Objectivist?
Help me understand how this works. I searched the PGA site and couldn’t find out.
What I do see is that the PGA sponsors these tournaments, they make money off of them (through ticket sales etc.), they also get money from dues paying members etc.
My question is, how is the tournament run?
for example- In order to play in the tournament, what are the steps necessary? Can anyone submit an application? Are only dues paying PGA members allowed to play? If so, can any dues paying PGA member play? Is there an entrance fee? Are the players requested to play by the PGA?
They certainly aren’t run the same way as say, major league baseball (where the players are employees), nor non professional competitions (such as the Olympics). They seem to be most similar to tennis - where cash prizes are awarded to winners. Is that accurate?
I can respond to some of these questions…
Basically, only members of the PGA tour can enter a PGA tournament. (There are “sponsored exceptions” - where a tour sponsor will add a particular pro golfer for reasons of his own choosing - but let’s ignore that for the purposes of this discussion.)
Becoming a member of the PGA tour involves “graduating from” Q-school, which is actually a series of qualifying golf tournaments - only the top few golfers attending Q-school each year get admitted to the PGA tour.
Also, you don’t automatically stay on the PGA tour just because you were in the PGA tour last year - only the top 150 or so golfers (ranking determined by money earned) get to keep their PGA tour status. Anyone else has to qualify all over again.
Generally, any PGA tour member can play in any PGA tour tournament.
Also, note that there are other pro golf tours - the BUY.COM tour being the most well known. That particular one is often considered to be the golf equivalent of professional baseball’s “minor league”.
Oops - i forgot to mention that PGA Tour members are considered to be contractors rather than employees. They don’t make a salary - they are “paid” only in terms of any prize money they manage to make. (And any endorsement money they can wring out of their advertisers, of course. Also the very top golfers often wring appearance money from the tour sponsors.)
Generally, PGA tour events are four-day events, with a “cut” being made after the second day. Anyone not making the cut goes home without having made any money (which is not good, considering that the golfers pay their own travel and accomodation expenses). Usually anyone making the cut is guaranteed some sort of prize money, although the lucky fellow coming in 35th generally doesn’t make very much.
Ok, so now for some follow up questions -
-
Are golf carts allowed in the Q school events?
-
The golfer in question - is this a relatively new disability? Did he complete the Q school and then had an event that causes him to need the assistance?
Q school has 3 stages, with cuts after each. The first 2 stages are 72 holes, 4 18-hole rounds over 4 days, and carts are allowed. Stage 3 is 108 holes, 6 18-hole rounds over 6 days, during which players must walk and use a caddy. The low 35 players qualify for the PGA tour, the next 70 qualify for the Buy.com (previously Nike) Tour.
Martin rode a cart and passed the first 2 stages. He obtained a court injunction allowing him to use a cart in the third stage. He qualified for the Nike Tour and the injunction was extended to allow him to use a cart during at least the first couple of Nike tournaments.
wring, not to get too technical, but the USGA is a different organization than the PGA. Different rules apply to events such as the US Open, where certain folk get automatic inviations, but essentially anyone can compete to qualify for the remaining places. Beware. The rules of golf are a nasty, impenetrable, brutish beast, not to be confronted by the faint-hearted.
WGFF forgot to add that the pros also PAY to play. It’s something like $100 for the tournament. some of these guys who play barely break even after the year is over because of the cost of travel, hotels etc.
They do allow carts to be used in Q-school and Martin has had this problem all his life, it’s only in the last couple of years that it’s gotten worse. He played on the Buy.Com tour, was known as Nike Tour and Hogan Tour, before being able to play on the PGA tour. He has used the cart on some of the Nike tour events and has walked on others. There was talk a year or so ago that he needed to have his foot amputated though I guess that hasn’t happened yet.
The only rule is that you have to have a handicap under something like 1.7 in order to even try and quailfy, but other than that yes any fool who wants to can try out for the US Open, or British Open as well. The Masters is an invite only tournament.
