Latest rumor mill story is that Hideki is being offered $400 million to switch to LIV and Captain the Asian Team...Also, the Asian Tour has been rumored to have opened their arms to any LIV golfer for any of their tournaments and they can get World Ranking Points to qualify for the Majors...Feherty starts next week at Bedminister and is also going to produce a New Series on TV for LIV (Is a TV Contract for LIV Golf coming in the near future???)...McCord rumored to be next to sign...Just fired up another batch of popcorn as it's getting interesting...
Super League Predictions
This is a very realistic persepective on this whole mess:
https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2022/07/24/column-liv-golf-tour-news-contracts-pga-tour/
- Edited
Yeah, I mentioned before Paul McGinley has been saying this for awhile now. He sees the PGA Tour headed towards a guaranteed money model. He says the business people he talks to want to see that come to fruition.
And again, I agree. Not sure it’s the best from a competitive point of view, but it would get the top players playing against each other more often. More so than the current model.
Agree as well that the stuff like the shotgun start and goofy name team stuff etc. they can leave to LIV.
Sneakylong He sees the PGA Tour headed towards a guaranteed money model.
That is where it will most likely land - a minimal guarantee with substantial competitive $$ available.
Would that not make the players salaried 'employees' subject to those legal standards ? 
Reading all the articles on professional golf made me realize that the cost to play pro golf day has got to be at least 10x the cost as it was 60 years ago. Heck from having a caddie and manager and a part time coach to having a team of a half dozen, not mention the travel expenses.
Golf has long passed being an individual sport and has become a team sport. Next, teams merge?
For all that criticism LIV guaranteed monies to hear the PGA is headed that way, makes me ask what's the difference (don't say where the money comes from)? In short it is all about the money?
- Edited
I wouldn’t say the PGA Tour is headed for a guaranteed money model at all. It’s just some peoples opinion right now looking at the tea leaves. There’s another opinion that the PGA Tour keep it’s current non profit charitable / play for a purse ($3.7 - $20 million per tournament ) model with no guaranteed money.
I don’t mind the shotgun start, nor the added team aspect. Shotgun is just one step further along the line from tournaments that already start groups off both the front and back. Advantage would be in both reduced TV time, but also far less chance of situations - which I really hate - where half the field gets completely different conditions based on their tee times. The team events could be tweaked to work (and still be far better than the pro-am team standings fed to us during PB - where half the field are unknowns). Personally, I think it would be really interesting if they were based off equipment OEMs. It would be great advertising for an OEM to win, but also to show that they could field multiple teams.
Sneakylong current non profit charitable / play for a purse ($3.7 - $20 million per tournament )
I don't think the purse money comes from anything 'non-profit'.
Purse money, as I've always understood it comes from sponsors, tickets, etc..
The 'non-profit' proceeds come from the local population where the tourneys are played, plus anything forwarded from donors.
I'd bet it is a complicated matter, finding out exactly/truthfully. (not that I don't trust people/organizations that are 'non-profit'
)
Sneakylong Wow, Guess they are following the LIV lead.
Sneakylong The most they’ve ever reported to have given to charity in a year (as reported to the IRS, not as misrepresented on TV telecasts) is $50 million. That’s over a 40 plus tournament schedule? I’m not sure there’s a good reason they would want to under-report that.
- Edited
Start a topic on non profits.
The PGA Tour is registered with the IRS as a business league and operates under a non profit status. Take it up with the IRS. 
My post was in response to the talk of them moving to a guaranteed money model or some combination. If they were to do that they most likely would not be able to remain the non profit / charitable model that they currently operate under. Period.
Why? Because they’d have to cough up more in guaranteed money. And they can’t compete with the Saudi money as it is.
Yeah, many charities don’t give as much of a dollar donated as you’d expect. What a revelation. Lol Really has nothing to do with the price of fish in this particular discussion though. Lol
But you get an A for trying to divert the discussion.
To summarize.
