Last year as President of the "I Hate Tiger fan club", I took a lashing for complaining that ol'Tiger Woods was too busy to play the Mercedes Championship because he was pushing the new Buick crossover at the Detroit Auto Show. So this year I'm simply going to say that the PGA Tour and players thank you. Less people watch PGA Tour events when you don't play so eventually that will lead to lower prize money in events that you don't play in. The PGA Tour is already having some issues with finding sponsors, but thank god Justin Timberlake is a big golf fan. So without Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake there would be 2 less events for the players to make money since each is sponsoring an event. Oh well, that's my annual rant on Tiger. Now he can go out there and win $10 million.
6 comments:
A critique of Tiger not playing an event, because that may lower prize pools, is ridiculous. The reason prize pools are where they are today, across the board, is because of Tiger Woods.
Take a look at 1996, the last full year that Tiger was not on Tour.
#125 on the Money List was Dicky Pride, with $167k. #1 was Tom Lehman with just under $1.8 million.
Now, flash forward to last year...
#125 was Mathias Gronberg with $785k. #2 (let's not include Tiger's dominance in this discussion, as it sways the data even further in my favor) was Mickelson with $5.8 million.
So, in the past 10 years, the PGA Tour's money list has swollen 4 fold.
Now, for the sake of a control group, look at 1986... #125 is Tom Sieckman, at about $65k and #1 was Greg Norman at $653k.
So, in the 10 years prior to Tiger, the dollars earned grew about 2+ fold.
The point... Tiger's existence has made the Tour far more lucrative than if he wasn't there at all, by about 50-70%.
And finally, if players on Tour wanted to bitch about Tiger's absence (they don't seem to), I'd suggest that they take a look at how fortunate they are to work in an industry where dollars earned grows every year at a pace that far exceeds inflation. And finally, if someone on tour wants to make more money, make more damned birdies.
You think sponsors are going to pay more for events where the top players will consistently NOT show up? Would total prize money last year been down if Tiger didn't host/sponsor the event in Washington, DC last July? I'm not saying that #125 would have made more or less, but if the money on tour was so good then why did Denver lose their event last year?
Ok, so I toss out 20 years of data, and you come back with one event in Denver? One goofy format event? I'll tell you what... when purses actually start to decrease, let me know. In the meantime, continue to deny the financial fact that Tiger has put far more money into the Tour over the last decade than a few absences could ever take away.
Steve aka Tiger Fan Club Member 233421
HA LOL! I love this now annual debate. I realize that I am wrong but for the sake of making it an annual event and because I wish that Tiger and Michelson would play the Mercedes, I plan to continue to make the wrong argument.
Tiger=Buick duh!
"but if the money on tour was so good then why did Denver lose their event last year?"
Many TOUR events are lost without having anything to do with $$. Denver is a case in point, as is 84 Lumber. Sometimes two people (one of which I shall choose not to name) have too much pride and can't come to an agreement.
There are sponsors out there. Whether or not the TOUR chooses to take them on is a whole other story. :)
Post a Comment