Kostis

I think he missed completely, IMO.
What do you guys think?

Just sad he didn't make the money. Every pro sport does so why attach golf.

The total purse will naturally come in a bit with the loss of some sponsorships/events

As soon as all other sports do it, I am all for it.

Cutting purses would just make more profit for the organizers/PGA... screw it.. let the guys that entertain us take their big purses.. better them than someone behind the scenes...

Kostis got a point but his argument to bring the purses down is off based. The purses will drop due to lack of sponsorship anyway. It happened to LPGA and Race to Dubai already so one would be naive to think PGA Tour is bullet proof.

I got a better idea: why don't they drop the price of admission? President Cup cost $75 per Daily Ground Pass, more if you're paying for Captain's Club Tent access (waste of money). Who pays? You and me. Wanna remake Golf's image? That's where they should aim: STOP RIPPING OFF THE FANS AT TOURNAMENTS.

Better off cutting the perks of players and the hundreds of hangers on and percentage takers who mooch around events.

While I don't agree with Kostis's reasoning, I do think the reliance of money as a measuring stick has lost it's effectiveness at best and at worst, is takes away from the attraction of the game.

As recently as 15-20 years ago, purses (and sports salaries in general) where still in a range that seemed somewhat reasonable to golf fans. When purses were in the 1-2 million dollar range, the winner may walk away with a check for $400,000. The difference between that 3rd and 10th place check was often very tangible and in money terms even the average golf fan could relate to being a significant difference in their mind. (e.g. $75,000 vs $31,000).

In 1990 there was 1 million dollar money winner and 20th place made roughly $400,000. Purses have way outpaced inflation. This year the money leader has made $10 million and the 20th place has scored over 2.5 million.

This isn't to begrudge the players - if they sport is generating the money, they should be making it. But still referring to how much money is being made each tournament during the coverage has lost it's impact because at some point it call becomes 'monopoly' level money that the average fan can't relate to. 20 years ago, you could feel the pain of a guy missing a putt that may have cut his winnings by 40%. Now the money is so big that most people think it's not a big deal. Some would argue even some players feel that way as you can make a phenomenal living anywhere in the top 100.

I have no problem with the theory, but for a different reason. If you listen to a lot of seasoned veterans (golf veterans that is), they make a point when they claim that before players even tee it up, they have more $$ in their pockets from sponsorships than a top pro in the 1980's would make in a year. Now, I realize that inflation, etc contribute to the increase in purses and amount included in endorsement contracts, but even the 200th ranked pga tour player makes an incredible living. This was not the case even 20 years ago. Today, as long as you make a cut, you are still walking away with a nice weekly check. There is less of an urgency to win a tournament (or at least place high), because chances are you will make some good money regardless. Tom Watson said that the way the tour is set up these days, you just need to play well for 3 weeks (ie 3 top 10 finishes), and you will most likely get your PGA card for the following year. Take David Duval for example. He is #125 on the money list, yet he really only had 1 good tournament this year - the US Open. I am all for the winner of the tournament winning $1million plus, but I would like to see a larger decrease in payout as the placing drops. There is a complacency when it comes to winning. I think the competition will be better if you put a greater demand on winning to make a "lifestyles of the rich and famous living". IMHO

The article is not about purse money it's about the "image of the game of golf." In this bad economy it is now seen as a luxury/elitist sport and as a result the game of golf and the golf industry are going to suffer more in the long run (when the economy improves). Since he wants to change the perception, one place to start is the purse money and more emphasis on Charity. Otherwise, purse money will fall, sponsors will drop, fewer people will play the game if perceptions don't change.

His last comment about municipal players (and Tiger's 10Million) speaks to you and I (people who are most affected by the economy). If things don't change, then more of us regular joes will probably walk away from the game or encourage our kids to play less expesive sports in lieu of golf.

I just have a hard time bashing golf and purses when compared to other pro level sports in this country. Golf and maybe tennis are the only sports with no guaranteed salaries. Think about the left handed pitchers with the big contracts who still get paid but never throw a pitch. The guaranteed contracts in the NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA are more an atrocity than golf purses.