- Keep current purse structure per Tournament. No guaranteed money.
- Go to a guaranteed money model.
Interesting that a Non-Profit entity has a TV rights deal valued at about $700 million per year for 9 years. Where is all that money going??? Also, Digital Rights deal being discussed with Discovery Channel rumored to be offering $2 Billion for a 10 year deal...
Stu1961 I don’t mind the shotgun start, nor the added team aspect. Shotgun is just one step further along the line from tournaments that already start groups off both the front and back. Advantage would be in both reduced TV time, but also far less chance of situations - which I really hate - where half the field gets completely different conditions based on their tee times.
There's a limit to the number of players that can be on the golf course at the same time, and most tournaments have fields that are close to double that number (156 is fairly standard, which is 2 waves of 13 three-balls off the 1st and 10th tees) - using a shotgun start in a 'normal' tour event would reduce the time that the course is in use a little bit over a two-tee start, but you would still need to have two waves of players, starting around 6 hours apart..
The simplest way to reduce the amount of time that players are on-course is to make them play faster...
- Edited
Sneakylong Start a topic on non profits.
I'm fully aware of how the tour is registered ... it is you who appears confused with differences between a 501(c)(6) and a 501(c)(3) ... because you continue to use "charitable" in your mention/discussion of the PGA
Sneakylong they most likely would not be able to remain the non profit / charitable model that they currently operate under.
Sneakylong Yeah, many charities don’t give as much of a dollar donated as you’d expect.
Especially when they are NOT charities! One cannot even make a charitable donation to them. There is nothing about their "model" that either prevents making a profit or requires charitable giving. They just enjoy the benefits of tax exempt status like a charity, and they do, on their own, contribute 3% of their revenue toward grants. Now, normally, I would commend a business for this ... if it weren't for them constantly making the tour's "charitable giving" a centerpiece of its golf events, tournament telecasts, and website, and more importantly (in a revealing way), constantly taking credit for contributions raised by local-to-the-event actual charities - as if it were their own. Why do you think they do this? Could it be their own form of "Sports-charity-washing"? To deflect public attention away from the fact that they profit by $1.4 billion annually, while paying their executives over $40 million, and paying zero federal taxes? Could this also be why they spend millions on lobbying too? To protect their golden tax-free goose?
Sneakylong But you get an A for trying to divert the discussion.
I'll take the "A", I can never have enough ... but no, not a diversion at all. A correction. To both your assertion that their model is "charity" based in any way, and that they should be sympathetically viewed as "Ohhh, the poor PGA ... they can't compete with Saudi money". The more accurate and far less sympathetic depiction, IMO, should be of the schoolyard bully that just got punched in the mouth for the first time.
MartinD The simplest way to reduce the amount of time that players are on-course is to make them play faster...
I wasn't trying to suggest that the PGA adopt this practice - as I haven't even tried to consider what the impact would be to the 66 players culled from the field (theoretically a shotgun can support a field size of 90). This isn't yet an issue for LIV.
- Edited
I have no interest in their non profit status. Zippo. It’s a red herring issue. But for people who have a bug up their ass about it, it’s important to them. Bottom line is they cannot compete money wise with the Saudi’s keeping their current model. Saudi’s have a $600 billion dollar fund to tap into.
Take away their ‘golden goose’ tax situation and they still can’t compete money wise. Red herring. Take the $40 million they pay themselves and they still can’t compete money wise. All irrelevant.
The issue is whether they change their model to a guaranteed money model to TRY and compete money wise. And to what degree. And IF they do they’ll most likely have to stop being a non profit. That’s all. Nothing more to read into it.
It’s all speculation at this point anyway. They may decide not to do anything and keep their current model. No one has a clear crystal ball regarding this.
Do they change now and try and get ahead of whatever may be coming? Or wait and see if LIV takes off and react then.
For those hung up on the non profit status here’s a virtual dime, call someone who cares. https://www.irs.gov/help/telephone-assistance