I guess what I’m getting at is that in order to qualify for the tournaments, the golfer has to pay fees, have a qualifying score from an accredited prior tournament etc. - so how does it actually happen that a golfer is able to do all of that, and apparently while using a cart, then the PGA steps in at the final moments etc. and says nope, can’t do it. I’m not arguing the point, I just really wish to understand the process.
(Dinsdale, I don’t consider your point to be a ‘moot’ one- but um, where did the USGA come into play? like I said, I’m not a golfer - my only experience on a golf course was helping out on a golf scramble fund raiser once, so if I’m making an incorrect assumption or whatever, please correct me, I’m looking for step by step what does the golfer need to do and who is it run by kind of procedure.)
No!! I did hear that one… the entry fee…is a considerable bit more than $100.00. Entry fee can be up to $4000.00. I believe they said and quote…“Martin paid is 4000 dollar entry fee and played his first game.” Think we might be able to find out about them changing the rules. I’m sure now that I heard that correctly too.
Needs2know
wring - I am a social golfer, and willingly remain blissfully ignorant of much of the formal rules and organizational structure of golf. And I’m sure a visit to the PGA and USGA sites can provide more clarification. But here is my off-the-cuff overly simplistic answer.
The USGA is the overall body governing golf in the US. They write the rule book, rate courses, compile handicaps. The USGA rules of golf apply to amateurs, as well as pros during (most)competitions.
The PGA is an association of golf professionals. These include both the guys we see on TV every week, as well as the guys who teach and run the pro shop at the local club.
The PGA tour consists of a certain number of official events. Earnings statistics in PGA sanctioned events largely determines who is eligible to play the next year. As noted above, there is also a semi-pro tour, an international tour, and who know’s how many others. There are also state and national amateur championships, governed by USGA rules but not open to PGA players.
Not all major golf tournaments are PGA events, however. Most notable are probably the US and British Open (2 of the 4 big tourneys that comprise the Grand Slam of Golf. The other 2 are the Masters, and the PGA.) Different rules apply for getting into the US Open, than a standard PGA event. In a standard PGA tourney, a player is automatically eligible to play if he was one of the top (I’m not sure of the exact number) 60 or so money winners the previous year. Also automatically in are the past year;'s top finishers. The remaining slots are open to any pro who wants to try to qualify on Monday and Tuesday. A standard tourney runs 4 days, 18 holes per day, Thurs-Sun. There are also a couple of exemptions available for most tourneys. I could play as an amateur if I had an in with a corporate sponsor and got an exemption for that particular event. The US Open, however, holds qualifying tourneys in various regions. You or I could pony up an entry fee, and try to qualify. (Actually, I believe you need a low enough USGA handicap.)
The USGA comes into this discussion because, the 7th Cir. case I referred to above (but as yet have failed to provide the cite for), Olinger, involved a guy who wanted to use a cart to qualify for the US Open. And the USGA was the defendant, not the PGA. I also believe there was an earlier case in Cal, involving the PGA.
As far as the fact that Q school allowing carts (at least during part of it), I believe Scalia said yesterday, “All that proves is that they have different rules for qualifying and competing.” What is inherently wrong with that?
Here’s a link to the Olinger case.
http://www.kentlaw.edu/7circuit/2000/jan-mar/99-2580.html
And here’s the Martin decision out of the 9th
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/4bc2cbe0ce5be94e88256927007a37b9/33cf1bfa7df49d4988256927007a7342?OpenDocument
Damn, that Martin link is fucked.
Go to this site, the home page of the 9th Cir., click on the seal in the upper right for opinions, and simply search for Casey Martin. His is the only case that turns up.
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/
If they won’t let him use a cart, and they won’t let everyone use carts, he should simply hire a massive caddy to carry him and his clubs. The media spin on this might put a bit of pressure on the tour.
Thanks for all the links.