A golfer has a lot of overhead costs (travel, hotel, coaches, caddy, psychologist, trainer, etc....) before he arrives on the tee. Now for the top 100 in the world, much of those costs are offset by sponsorship deals. So excluding your top earners in each sport the benchwarmers in major sports such as the NFL or NBA have it much better than the struggling golfers on tour. The benchwarmers have it much better than your struggling PGA Tour pro who really is playing to put food on the table.

For every player staying at the Ritz on tour there are 10 staying at a Fairfield Inn to cut costs and make a living. I guess the only positives for golfers is that their career can last 40 years if they are good compared to other sports who have a window of 5 to 10 years. Golf is the only sport that if you show up and lose you get nothing. Think of all those millionaires on losing teams who still cash a check for showing up. Much less some only have to do it for 16 Sundays out of the year.

Do I think golf purses have outpaced inflation? Probably. Do I think tournaments provide an amazing intangible benefit to their communities via charity. I sure do. I think we will see some contraction and the PGA Tour will drop its fee for sponsorship so as to not have to cancel more events. I believe it is the ticket sales that primarily go to charity. All the sponsor funds go to putting on the tournament and the purse. The PGA Tour does not profit from individual events to my knowledge. Their profit or income is derived primarily from the Television rights.

All other sports do not derive there lively hood from sponsors also no one gives so much to charity.

I am not sure Kostis idea is not a good step lets say a nice jesture.

Everyone is jumping on the "money" bandwagon here, but I agree with mhk5000- this is really about image.

It took my 5 year old son to drag me on the golf course a few years ago (golf was something between him and Grandpa) for me to open my eyes and see how fun it is.

Up until then, I thought it was elitist and for the hoity-toity-country-clubbers. It was boring and I hated it. Tiger made it much cooler to like golf- it took my kid to really open my eyes.

But many in the general public aren't fortunate enough to have had someone do that for them. They still see the elitist game. Until golf can break that image, it will always have this problem. Yes, big sports stars make tons of money, but it is not shoved in the fan's face during a game. With golf, you watch a tournament and they talk about the "money list" and being in the top 125 to keep your card. They constantly mention the purse for the tournament.

What's the purse for a major league baseball game? Or a pro football game? Probably bigger. But you never hear about it during the game.

I always thought the "money list" needed to go away- come up with another way to measure your top players.

If Kostis is so concerned about "image" he should make all his lessons free

....what a self-serving jackass

EXACTLY! Golf is one of the few sports (or entertainment values) where they throw dollar amounts in their fans (customers) face as a measuring stick of success.

While that made sense in a day and era where salaries weren't so out of touch with what the common fan could relate to.

Ironically Hollywood is the antithesis to this. Movie and TV stars make an obscene amount of money compared to most people in the entertainment industry. Yet, save a few People/US Magazine articles, that information is pretty much kept under wraps. If the PGA ran Hollywood, you'd hear about how each star was pulling in $15 million per movie and who was making more than everyone else.

Most sports try to keep the money aspect separate during telecasts because it only serves to alienate the fans from the people they cheer for. Golf is the exact opposite in that they are always willing to throw the money angle in during a broadcast.

I think that's absurd.

I doubt the average person begrudges athletes too much. Everyone tunes in to watch and attend pro sporting events regardless of the economy. And why should guys on wall street make millions of dollars while the economy tanks, while one of 200 guys in the world who can play golf well enough to make it on a top tour not deserve some compensation for their skills. After all, we are tuning in to watch.

And really, what does 10% really mean. Is the average unemployed person supposed to be pleased that a tour winner is bagging $900K rather than $1 million for 4 days of work?

He's certainly not going to be making any friends with those remarks. Kostis probably makes a pretty decent living himself as a broadcaster and teacher.

I agree with NoCal. People who begrudge others for making good money don't care who it is that's making the money, whether its a pro golfer or a guy who owns a plumbing business. The fans who go to tournaments are average joes who like golf just like any other sport. Some fans make good money, some don't.

