We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Appearance Fees on Tour

I'm not completely against appearance fees but 1.8 and 1 mil are way too much money just to show up imo

Appearance fees should be out in the open and regulated. Maybe something like travel + accommodations + 100,000 or so with a limit of 5 players they could offer that to
 
I don't care for it, mostly because I like the purity of the traditional system where people have to perform to earn money to retain their right to be among the 125 players in the world who get to tee it up as a PGA professional. Once this starts it never stops. The top players will start demanding this from everyone. It also ultimately takes money out of the potential prize pool. This becomes a bit abstract but I see this potentially impacting competition, too. Players who have large appearance fees in the bank are not going to feel the same type of pressure coming down the home stretch as another guy who is grinding to make the top 125 or who hasn't banked a big check yet.

I think I'd rather see a system where the tour requires players to participate in a minimum number of events and institutes penalties for failure to do so, maybe something like 1 month removed from tour exemption for every tournament missed over the minimum participation requirement or loss of fedex points...something with some teeth (with exceptions for obvious things like injuries, etc.)
 
Just for a different perspective on this, I am not sure why these guys show up for these fees. After "expenses" and taxes, how much do they pocket? And why do they care? They already have more money that all their families will be able to spend in all their lifetimes.

The amounts are so staggering. When I consider buying a golf club I am thinking about a driver or wedge; those guys are thinking 18 holes, clubhouse, range, spa.
 
Tiger is responsable for big purses and I'm sure that everyone's who's become a millionaire because of it appreciates it. The guys that are getting these fees earned them. The rank and file just aren't good enough. Not every employee of a company earns a CEO's pay.
 
blugold said:
For me, they made their money the moment they announced Tiger and Phil were playing. Because advertisers paid for spots when they heard Phil and Tiger were playing. And tickets were probably bought ahead of time for Sat and Sun, so it didn't matter if they missed the cut. As long as the tournament made money, I don't think the organizers felt hosed at all.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this, how do you know those advertising spots weren't already full. You are making assumption based on what you think is true.
 
Tadashi70 said:
You keep saying this, how do you know those advertising spots weren't already full. You are making assumption based on what you think is true.
Click to expand...
Blugold wasn't exactly saying this but I think I've seen where advertising fees can be on a scale and tied to viewership numbers. If CBS/Greenbrier did this then they got extra revenue (assuming Tiger & Phil = more sets tuned into the event) for the fees paid.
 
I don't have a problem with apperance fees however I do not like seeing the top tier players hand pick what tournaments they play every year... They talked a few years ago (maybe more than a few) about adding a requirement for every tour card carrying player to play every open PGA sanctioned event at least once every 5 years or so... It would be nice to see Tiger play the Sony open because it feels like he is giving us (people on oahu) the finger every year when he doesn't play...
 
I dont' have any issues with appearance fee's, I understand that tournaments are big business and to make money they have to bring in big sponsors and crowds. To do that, organizers need big names to show up and play. I would like to see a rotation of some sort that PGA players have to play in PGA events once every 3-4 years to help with it.
 
mcook77 said:
How about calling it a "Weekend Appearance Fee". They could at least get their monies worth when they only have to pay it after the player makes the cut.
Click to expand...

I really like that idea Cookie !
A true "pay for play" scenario.
 
The PGA tour still does not allow apprearance fees to be paid....they end up working around this rule by giving the player a fee to participate in a "sponsor party" or a "sponsor clinic" or something along those lines, but everyone understands it's actually for them to play the event.

So if there are working around it and doing backdoor deals anyway, then the PGA tour needs to step in and take control....make their own rules about appearance fees and how much can be paid and to how many players and then close up the loopholes that are allowing it to go on without the tour's oversite.
 
money makes the world go round
 
We've come so far down this road, it's always going to be difficult to rewrite the rules.

I think a lot of it revolves around the question - Do the players make the tour, or does the tour make the players?
 
I tend to say I don't have a problem with appearance fees. Bottom line, it brings a couple big names to the event = more spectators to the course = healthy event in coming years.

I've read other threads here on THP where everybody wants to see these guys at more events and upset that they don't frequent smaller venues. If a sponsor wants to throw its own $$$ to make that happen it doesn't hurt. I think the field/purse was what it would have been regardless if Tiger and Phil don't show.
 
I only live about an hour south of the Greenbrier and the few times I have been, the courses are absolutely not to the quality of other Tour courses. I have played both the Ocean Course and Harbour Town, Sedgefield, Quail Hollow and the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club (hosted the 2005 Presidents Cup) and they are in much better condition than the Greenbrier. I can see this being, at least in some part, a reason for the money paid out to Phil and Tiger to add this event to their schedule because the course will not attract a top field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top