I guess where I’m having a difficult time understanding the position is the division 'tween sports competition and employment. Professional football for example, is a sport, but it’s also an employer. The QB for the Lions is an employee, hired for his well, tough for me to say why he was hired, but you get the drift. Golf pros would indicate on their tax return ‘golfer’ much as I write ‘free lance philosopher’ (no, I really put ‘director’). Yes, the claim is that they are not employees in the traditional sense, but ‘contractors’. However, when employing ‘contractors’ I am still bound by the ADA rules, so why not the PGA?
If the PGA, as an organization, obtains the bulk of it’s income from these tournaments (through ticket sales, endorsement fees, application fees, etc, etc, etc), then I’m having a difficult time **not ** seeing how the ADA shoudln’t be involved. Certainly, they ‘contract’ with golfers to participate in the tournaments, pay them relative to their performance. Sounds more like the relationship between contractor and employer.
Here’s a way to resolve this (don’t know if we can find out). When the PGA pays out it’s prize $$, do they file a 1099 with the feds? (which would indicate that the player has an independant contractor status) or is it paid out similar to a casino’s payout (where they send the info to the feds, but on a different kind of form). Is it more like winning on ‘How wants to be a Millionaire’?
If they file the same form 1099 that my SO gets from some companies who contract with him for services, I’d be more inclined to believe that the ADA provisions should prevail. If it’s handled more like casino winnings, then I’d think the ADA wouldn’t apply.
I happen to think that, in this case…
-
The PGA should lighten up, and let golfers use carts. Walking is NOT a key element of the game, and not a single fan cares about HOW golfers get from one hole to the next. Golf is about making shots. To me, letting Casey Martin ride a cart isn’t much worse than a relief pitcher riding a cart from the bullpen to the mound.
-
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court should declare “a sporting body has the right to set its own rules for how a game is played. Case dismissed.”
Here’s a purely hypothetical question, though. Let’s say there’s an All-Star right fielder in the NAtional League who’s just turned 35, and is starting to experience back pain. He can still hit, run and throw, but when he has to stand for long periods of time, his back is in agony.
Well, this outfielder takes a folding chair out to right field with him, and sits in it. “Not to worry,” he says, “when the ball is hit to me, I’ll get up and run after it. But during those long stretches where no balls are being hit my way, I’ll just sit here in my folding chair.”
Should THAT be allowed? Why or why not? How is that different from the Martin case? I’d be surprised if the official baseball rules prohibit such a thing. If the commissioner tried to stop that, whose side would you be on?
professional sports is physical competition to determine who’s the best as well as a way to make a living for the people involved. other types of employment don’t include the physical competition as an end goal. there might be casual or unspoken physical competition within a physically demanding job, but it’s not the ultimate purpose of the job. the rules of the game, including what equipment is allowed, are designed not only to define the action, but also to make sure that the only variations between participants are what physical abilities the game designers want to have the players demonstrate. if the pga didn’t want the physical aspect of walking a golf course to play a part in its competition, then it never would have made a rule about golf carts in the first place.
i like astorian’s baseball chair analogy. i played outfield on our company softball team, and i know that the standing around between the action factor can be significant, especially in a long inning.
Just wanted to acknowledge that I know next to nothing about employment law, tax law, the specific nature of the employment/contractor relationship between the PGA and players.
It seems to me, however, that there is a distinction between entertainment where you hire people to put on a show (even if they are paid out of receipts), vs where you provide a venue where people can compete for money.
And I don’t believe golf is unique in sport. Tho the situation of pro golfers differs from baseball, basketball, or football players, I believe it is similar to tennis players, racecar drivers, professional skiers, or the like.
I agree that the pro golfer is much more like the pro tennis player (see my above statement to that effect) and is not in any way similar to the baseball analogy (especially since they’re employees specifically and it’s a team competition, compensation is not directly linked to performance etc.). So if we could come up with analogies within the scope of race car drivers/tennis players etc. maybe it would help me see better.
I’m interested in the answer, 'cause I really think that’s the crux of the biscuit as it were. Employers are allowed to change working conditions etc. in accordance with applicable laws.
Professional skiers? they exist? gads, I’ve got to get out more.