These guys are the best in the world at what they do and deserve to be paid what the market will bear, just like any other business.

For Kostis to cite Barney Frank, then build a case from that is rediculous. Barney Frank, just like any other politician would have done, was taking the opportunity to grandstand. If it was legal for him to have taken political contributions from that bank before it busted out, he would have been first in line. Now there's a waste of money.

I also believe that pro golf is a business. Kostis confuses that with the "image of the game". I don't believe they are the same.

I think Peter's real gripe is with the image and he puts forward the idea that a reduction in the purses would help the image....I'm not so sure. Many of my friends and acquaintances who do not play golf view it as elitist or simply not within their reach for reasons other than the purses. They lump golfers in with other "over-paid" athletes on that issue. I do agree changing the perception of golf as "elitist" will help the image of golf.

Several of those I know who have this perception of golf talk about trying out the game but have experienced the "elitist" jackasses that don't take the time to explain the subtle "customs" or "traditions" of golf and berate them for breaking them.....such as moving around when someone is hitting or walking on someone's line, etc, etc.. I have witnessed the "golf purist" snap at a two golf newbies who were talking excitedly about their upcoming round while on the driving range! It was embarrassing to say the least. I approached them after to apologize on behalf of golfers but the damage was done. Sadly I fear that this may be the norm rather than the exception. I regularly play at two courses and the differences in attitude are stark. The one is perceived as more of a "playas" course and the other is more open to the public. I find the course open to the public much friendly to newbies and more tolerant (not much more but it is noticable).

Few of us take the time to remember the patience friend, co-worker, teacher, coach, etc. who took the time to teach us the game....instead we jump on the the "slow" group in front of us rather than take the time to explain the need to stay with the group in front of them. Admittedly I am just as guilty as others but I can say playing with my six year old nephew or a new co-worker who is eager to take up the game has certainly changed my viewpoint. The six year old has no inhibitions and the eager co-worker is so excited to have someone to play with who is taking the time to show them the game which really highlights the difference between the "elitist" and joe/jane non-golfer public.


Anyhow, I don't really agree with Peter's approach to changing the public's perception of golf but I do agree golf needs to change the image or risk truly becoming elitist.....

Ken

I have the same thoughts and you said it very well. So many of the "young guns" will never step up and challenge at the top, even though the have the talent, because they are getting paid way too much for being second fiddle.

I agree with Peter Kostis. Today, golf is not like others professional sports. Golf sells its association with charity, public displays of social compassion and tries subtly to separate itself from other sports while fostering an elitist overtone.

We owe that to 800k-1.5 purses to winners for a few days of golf, and 200k to people that are so far down the leader-boad their names are seldom mentioned. And then we have The Fedex Cup and Schawb Cup, complete jokes. Giving away millions to a player based on annual stack rankings yet those pros earns substantial incomes by performing well in each tournament; that distorts the sport that much more.

Lets take it one step further. Many pro golfers pick and choose tournament venues based on freebies and how well they get treated. If that's not a reflection of elitist mentality permeating golf I don't know what is.

Professional golf and Tennis needs to financially downsize, bringing some reality back into the game. There’s no need for someone like Tiger to be paid what he is, for what he does, and for players to be paid large appearance fees just for showing up. I don't begrudge success, but to be a professional golfer and earn more then Arnold and Jack did in their prime, two men that made golf is a down right distortion.

I should start by saying that I am a huge Peter Kostis fan. But, I think his logic is misplaced in this case. His first paragraph really doesn't make sense and that's what he bases his argument on. Golf being viewed as elitist and exclusionary didn't happen in 2009, as Kostis says. Golf has been viewed this way for decades. One of the reasons Caddyshack was funny was because it played on the stereotype that golf was elitist and exclusionary. And by the time Caddyshack came out 30 years ago, golf already had a negative image by many people. And I don't think that view ame from what the Tour players were taking home.

