your card.

There are about 275 footballers in just the English Prem who are on at least £750k p/a. Let alone Seria A or La Liga !

I know who I think is worth the cash!

 

[TonyN]

TBH (and this is a light hearted view) all this chatter of there being too much money in sport in my opinion is nonsense.

YES OK, football, its ruined the game alot but, The industry as a whole (whatever sport it is) makes the money from people paying to see it, so if sponsors or clubs are willing to pay it, so what. Its only what has been earned through the sport.

If you were good enough to play any sport as a pro, would you turn down a 70 grand a week contract or a £100.000 prize money, i think not.

At the end of the day, the money that clubs make is there's to spend however they see fit. No one tells you to limit your spending on sweets because it ruins ya teeth.

Good debate this point but can be dragged out in all ways.

Main thing is, however much money is dished out to winners/players etc doesnt come from your pockets unless you actually put in willingly!

 

[Nico]

I agree Tony. I had the good fortune to play Rugby to alevel where these days I would have been paid. Would I have taken the money? TOO BL**DY RIGHT!!

 

[viscount17]

Nico, I don't dispute that the run of the mill players (a poor phrase to use but my brain is tired) do have to stump up for all (or most of) their costs, even Jack, Arnie and Gary Player used to share rooms on tour (wrecked the odd one too!).

My view (poorly expressed though it may be) is that the rewards for 'not doing very well' or 'not trying particularly hard' are too great. There is insufficient incentive to risk a challenge for top spot that may cost you places if you fail.

Yes, you will always get someone come from out of the pack to win (Zach Johnson was not a name on everyone lips going into the Masters), probably by beating the conditions as much as the field, but they will be one-offs. For too many it appears to be 'protect what you have'.