Personal attacks of members are not allowed outside of the Pit, not even of banned members.
Here’s what the PGA should do. Current big star, he just has to say some nice things in a press conference and assure everyone that it was a one-time thing, and no hard feelings. Second-tier star or former big star on the decline, have him do a few weeks of goodwill work…chip 'n putts, charity drives, signings, meeting the kids, what have you…and they can welcome back the prodigal son. Occasional contender, young phenom, or fading veteran, he’d better show plenty of contrition and put in a minimum of several months of honest, humble service to the PGA. Anything less gets booted to the Korn Ferry Tour, where the Flying Spaghetti Monster will sort 'em out soon enough.
Consequences. That’s all I ask. Something, anything, dammit.
I’m not a huge golf fan but this saddens me, too. I think I’m still comfortable with watching the Masters, the Open, and the Ryder Cup (which is pretty much all I did anyway), as these aren’t PGA events - albeit obviously they all heavily feature PGA Tour golfers.
What can the PGA do to make things up to Rory? Boy, did they play him for a sap! I mean, he doesn’t need any tag sales or anything, but he sure bore the flag for them - losing $100 million or more in the process!
You’re saying that people who left the PGA to the rival tour should have to kiss ass to get back on the PGA tour which is owned by the rival tour?
Exactly. What kind of “consequences” can the PGA straight-facedly enforce when they’ve just crawled into bed with the same monsters they were excoriating players for joining?
Look, I’m just the guy who wants to see a goddam soupcon of justice in this messed up world, okay? My point is, if you’re Brooks Koepka, you’ve proven your importance to the sport and should be able to get back in the saddle without much of a fuss. If you’re some third-tier roster-filler who jumped ship for a big payout, the road back should be a lot steeper. I don’t give a damn how crooked anyone’s face is. In the end the PGA gets to decide who gets and doesn’t get exemptions, and a lot of sellouts should have to either kiss boots or get sent to the back of the line.
I remember that some time after Wakanohana retired (after a pretty lackluster stint as Yokozuna), there were rumors that he was entertaining thoughts of a comeback. No yokozuna had ever attempted to do so before, so there was plenty of speculation of just what that would entail. The general consensus seemed to be that if the Sumo Association permitted it, he’d have to reenter at jonokuchi…the very bottom. Obviously he did the sensible thing and settled into his proper role as oyakata, but the point was made; jumping ship has consequences. There should be here. Something. Anything. Dammit.
To say “if the Sumo Association permitted it” is basically allowing any antecedent, because they absolutely would not have allowed it. I’m not familiar with his retirement ceremony, but presumably he did have one just like everyone else that retired, and that’s a pretty formal event specifically as it signals that one is done being a rikishi, even though it often takes place much later than the actual retirement.
However, they have taken back people that revolted in the far past (the banzuke for most tournaments in 1932 was much smaller than normal until they brought the outcasts back in 1933), or that left for the war (the Fall 1946 tournament had many participants that were not on the banzuke for that reason). Those people presumably didn’t have retirement ceremonies. Similarly, I see no reason why anyone who left the PGA Tour due to being “fired” for joining LIV wouldn’t be welcome back.
And perhaps I could be, but the incident you relate isn’t on Wikipedia at all. I suppose it’s possible that he announced his intention to retire, which the association would take as binding even if the papers weren’t handed in, and then tried to reverse his decision. While that might change the point about the retirement ceremonies, it wouldn’t change the fact that the association would see him as permanently retired, and they don’t allow people to return after that - but they have let people back that left for other reasons without retiring, which is the analogous situation to this thread.
All right, I’ll try to phrase it a bit more modestly. The ones who had exemptions for '22 (it’s pretty complicated, but basically that means either winning one non-significant event or finishing in the FedEx top 125 in '21) and chased the money, do they get a welcome mat or have to earn the card all over again? I say make 'em earn it. One of the great things about the PGA is that nobody’s entitled to anything; even living legends has to keep getting good results or step aside. To someone who jumped ship for the crassest of reasons, the only appropriate response would be “You made your choice. Good luck on the Korn Ferry Tour, you’ll need it.” Of course, if he has an exemption through '23, sure, the PGA should honor it (but he’d better start hustling if he wants to keep it).
Gah. I’m getting a headache talking about this. Anything interesting going on in baseball?
The thing they jumped to just merged with the PGA. If the PGA is ok with the merger, they should be fine with the members coming along, especially since the LIV part is the sugar daddy.
Yeah, all I know about golf is what I learned from “Caddyshack” & “Happy Gilmore”, but it’s obvious who is driving the bus now, and it’s not the PGA.
So the merger might not happen, it is being investigated by the senate. I’m not sure on what grounds the waty the PGA and DP world tour suddenly changed their attitude to LIV makes you wonder if their is any indication of bribary. Isit as simple as concerns over “a foreign government entity assuming control over a cherished American institution”? I would be very surprised if it is about sportwashing, Saudi oil is too important to complain about human rights abuses.
There have been mumbles that the merger violates antitrust and competition law, which is sufficiently complex and unevenly applied that it is sometimes hard to know how it will be interpreted (at least in Canada). My guess is these concerns disappear, like those of human rights.
However, if the merger goes ahead, they probably shouldn’t keep all of the previous names through rearrangement. For example, calling it “Ass. Four Fifty Professional Golfers” would not be recommended.
A “Senate investigation” doesn’t really mean much – it’s not like the Senate by itself can do anything to block the merger. The real problem for PGA/LIV would be if the Justice Department pursues an antitrust action against the merger.
How could there be anti-trust considerations? It doesn’t seem reasonable to say that a LIV+PGA merger would create a monopoly when LIV just started having tournaments a year ago. If LIV folded and the players went back to the PGA, would the PGA be ordered to break apart into multiple leagues in order to create more competition?
Exactly. How could it be a monopoly now if the regular PGA wasn’t a monopoly three years ago?
Couldn’t it have been a monopoly three years ago, but the government hadn’t gotten around to do anything about it yet?
That’s probably it. After decades of being a monopoly they coincidentally got involved just now.
All major pro sports leagues are effectively monopolies; some of them (such as MLB) are specifically protected from anti-trust scrutiny. In the 1980s, the original USFL successfully sued the NFL on anti-trust grounds, though they were awarded only token damages.
As I understand it, unlike the other leagues, pro golfers aren’t employed by the PGA (or by specific teams) per se; they are essentially independent contractors. IANAL, but perhaps a case could be made that the PGA/LIV merger is serving to decrease competition, by reducing the number of top-tier pro golf events for spectators to enjoy, and narrowing the pool of money-making slots (i.e., finishes) that pro golfers have available to them. It may not matter that the LIV competition wasn’t there 18 months ago.