The leading money winner in 1980 (Tom Watson) made $530K. As pointed out earlier, the purses have far outgrown inflation and are borderline ridiculous. But, during the time that purses have been growing at this amazing rate, has the negative perception of golf been growing at a similar rate? It's certainly debatable, but I doubt it. I just don't see the causal relationship between Tour earnings and negative views of golf in general. NBA players make far more money that PGA Tour players, but I don't think anyone views basketball as elitist and exclusionary. They might view going to games as elitist, but not basketball in general.

I'm not saying that there is nothing out of whack with the current economic model of the PGA Tour. I'm just saying that the logic Kostis uses for reducing purses doesn't make sense in my mind.

Opus... I recall when Barney Frank made those inflammatory statements about business and golf in general. I gagged, but saw his comments as reflecting a population segment. Let me see if I can clarify my understanding of Peter's first paragraph.

Peter ties Frank's attitude to that of today’s low to middle class non-golfers feelings regarding corporate business and that golf personifies exclusion, greed and elitism. To appreciate Peter's connection the reader needs to understand Frank's ideology which in founded in disdain for “conservative” big business, affluence and elitism principles. If it were left to Franks big business would be controlled or owned by government, and golf wouldn't exist as we know it today.

It's true both wealth and elitism have been around forever. However in years past both were broad-spectrum goals of the population, not so today. Social segments are taking a more vocal and in some cases aggressive stand against wealth, big entertaining, private jets, and elaborate employee awards for performance, and high level personal accomplishment in favor of a more socialistic attitude.

I agree.

Pursuit of a "better image" in and of itself is a fruitless task.

Do the right thing, and right minded people will honor your actions.

Most folks have no idea how much money PGA Tours raise for charity .... or how that compares to the "big three" sports.

Despite losing 20% of it's sponsors from 2008, the Shell Houston Open donated $2,124,000.00 to charities this year --- down from $2.4 million in 2008. Since it's inception, the tournament has donated over $53 million. That's just one stop on the tour.

The question I have, and don't know the answer to, is how well does the PGA Tour take care of it's own? I've met many older "driving range" pros who had more than the proverbial "cup of coffee" on tour who are struggling to make ends meet. Some of them are easily recognizable names .... and I wonder what/if the current success of the tour owes it's forebears?

I agree Pepper. But, in my mind that confirms what I was thinking. We are dealing with long held and deeply seeded ideologies and sentiments, that don't really have any relationship to the size of Tour purses. And the more recent ground roots shift you reference (which I also agree with) was also not influenced by the size of Tour purses. I just have a hard time believing that there would be any significant shift in the general view of golf, because Tiger made $9M instead of $10M or that David Duval made $560K instead of $623K.

I would go so far as to say that the top 10 money winners on Tour could give 100% of their Tour earnings to charity and there would not be a significant change in the general view of golf. People like Mr. Frank would just say. "Oh well, they can afford it" or "They're just doing it to make more money in endorsements" or whatever. But, I don't think these types of folks would start viewing golf as inclusive and egalitarian.

Agreed...you have bench warmers in these leagues making million and multi-million dollars per year. At least you have to play for the prize money in golf and tennis...endorsement deals aside.

Unfortunately golf's business model is not the same as other sports. In golf there is a direct relationship to Corporate Sponsors it's emblazened on the tournament titles. As a result, golf is now being lumped into the corporate scandals (& failed economy) simply because tournaments need sponsors and becuase the public already perceives the game as "elitist." This is part of the problem. Since we see all these corporations (who are laying off workers etc. etc) funding golf tournaments, the non-golfing public sees it as a waste on an elitist sport.

I think Kostis, knowing that golf needs corporate sponsors to survive, is trying to change the tune for the general public. Perhaps cutting purses and telling people it's being REDIRECTED to charity will help both the Tour and its Corporate Sponsors.

If the news announced that Golf is cutting prize money to give back to the public in the form of charity would this not change some people's minds? Don't CEO's get some positive feedback when they say they are cutting their salary or not taking a bonus? So why can't the Tour do the same?

At the face of it, it would seem like a positive gesture and help the PGA Tour get through this bad economy.

Now it definitely won't hurt the guys at the top. But the guys at the bottom will have some major problems. Perhaps Kostis didn't think about these guys.

