Friday, February 4, 2022

Late Week Lamentations

Am I the only one that sees the parallels between the Canadian truckers convoy and the brave freedom fighters currently manning the barricades in <checks notes> Jeddah?  remember, you have only your chains to lose.

Scenes From The Class Struggle - It's a battle for the means of production, though the application of such terms to golf amuses your humble blogger.  But Phil wants Rosa Parks to hold his beer, as per his remarks from Wahabi Central:

Mickelson, speaking with Golf Digest at the Saudi International, where he is receiving a seven-figure appearance fee, said the PGA Tour’s ownership of media rights, among other issues, has him looking elsewhere.

“It’s not public knowledge, all that goes on,” Mickelson told Golf Digest. “But the players don’t have access to their own media. If the tour wanted to end any threat, they could just hand back the media rights to the players.

“But they would rather throw $25 million here and $40 million there than give back the roughly $20 billion in digital assets they control. Or give up access to the $50-plus million they make every year on their own media channel.

OK, there's a lot to unpack here, though we might as well start with the fact that Phil is trashing the member-owned PGA Tour.  There's no shortage of organizations that have been captured and no longer serve the interest of its members or owners, but seems like a governance issue to me.

The first question that needs to be asked is, WTF?   We've been bandying this about for some time now, and this is the first I've heard Phil or anyone raise this issue.  But see what you think of this specific case that he cites:

There are other examples of what Mickelson clearly sees as golf’s equivalent of “intellectual property.” During the 2010 Masters, he famously hit a shot from the pine straw to the 13th green at Augusta National. Later, someone wanted to use seven seconds of that clip. They had to pay $30,000 per second every time it aired. The total cost was $3.5 million, which was three times what Mickelson earned for winning the tournament.

I'd love to know whether those numbers are real, because my BS meter is in the red zone.  But this is his cherry-picked claim to document the "obnoxious greed" of the PGA Tour, and one assumes he logically picked his strongest claim, though there's this itty bitty little issue that Phil elides:

(Editor's Note: Although the Masters counts as an official PGA Tour event, the event and its media are not owned by the PGA Tour.)

As far as I understand the issue (and I haven't found anyone actually addressing this subject), organizations that stage professional golf tournaments retain the rights to the broadcasts thereof, and that seems to this observer about as controversial as Friday following Thursday.  If Phil were uncomfortable with said arrangements, he wasn't legally require to play in the events.

His second substantive complaint is this:

“There are many issues, but that is one of the biggest. For me personally, it’s not enough that they are sitting on hundreds of millions of digital moments. They also have access to my shots; access I do not have. They also charge companies to use shots I have hit. And when I did ‘The Match’ – there are have been five of them – the Tour forced me to pay them $1 million each time. For my own media rights.

“That type of greed is, to me, beyond obnoxious.”

What jumps out at the sentient reader is the claim that he personally paid the Tour $1 million large for each installment of The Match, and I'll require copies of cancelled checks from his joint account with Amy before I believe a word of that.  This is actually a complicated subject, and the most I can find is this little bit of background from Geoff:

It is well known that the organizers of such silly season events pay a fee to cover everything that comes with official Tour sanctioning of the event and support services like rules, scoring and promotion.

It's far more complicated than that, as they required Tour approval to host the events, most famously when the Tour insisted that the winner-take-all purse from the first dreadful installment be reduced from $10 to $9 million, presumably to not cast an unfavorable light on the FedEx Cup payout.

This is, to me, the most interesting aspect of the relationship of Tour to its members, along with the waivers required to play elsewhere.  It has quite the whiff of restraint of trade, though it's equally true that there's a case to be made that it protects the Tour and its events, which forms the consideration paid for the waiver of rights.  It seems obvious, but also perhaps helpful, to remind that membership in the PGA Tour is optional.

