Sponsors Paying More, Players Playing More?

Jon Show's series on golf continues in this week's Sports Business Journal.  One of his articles talks about the calls from Commissioner Tim Finchem, some players, sponsors, and a lot of fans to get more from Tour players on the course.

We all know about Finchem's video plea, and the resounding favorable response from players in the media.  But, how could the players not sound favorable after a plea like that?  Were they to say that they weren't playing any more than they did last year?  That would sound pretty awful.

The proof, as we all know, is in the pudding.  Will players increase their schedule to include some events that they don't normally play?

Show points out that there are huge demands on a players' time already.  Many of them stem from commitments to the names that appear on their hats, shirts, bags, and clubs.  Then, add in the title and secondary sponsors of tournaments.  The players have to answer to a lot of suits before they ever get a moment with the fan.

Still, calls are growing for a move away from the "independent contractor" approach on the PGA Tour.

Players have opposed the creation of a rule requiring them to play in every event within a certain number of years; Davis Love III, a player advisory council member, most recently voiced his resistance. But support is growing outside the locker room for something similar to the LPGA’s rule requiring the women to enter every tournament at least once every four years.

“They need to spread the wealth or my fear is that the PGA Tour may become the tennis tour,” said Bill Colvin, who consults on marketing for a number of PGA Tour sponsors.

We have an interesting development tied to the loss of several opposite-field and Fall Series events.  There is a potential, albeit a microscopic one, that the Tour could go dark for a couple of weeks this season.  This means that there will be fewer events in which to maintain a Tour card.  Unfortunately, though, the loss of these events most impacts the players that are already in the 30 to 35 tournament range.  The road warriors are the players that are not well known and struggling to maintain their livelihood.  The only top player that I can think of that will be particularly impacted by losing Milwaukee next year is Kenny Perry.

As for bang for the buck, though, sponsors may be losing a great opportunity in these events.

Ironically, in a sport where strength of field — and Tiger Woods — largely determines the importance of an event, weaker fields may be more desirable for hospitality buyers because those players are more interested in appearance income.

“Those (lower-ranked) players are more interested because they’re younger and they haven’t earned $50 million yet,” said Randy Watkins, tournament director of the Viking Classic in Mississippi, a Fall Series event that did not have a single player from the top 30 on the money list in 2008.

That seems so contrary to popular belief, doesn't it?

I really only scratched the surface on Jon's piece with this post.  I highly recommend reading it.