I think it goes even deeper than that. My wife and her friends run marathons, and they are trying to qualify for the Boston marathon. I play golf and am working on gtting my game to a level to qualify for provincial amateurs, and hopefully higher. Now, if someone says one of them is not at work because they are running, "training for a marathon", the thought is "wow, a goal oriented person who is putting an effort into getting better at something."

Now, despite the fact that quite frankly, the same phrase describes me, if you tell someone I'm at the golf course, I must be playing hooky, I'm just screwing around, wasting money, etc. there is a certain mentality out there that golf is not only a moneyed-class actvity, but one that is simply fun, and cannot be something taken seriously. When one of her friends asks if I was somewhere, I'll say I was at the golf couse, and I will get a little smirk. The pursuit of excellence at golf is considered to be a lesser pursuit than the pursuit of excellence in other things. This may sound arrogant, but people seem to be impressed by a person doing a 5K race at any pace, even walking(which frankly isn't very hard IMHO), while shooting 75 is not an accomplishment in their minds.

While I see what Kostis was getting at, PGA Tour purses are not the reason, nor the cure for golf's image. Goes way deeper than that.

=================
+ 1,000 !!!!

The Socialistic ideas, so infestuous in todays liberal thinking, is totally destructive to competition and well being of a company or the PGA !

Kostis-"it stink that PGA is so successful, and flush with money !?" -Nope it doesnt, it's great.

Obama- "I am sorry world, that we are so dominant, have money, and are the only superpower left in the world." No it doesnt. I am safe....
New Gov't Payzar, unelected, - "All you guys just make too much $, lets rip-up the contracts."

Result -The Best executives are leaving Bank of America, and no wants to work there- a big Problem.

Kostis, like those above are THE Elitist, for they content ONLY they know how to spend your money, or give the money to charity THEY choose.

The successful white male must be guilty, still, somehow, line of thinking is so old- so tiring.
Yet we have Oprah, a Multi Billionaire, and TW a Billionaire...and my hats off to them.. and they should decide which charity they wish to support.

If Kostis thinks Golf has a tarnished image... then " HEy Kostis- don't stay in the Industry!" !.

You're perception of those running in a marathon’s and water cooler chat is on target.

If average Joe or Sally decides to train for a marathon and stays with their training steps which can be reached within 6 months, they can sign up. They travel to the site and pay an inexpensive fee to enter; that’s it. Making it that far is seen as personal accomplishment. Now, if they just finish, even walking it’s a major life accomplishment. In simple terms, average Joe or Sally can compete in the same event with world class professional runners.

Marathon's essentially have three classes of entrants: Professional athletes comparable to PGA pro, serious amateur runners comparable to accomplished amateurs golfers, and then those just hoping to finish like Joe or Sally, comparable to hi index golfers.

Marathon’s can allow upwards of twenty thousand entrants; golf tournaments have highly limited fields with one or two days called pro-am days. Marathon’s do little or nothing for Charity, and it takes minimal dollars for corporate business to get involved where as golf tournaments focus on charities, have highly limited playing fields and require substantial dollars from corporate business to be involved. Money makes the world and golf go around.

Just to take part in a professional golf tournament the amateur must have moderate index accomplishment. Average hi index Joe and Sally can't take part without first being accomplished, which takes years, not months like marathon training.

Opus and other posters were right to a great degree. I am not sure much can be done to change the general non-golfers perception of golf. To excel at golf it takes far more time, money and training. Even then, when someone reaches low index or scratch game which is accomplished in the golfing world, that doesn’t mean we can sign up to play in any given professional tournament, like a runner can in a marathon. We still have to be subjectively selected and then pay a huge entry fee on top.

What it comes down to it, any activity that doesn't allow anyone and everyone to take part to some degree is going to be automatically viewed by those that can't take part as elitist; throw in all the money needed and athletic ability to excel and we're stuck with being elitists. I can live with that.

How about all TV announcers work for free or donate their salary to the local childrens cancer hospital, Because TV ANNOUNCERS ARE THE MOST OVERPAID HACKS IN SPORTS. Stupid.