So, what do we think of Phil's jihad?  Since at least 2014, your humble blogger has noticed and blogged Phil's transactional relationship with the truth, and this is hardly the first of the five families with whom Phil has feuded.  But the operative issue seems to be nothing more than Phil wants to get paid.  And, lucky for him, there's a party that seems willing to pay any price, bear any burden to have Phil on board, so this seems a marriage made in heaven:

Yup, those two guys are so very deserving of each other.  I just hope that The Shark is sporting the Kevlar, because that hand Phil has concealed behind his body is assumed to hold a shiv.  Just ask Tom Watson.

Before we get to the reactions, Phil said one more highly curious thing.  Strike that, Phil said two more curious things, beginning with this one:

“Why hasn’t golf had cameras and microphones on players and caddies?” he asked. “Because the player would not benefit, only the tour [so players resist wearing them]. Take this Netflix project that is underway. None of the players are getting paid. But the tour is getting paid a lot of money. As is Augusta National. As is the USGA. But if the players had their own channel, maybe they put up their own content and we start to see golf presented a bit more intimately.

“If I had access to my own channel and access to my own media, I would have a camera and microphone on my hat,” he went on. “And on my [caddie] brother’s hat. And on my golf bag with a 360 view. And I would bring the viewers in. They would see and hear what is going on. But none of that happens [currently] because why would any player do that? To make more millions for the tour? They already make enough. The tour only understands leverage. And now the players are getting some of that. So things are changing and will continue to change. I just hope the leverage doesn’t go away. If it does, we’ll be back to the status quo.”

And that would be the tour that's owned by its players.  Sounds like Phil has a governance issue, though he's not the kind that would deal with that through the obvious channels.  

But should the players be directly compensated by Netflix?  I don't know, but they've seemingly gotten everyone they wanted to participate without direct payments?  When it suits his purposes, Phil is happy to elide that portion of reality that undermines his case.  But the institutional arrangements in golf allow players to monetize their own brand (NIL, if you prefer) to a far greater degree than in other sports, which explains why they typically limit their arguments to on-field earnings.

A wide range of words come out of the man's mouth, but all I hear is "Me! Me! Me!." But Phil has been promiscuous in his use of the L-word, but doesn't this just undermine his leverage:

The resolutions to those issues, as of right now, remain unknown. But one thing can now be revealed. Should Mickelson end the most frustrating aspect of his storied career, put those infamous six runners-up finishes behind him and finally win a U.S. Open, he will call an immediate halt to his playing days.

“If I win the U.S. Open, I will retire,” he told Golf Digest in an interview on Wednesday. “That would be my last tournament. I will have achieved the career Grand Slam and I won’t have anything more to prove.”

Then why should the Saudis pay you $30 million large?  Oh yeah, because we all know you're not going to win that U.S. Open....

Shack's Quadrilateral post is paywalled, so no need to click, but in the tease he helpfully proposes contractual language to cover this contingency:

If you, Phil Mickelson, should win the United States Open and retire, you will refund the money we paid you or end up chopped to pieces and incinerated, never to be traced again.

Anyone understand that reference?  Because Greg Norman reliably informed me that Saudi Arabia has made great progress, and he would lie to us, would he? 

So, reactions?  Is Phil underpaid?  It will always be a matter of opinion, but you'll quickly see why he keeps the conversation on those on-course winnings:

For context, Mickelson, 51, has earned over $95M on course during his Tour career. And according to Forbes, Mickelson’s career money earned from sponsorships and other off-course endeavors to be around $750 million.

Tip of the iceberg, right?  But I've had to turn off that BS detector because the constant buzzing is annoying:

“I’m not sure how this is going to play out,” Mickelson said. “My ultimate loyalty is to the game of golf and what it has given me. I am so appreciative of the life it has provided. I don’t know what is going to happen. I don’t know where things are headed. But I know I will be criticized. That’s not my concern.

