How to Fix the PGA Tour's Sponsor Issues

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 29, 2008 12:26 PM EST Comment 16 comments

In my monthly (and year end) piece for Sports Central, I take a look at the issues that the PGA Tour is facing in the midst of its tournament sponsorship negotiations for 2009 and probably 2010. It's a little bit of tough love, but I think that the suggestions may very well work out for everyone involved. I posted a preview over at Golf News Net since it's a pretty timely topic. Let's debate!

0 recs | Comment 16 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I read your take

The only way the John Deere Classic is going to attract Phil, or any top tier player, is to schedule it for a week other than the one immediately preceding the British Open. Michelle Wie kept getting invites to make the event more interesting than a weekend in an Illinois corn field.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Dec 29, 2008 12:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

With how things are

I completely agree with you. And there are just some tournaments – like those the week after majors – that would probably never be able to compete, even with a “marketplace” for appearance fees.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 29, 2008 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

D pretty much covers it

it’s all about the schedule.

the only Idea I have come up with, since there is basically one major tournament a month starting in March (THE Majors, the Players, WGC’s..) through the Tour Championship – rotate the other three weeks. That way all the tournaments have a shot at attracting the top players at least once every few years. There are problems involved here, too, like the style of the course as a warm up for a big tournament – but it does give the other three tournaments each month a shot.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 29, 2008 2:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I thought about that

The one experience I have with a Tour asking a tournament to move the date was LPGA and the Wendy’s Championship in Dublin (Columbus), Ohio. The Tour was trying to get the Wendy’s to move it’s date so it fit better with the travel schedule, which at the time was Women’s British, Women’s Canadian, Safeway in Portland, OR, then back to Columbus without any breaks. Wendy’s declined because it had other schedule issues, so the tournament went away.

My point is that sponsors putting up that much money for even a “minor” tournament are going to want some control over schedule so that it fits their corporate priorities. While rotating weeks as CG has suggested might be attractive to some, others would resist.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Dec 29, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

schedules are made years in advance...

…if it is a regular rotation of weeks, sponsors and courses can plan – that issues with the Wendy’s came up practically on the spur of the moment – asking to change plans the same year as the schedule was being laid out instead of the following year.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 29, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe the intricacies of the "kickback" idea

that I had go beyond just the field strength, but also the date. I obviously don’t know the full details of any tournament’s sponsorship contracts, but I would hope that there are scales for the quality of the date. If not, they should definitely be added.

Like I said in reply to diane, there are some tournaments that are just never going to win. They’re destined to be duds. So you either have them and be happy with the field that you get, or scrap them.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 29, 2008 3:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

no doubt...

…so what’s the point in forcing the sponsors to fork over top dollar for a tournament that just won’t draw. You could play the John Deere at Augusta National and it wouldn’t draw against the British. (of course – it’s 100* in Augusta that time of year and the course is closed…details details) :-)

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 29, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

So, if you tier sponsorship cost by the “value” of the date, then maybe that would help?

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 29, 2008 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well...

…it couldn’t hoit. John Deere and that level of tournament have great sponsorship and support from the community – but they are getting charged the same as a tournament that gets Tiger and Phil and Sergio and Anthony Kim in the field.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 29, 2008 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Really interesting discussion...

Ryan, I thought your article was very good – it was a thinker – I like that. The ideas and solutions discussed here are also good, although there seems to be some risk/backlash with any proposed change. I really like the idea of a rotated tournament schedule around the majors. I also like the idea of the every 4 year requirment.

What I wish would change is the perception of the independent contractor – every tour player should be a stakeholder in the PGA Tour and to that end should be trying to do what’s best to keep what provides their paychecks alive…I wish players would want to play in less than marque events for the good of the tour. But I realize that in our world the idea of loyalty is usually overshdowed by opportunity.

I hope we don’t go the way of appearance fees, but I can see how that could be be a way for tournaments to ramp up the field. At first I thought maybe the solution would be to have less tournaments, but I have to believe every community that hosts an event would like to keep it…maybe not only rotating the tournament date, but also rotating the payout to these events might help…sort of like a temporary bailout every few years for less than desirable weeks.

by red tees on Dec 30, 2008 10:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

it's a "need" thing...

…these guys don’t play in more events because they don’t NEED to play more. The top guys make as much or more away from the golf course from their endorsments – especially the top 5 guys. They have been programmed to think that only majors count for them anymore. They aren’t required to play in more than 15 events – so that’s how many they play – and they make tons of money.

Back in the 20’s to the 50’s and early 60’s – guys played every week they could, and mostly drove from place to place. They HAD to do it to make a living.

Money changes everything.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 30, 2008 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your last sentence...

I think says it all. When I wrote “opportunity” I was going to write greed – but that seems so negative. But it really is all about the money…and I guess my point was, I wish it wasn’t.

by red tees on Dec 30, 2008 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Money is a huge problem and motivator

at the same time for the Tour player. It can make their schedule very short and get them to play in events they otherwise wouldn’t for whatever reason.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 30, 2008 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right...

and with many new young players and so many factors that can affect a professional (health, personal, or others) it can only take a year or two for some of them to from being a selective event player to one that’s grinding out in the Fall Series or worse, Q-school. The problem is we only focus on the best guys and they are the ones who don’t have to play the John Deere, etc.

Maybe what we need is some PR campaign that shifts some focus to the more to the success and struggles of the “everyman” golfers – Goydos, etc….I mean we get the 48 hour attention of a good finish or even a good couple rounds, often accompanied by a human interest article, but then they disappear from the spotlight. Is there a market of fans who want to root for the underdog who plays 30 tournaments a year over Tiger? Nah, probably not. But I liked the thought for a few minutes.

by red tees on Dec 31, 2008 9:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It isn't "greed"

first of all – the word “greed” basically has no exact definition. They aren’t demanding anything – they aren’t taking away from anybody – all of these purses and costs are negotiated. They don’t have to pay them – but the businesses think it is good for them, so they put up the cash.

second – these guys aren’t holding out on anybody, they are playing for what is offered. If the golf world didn’t lose it’s collective mind over Tiger Woods, they wouldn’t be playing for the purses and endorsements they are playing for today. They would still be making a great living, but there wouldn’t be 100+ guys earning over $1 million.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 31, 2008 10:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs