Having read the views expressed by those who are in favour of having the superstars playing at home, I'd like to suggest that the various tours combine to eliminate the payment of appearnce money to the Woods', Els', Mickelson's, Singh's and Goosen's of this world.
The first counter argument will be that sponsors will not sponsor big purse tournaments unless thses guys play - that's possible but what are they being paid to do by Nike, SAP, Taylor etc., anyway.
At the moment the best players get the largest share of seriously large prize money anyway and their success ensures that they get plum endorsements.
All of them have huge incomes and it seems ridiculous that some players get up to $2m just to tee it up somewhere and then who cares whether they win or not?
Surely the sponsors have the right to insist that each player plays in at least so many tournaments - wherever and whenever.
Also the tours have the clout to insist that each player plays in X tournaments too - the PGA already insists that a minimum number are played but the problem is that appearance money seems to influence this too.
A ban on appearance fees would only serve to bolster the PGA Tour even more. The large fees they shell out are the only reason some events manage to attract top players (Dubai comes to mind...).
A ban on appearance fees would only serve to bolster the PGA Tour even more. The large fees they shell out are the only reason some events manage to attract top players (Dubai comes to mind...).
It would be very hard to enforce as well. What with all of the sponsors these guys have it wouldn't be too difficult to figure out a way to launder your way around any such ban.
Having read the views expressed by those who are in favour of having the superstars playing at home, I'd like to suggest that the various tours combine to eliminate the payment of appearnce money to the Woods', Els', Mickelson's, Singh's and Goosen's of this world.
The first counter argument will be that sponsors will not sponsor big purse tournaments unless thses guys play - that's possible but what are they being paid to do by Nike, SAP, Taylor etc., anyway.
At the moment the best players get the largest share of seriously large prize money anyway and their success ensures that they get plum endorsements.
All of them have huge incomes and it seems ridiculous that some players get up to $2m just to tee it up somewhere and then who cares whether they win or not?
Surely the sponsors have the right to insist that each player plays in at least so many tournaments - wherever and whenever.
Also the tours have the clout to insist that each player plays in X tournaments too - the PGA already insists that a minimum number are played but the problem is that appearance money seems to influence this too.
Any thoughts?
What that amounts to is collusion and restraint of trade. If players want to play in PGA Tour events often the potential prize money alone is enticement enough to get them to come play. But for tournaments or tours in other parts of the world where they are still developing a fan base I can't see what's wrong with a guy accepting appearance money if it's offered. Keep in mind the tournaments that Tiger, Ernie and Retief have played recently are schedule AFTER the end of the PGA Tour season.
Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me. Also more play by the better players may not necessary equate to BETTER PLAY.
December 1st, 2005, 05:09 AM
smoke em if ya gottem.........
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