“All that would do is dumb down one of the most intricate issues in sports. It would be so naive to not factor in all of the complexities. The media rights are but a small fraction of everything else. And it is the Tour’s obnoxious greed that has really opened the door for opportunities elsewhere.”

Which translated into the original English comes out as, "Nice little tour you have there.  Sure would be a shame if something happened to it."

I'll end this segment with a reaction from the blonde-American community:


Brooksie, it's called projection.

I'll just leave you with this header from Mike Purkey at SI's Morning read:

Grace left town a long time ago, if it was ever in residence. 

In Other Saudi News - I told you this week would be lit.  I'm waiting for Patrick Reed to stick his nose into it, but Derek Lawrenson broke this alleged news:

Bryson DeChambeau has been offered a staggering £100million to be the face of the Saudi golf revolution , Sportsmail can reveal.

The news comes on the day that all players offered tens of millions to join the proposed Saudi Golf League (SGL) were made to sign non-disclosure agreements, indicating perhaps that an announcement is close as to when the global tour is to be launched.

Any golfer who does join could face a lifetime ban from the PGA and DP World Tours.

Interesting because, of all the players most frequently tied to offers from the Saudis, Bryson is the only one plausibly at the peak of his career (although his play since Winged Foot would be of concern to your humble blogger).  All of the others, Phil, Stenson, Westwood and Poulter, are just a wee bit long in the tooth.   But, like me, you've undoubtedly played America's favorite parlor game, If Poulter is worth $20 million, what is Jon Rahm or Patrick Cantlay worth?

Of course, the subject of that story has offered an elegant rebuttal:

What, it was more?

Bryson has been known to believe that cameramen are obligated to protect his brand, whereas he himself is not:

DeChambeau declined to speak to the media following his first round at the Saudi International, but on his official Instagram account he replied to the report as "wrong."

I assume his $135 million contract will include a clause that relieves him of the obligation to ever speak to the media, so win-win, baby!

Of course, he's making a great impression over there, pocketing an appearance fee and...

Bryson DeChambeau WDs from Saudi International with hand and hip injuries

One can only assume the wrist injury was a result of endorsing that appearance fee check.... Obviously he was already hurting, but flew to Saudi to make bank and phone it in.  What a great group of guys.

I'll leave you with a couple of Golf.com items to sort through at your discretion.  Zephyr Melton tries to group players on a spectrum of interest, though it breaks down rather quickly:

Seemingly interested

Phil Mickelson (world rank: 38)

Has he played in Saudi Arabia? Yes — in 2020, 2021, 2022.

What he’s said: “I don’t know where things are headed, but I know I will be criticized … That’s not my concern. All that would do is dumb down one of the most intricate issues in sports. It would be so naive to not factor in all of the complexities. The media rights are but a small fraction of everything else. And it is the Tour’s obnoxious greed that has really opened the door for opportunities elsewhere.”

Is he interested? Mickelson went scorched-earth on the PGA Tour as he aired his grievances to Golf Digest in an exclusive interview this week. It seems that after three-plus decades on Tour, he’s open to the possibility of teeing it up elsewhere.

Dustin Johnson (world rank: 5)

Has he played in Saudi Arabia? Yes — in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022.

What he’s said: “I think it’s a really good concept. I think it makes it a little more interesting for the fans and for the players. Yeah, I like the concept.”

Is he interested? Based on these comments, it’s safe to say the two-time Saudi International winner would be open to the idea of playing in a super league if given the opportunity.

For Phil it's Festivus, a time to air a full career's worth of grievances and s**t on pretty much every one of the five families.  DJ, on the other hand, sees people that want write him big checks and finds that "interesting", and I find it hard to blame him.

If you're going to go this route, the blindingly obvious point is that those most interested in blowing up the existing arrangements are mostly at the tail end of their careers with the least to lose.

Also strange is that Rory is characterized as "Seemingly Not Interested", whereas he's directly said that he doesn't like the source of the money, so "seemingly" seems rather timid, no?

