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'😉)

    Mattyv What about his legacy? As if using a long putter was not bad enough...

      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.

          Stu1961

          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.

          1. Keep current purse structure per Tournament. No guaranteed money.
          2. 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...

                  Sneakylong 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. 🙄

                  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.

                              Stu1961 they profit by $1.4 billion annually, while paying their executives over $40 million

                              Interesting. So, some of the 'employees' make a lot more than the leadership ? Not the case in most businesses.

                                Stu1961

                                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

                                    Sneakylong True, but possibly, only because their current model is to continually funnel enormous annual profits back into their ever growing behemoth of an organizational steamroller. Without the players, the league collapses. They better find a way to appease them, better than their current fear based model, and it won’t be through promises of “legacy”. They could have achieved that while remaining amateurs.

                                    Also, do you have any clue how the IRS operates either? Twice you’ve pointlessly directed to them - when they only enforce laws. The only interest I have in their tax status is in understanding their behavior based on the lengths they go to protect it.

                                        Stu1961

                                        Now we’re on the same page. And we’ll see how it all plays out. The IRS thing was a joke. The PGA and other non profits play within the tax laws.

                                        Not to get sidetracked, but when we worked for AT&T you could sign up and have a percentage of your pay go to the United Way.

                                        When some of us found out how much out of a dollar goes to charity and how much went for administration etc., we stopped contributing. At the time it was pretty outrageous. So non profit charities are a whole other discussion. Not relevant for me here though.

                                          Stu1961 Shakedown. PGA got to share the wealth with some of the "right" people. If it comes down to a lobbying war I bet the Saudis are pretty good at it 😆

                                            Stu1961

                                            I posted about them increasing their lobbying efforts awhile ago. Seems ‘smaht’ to me. Use all the levers at their disposal.

                                                Sneakylong A lot of big companies lobby, but I have to admit I don't care for a not for profit that shouts about their charitable giving to be spending on lobbying. That money could go to charity or maybe to the "regular" employees?

                                                Why doesn't the Tour just seek status as a church? Many people worship golf (most are probably older white Christians?) and that would really give them freedom from the IRS lol.

                                                    I wonder if the Saudi's lobby against the electric/fuel efficient car industry. Random thought......

                                                      sdandrea1 They might be some primary investors. They are aware that they need to transition their economy away from oil as the supply dwindles. There will always be some strategic demand for oil, but for most civilian and industrial uses it has to transition to something else. Part of the reason they are investing in things like a golf tour and world-wide properties. Outside of oil, they don't have any other resources to establish industries for export.

                                                      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-18/lucid-s-saudi-ev-factory-to-receive-3-4-billion-in-incentives#:~:text=Saudi%20Arabia%2C%20which%20owns%20a,over%20the%20next%2010%20years.

                                                          KCee

                                                          I have no problem with them lobbying. Lobbying is a constitutional right we all have. Not sure the Saudi's are lobbying on this, but they do spend a ton lobbying Washington. As for the church stuff, not up my alley, being a devout atheist and all. lol

                                                          A little story on lobbying. Years ago my brother in law's commercial fishing association went to lobby their Congressman Gerry Studds who represented Cape Cod at the time.

                                                          They went in to talk to him and brought a few thousand dollars for his campaign. He actually shed a tear when they gave it to him. Shorty after he announced he wasn't running for another term. Kept the money though. 😏