I don’t get it. Back when the ABA was a thing, ABA players couldn’t simultaneously compete in the NBA, could they?
See above. Golf players are not employees of the PGA, they are more like independent contractors.
No, but they were under contract to an NBA team, or an ABA team (and the two leagues’ seasons ran at essentially the same time).
My understanding is that PGA players are not specifically under contract to the PGA Tour, but are more like independent contractors. They have to have earned a “tour card” to play on the tour, and may have to qualify for particular events, but there’s nothing stopping them from playing a PGA event one weekend, and an LIV event the next weekend, other than the PGA telling them that they’re suspended for signing on with the LIV.
It’s hard to know at this point how serious this is for the PGA. On the one hand, “starting an investigation” doesn’t really mean much — so far it looks like they’ve just sent some letters to players and league officials asking for information. But the DOJ Antitrust Division is enormously resource-constrained and they wouldn’t even start down this path if they didn’t think there was something worth their time here.
Are LIV golfers contractually bound from speaking ill of the Sauds? Take the money to play golf and also speak about Saudi misdeeds. Because LIV is about golf, not the Sauds, right?
I don’t think that’s known, but it honestly would not surprise me if it’s true.
It’s not even all that rare for a contract to include not publicly badmouthing your employer. I mean, if an Apple employee starting tweeting about how bad Apple was, they’d probably soon find themself an ex-Apple employee.
Up to a point, anyway. There’s in theory (in practice of course it’s different) protection for whistleblowers who witness their employers doing something illegal. And contract provisions that are not legal are not enforceable (again, in theory, as the Saudis can likely get away with a lot in practice).
Not that I think any professional golfers would be involved in or witness something like say the murder and subsequent dismemberment of a journalist.
They probably don’t need any such clause, even if one exists. They’re not rocket scientists but they’re not dumb enough to bite any hand that feeds them so exceedingly well.
Are LIV golfers employed by Sauds? I thought they were the sponsors, not the employers.
I’m not sure if they are technically “employers,” but they have been giving golfers very large sums of money to “sign” with their tour (whether that “signing” is a formal contract or not is not clear). Also note the cite that Lee Westwood, at least, has specifically said he’s under an NDA. As per Wikipedia:
I’m pretty sure basketball players were/are classified as employees just as Major League Baseball and National Football League players are. They may be under contract, but they’re still employees of whatever franchise they belong to (the Lakers, Cowboys, or Yankees). The IRS provides some useful information to determine whether someone is a contractor or an employee.
- Does the company control what the worker does or how the worker does their job?
- Are the business aspects of the job controled by the payer?
- Are there written contracts and/or employee type benefits (insurance, retirement, etc., etc.)?
Misclassification of an employee as a contractor is often an issue because it’s usually determimental to the independent contractor. The “employer” reaps a lot of benefits and the contractor usually gets the shaft. If PGA members are independent contractors, then the organization has no business telling them when or who they can play golf with. So that’s a problem (it’s a problem with professional wrestlers in the WWE as well).
It doesn’t make it cool to take blood money from the Saudis of course.
I’d be surprised if they weren’t. The PGA rulebook includes such a provision, saying:
“The favorable public reputation of PGA TOUR and its tournaments are valuable assets and create tangible benefits for all PGA TOUR members. Accordingly, it is an obligation of membership to refrain from comments to the news media that unreasonably attack or disparage tournaments, sponsors, fellow members, players or PGA TOUR. Responsible expressions of legitimate disagreement with PGA TOUR policies are notp rohibited. However, public comments that a member knows, or should reasonably know, will harm the reputation or financial best interests of a tournament sponsor or charity are expressly covered by this section. Any violation of this section shall be considered conduct unbecoming a professional.”
While it can’t stifle all speech, it clearly includes bad-mouthing sponsors. I’d be shocked if there wasn’t such a clause in the LIV tour contracts/rulebook.
Also, this is the fucking Saudi Royal family. They’ve literally killed people over negative press. I would think a fine/suspension to a LIV golfer over negative comments about the Saudis would be the least of said LIV golfers’ worries.
Definitely agreed with all of the above. I used the term “contract” because not only is it the term which is always used when a player joins a North American pro sports team (e.g., “John Smith signed a three-year contract with the Giants”), but my understanding is that there is, actually, a legal, documented contract between the player and the team.
If my use of the term seemed to imply that those players aren’t actually employees of a team, then I apologize for the confusion.
Edit: here’s a link to an actual NFL player contract (in this case, the contract that running back Arian Foster signed with the Houston Texans in 2012). The document is titled “NFL Player Contract,” and paragraph 2 specifically details the player’s “employment” with the team: “Club employs Player as a skilled football player. Player accepts such employment.” That same paragraph also specifies: “Player will not participate in any football game not sponsored by the League unless the game is first approved by the League.”
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1573683/000104746913009713/a2216998zex-10_3.htm
It should not have been construed that way. One common kind of contract is an Employment Contract. Signing one makes you an employee, not an independent contractor.
If the LIV contract includes a similar clause, then it removes any fig leaf of morality for signing it. It’s pure blood money.
Indeed so. They are contracted employees and not independent contractors.
That said, MLB enjoys its antitrust exemption.
The other leagues don’t, but are now so generally big they have little to fear from rival leagues and at least the NFL would welcome a league like the USFL or XFL to provide an active pool of marginal or perhaps overlooked players.
The PGA Tour’s structure is a bit odd to reduce its tax burden. It’s set up as a non-profit and all its events are non-profit. This allows them to donate heavily to charity and reduce taxes, but the flip side is this limits purses and what it can pay players directly. This worked great for decades but less so in recent years when individual players can expect to earn a lot of money in endorsements or elsewhere. It can probably compete more directly but this would require switching to a for-profit model and that’s a big headache on its own.
Serious question:
Isn’t the PGA heavily invested in China?
What is so much better about China’s human rights record vs Saudi Arabia?
…crickets…
Same result as everywhere else I ask this question. I’m really not trying to “gotcha” anyone.
China? The PGA is invested in China, but it’s not China bankrolling the PGA and using it as a beard to purchase legitimacy on the world stage. The LIV, by contrast, is not ‘invested’ in Saudi Arabia. It’s the Saudis investing in the LIV.
A lot of corporations are significantly invested in China (Apple, Facebook, Samsung, Microsoft, the list goes on). These days, you have little choice if you are a large company with stockholders to answer to and if you have competitors who will willingly take advantage if you don’t do business there. And, even if these clauses are routinely ignored and don’t cover actions by the Chinese government, they often have associated clauses about treatment of workers and such to at least attempt to address human rights concerns. Also, they are corporations first. If it turns out that doing business in China is unprofitable or costs their ‘brand’ more than they’re getting in return, they will pull out fast and have no regrets.
None of these points are true with the LIV. It’s basically a Saudi entity by itself (funded by their Public Investment Fund) rather than a sports tour that is trying to operate in Saudi Arabia. They are the primary backers rather than the place investment money is being placed. There aren’t really even fig leaf clauses about human rights. And the tour could lose millions every year, and the Saudis wouldn’t care a bit and would continue bankrolling it. It’s not about being profitable but about purchasing a positive reputation.
Thank you. It’s literally been impossible to get any kind of answer out of anyone.