Dylan Dethier seems to think his readers are incapable of understanding the issues involved, and offers this helpful guide:

The Saudi golf league isn’t going away — so here are your options

I wasn't even aware that I needed options.... But he's got a Chines menu for us?  

1. Moral High-Grounder

Standard-bearers: Brandel Chamblee, Rory McIlroy

Your take: Look, it’s one thing to play tournament golf in a country with a problematic government. But it’s morally reprehensible to take tens of millions of dollars from a government with a noted history of human rights abuses when you’re being specifically paid to improve that government’s image to the world. And as a consumer, you won’t support that sort of behavior by watching a Saudi-funded tour no matter the participants.

Endorsement (from Rory McIlroy): “People can see [the Saudi-backed tour] for what it is, a money grab, which is fine if what you’re playing golf for is to make as much money as possible. Totally fine, then go and do that if that’s what makes you happy.”

Phrases to deploy: “Right side of history,” “Don’t like where the money’s coming from,” “Philosophical, moral, ethical issues.”

Dylan has some amusing bits and his characterization of DJ as an "Intrigued skeptic" seems far more accurate than Zephyr's take above, but I can't help but feel there's a big disconnect involved here, and it's hard not to blame to golfing press.

To me, the Super Golf League's underlying vision for the sport is God-awful but, while players such as Rory and Brooks have made some actual arguments along this line, this very important point seems underdiscussed.  Their vision comes with some bells and whistles (and lots of zeros), but how does it fundamentally differ from the WGCs?  And is there anything about those WGCs that you think should be repeated?

Here's a piece from back when golf was shutting down in 2020 that at least puts the arguments in print:

“I am out of the PGL. I’m going with the PGA Tour,” Koepka told The Associated Press. “I have a hard time believing golf should be about just 48 players.”

Rory McIlroy, who replaced Koepka at No. 1 in the world a month ago, said last month in Mexico City that he was not interested in the new league. He said he valued his freedom to decide when and where to play instead of the proposed schedule of 18 tournaments, not including the majors.

The players are human and who doesn't feel they're underpaid or underappreciated?  I get all that, I just don't think their Brave New World is appealing at all.  And when their vision leads them to believe that Phil or Poults or Westy are key players in the game, this just isn't for me.  

Are those that run the Tour equally clueless?  Of course, that's what makes this such a great food fight.  Do I love the Tour's mind-numbing schedule?  Do I like the PIP program?  Do I think the only thing important in golf right now are the Points Bet odds?  Those questions answer themselves, but there is comfort in the devil we know...

Context - I'd like to leave you with something that's theoretically unrelated to golf.  Except that, of course it isn't.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took it upon herself to offer the following words of advice to U.S. Olympic athletes:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned U.S. Olympic athletes on Thursday against protesting China’s human rights abuses while at the Beijing games, noting the high risk of retaliation from the regime.

“Make no mistake — our athletes should participate,” Pelosi said before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. “They’ve trained, they’re disciplined, they’ve dreamed, they’ve aspired, they’ve worked hard. But this year we must celebrate them from home as they compete in China.”

Her comments were first reported by the Washington Examiner.

“I would say to our athletes: You’re there to compete. Do not risk incurring the anger of the Chinese government because they are ruthless,” she added. “I know there is a temptation on the part of some to speak out while they are there. I respect that, but I also worry about what the Chinese government might do to their reputations and to their families.”

To their families?   The golf world has its knickers in a twist over the Saudis, but is in bed with a genocidal regime that slaughters its own citizens and has Nancy worried about the families of anyone critical of said genocidal regime.

I'm also old enough to remember when golf's future was in peril unless it jumped into bed the the same IOC that has taken two Olympics to Beijing.  Quite the world we live in, but our outrage seems very much of the selective variety.

Have a great weekend and I'm quite certain we'll have more juicy bits on Monday.  not to mention some actual golf, so don't be a stranger.

No comments:

Post a Comment