I find myself straddling the fence with this most recent issue to surface regarding the tour’s pro-am policy. It appears that most of the players on tour, however, clearly stand on the player’s side of that fence.
Take a moment to read THIS ARTICLE that came out in October of 2009. And while reading that article, keep in mind that our nation’s economy was on the brink of collapse. Companies and corporations that were fully expecting to post epic losses were forced to lay off thousands of workers in the process, with unemployment rates that were as high as they had been in nearly 30 years. But despite that, many of those same companies and corporations honored their commitments to remain title sponsors of some of the big events on the PGA Tour.
That article was written by an “anonymous pro” who apparently wasn’t none too thrilled about having to “put on a smiley face” at a dinner function or “schmooze” with the tour’s sponsors at the events. It’s also apparent that this anonymous pro wasn’t overly concerned about being laid off from work, losing his health insurance, losing his home, and having to live day-to-day like millions of other people in the real world. No, that anonymous pro’s indignant attitude revealed a degree of entitlement and privilege that made it impossible to relate to the average, everyday worker who suddenly faced a crisis of uncertainty and hopelessness.
It’s worth noting that the author of that article doesn’t necessarily represent the attitudes of everyone playing professional golf. I noted the article to simply reinforce the fact that that attitude does exist, however. Now back to the issue at hand….
I understand that the average touring professional is, in essence, an independent contractor who (once you remove a few product endorsements for a select few) basically works on commission. There’s work involved. There are meetings that have to be attended. What time isn’t spent traveling from venue to venue is then divided up between business commitments, practice, and last but certainly not least – time spent with family. That life isn’t nearly as flexible and laid back as a lot of people might otherwise believe.
But on that same token, the guys who’re safely inside the top 125 on the money list – they’re living comfortable lives. Not all of them are driving $90k sportsters or SUV’s, but they’re not struggling to pay bills, they can afford the best healthcare in the world, and can afford to send their kids to ivy-league schools if they so choose. As good as they are, and as much as they entertain the fans through their vocation, they’re enabled to do so by virtue of the people who pay to watch them perform. Without those title sponsors, without those fans, that comfortable life would have to be earned in a much tougher, greedier business world.
In this economic climate especially – supporting the people who continue to support you is vital. If that means showing up at 0-dark thirty to play a grueling 6-hour pro-am with three guys who can’t break 100, well then, that’s what it means. If it means putting on a “smiley face” and “schmoozing” with some of the clients of the title sponsors, then again – that’s part of the deal.
All of this said, I also recognize that maybe a small degree of leeway should be granted regarding the rare instances like what occurred with Jim Furyk on Wednesday morning. If I was one of the amateurs who forked over $7000 to play in the event, I’d rather enjoy the neat experience with one of the top players in the world for 16 or 17 holes than to not experience it at all. And in this instance in particular, where it was clearly an unintentional situation with the player showing up a mere 5 minutes later than usual, I do believe Phil Mickelson has a point in his argument.
The players on the PGA Tour should treat these pro-ams no differently than they would a round in a tournament, but I do think that to some extent – removing the player from the tournament because of him being a couple of minutes late for the pro-am also impacts the fans who might’ve purchased tickets to watch that player play that week. So the flip side of that stringent policy can also be seen as somewhat of a detriment to giving the fans what they came there for to begin with – the bigger show.
I still straddle the fence, but I will say that just because “rules are rules” doesn’t mean that any particular rule is practical and not worth amending. I think the players and the tour policy advisors need to meet somewhere in the middle here, and work on an equitable solution. And at the same time, I think it gives Finchem and his staff another opportunity to tell his players just how vital and important their sponsors really are. I think that premise gets a lot of lip service, but beyond that – from where I sit anyway, I don’t see an overwhelming concern about it.
PHIL MICKELSON CALLS FURYK DQ REDICULOUS
