Speaker 1: I know you guys are not lawyers, and I don't
Speaker 1: want to get like hyper technical um in in discussing
Speaker 1: this lawsuit. But you know there's there's a legal word
Speaker 1: that you can use to describe Patrick Green's lawsuit and
Speaker 1: that lawsuit. That word is it's a joke. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not getting too technical here. I hope I got
Speaker 1: thoughts in my head. Can't get John nothing think what
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about. Gown thoughts, can't get him out not
Speaker 1: to think what I'm thinking about. Hello, this is Alan
Speaker 1: Schip knock back for another Fire Drill podcast. I have
Speaker 1: Michael Bamberger coming to us from the Wilmington Country Club
Speaker 1: because he's stalking the FedEx Cup, and we're delied to
Speaker 1: be joined by Jeffrey Tubin, legal expert, author of eight
Speaker 1: books a bunch you've heard of and have been turned
Speaker 1: into a TV and movies and all kinds of fun stuff.
Speaker 1: So Jeffrey, thank you so much for being here. We
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. Great to be with you. I'm allowed
Speaker 1: to be with you. Even though I found out my
Speaker 1: index is now up to fifteen point four. I'm so appalled,
Speaker 1: but I guess I can still participate in this conversation.
Speaker 1: It makes you more relatable to the listeners and also
Speaker 1: very relatable if you take the meme between Tubans Index
Speaker 1: and the other Jeff Jeff Fogilby's We've got a nice
Speaker 1: single Tojit Handicapper. Yeah, exactly. Now that there's if we
Speaker 1: ever do a company golf tournament at the fire Pit Collective,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be very interesting. We have a wide range
Speaker 1: of handicaps and abilities, including a US Open champ. So um,
Speaker 1: we wanted to have you here today, Jeff, because we
Speaker 1: could talk about the FedEx Cup playoffs. We could talk
Speaker 1: about you know, Rory McRoy golf swing, but nobody cares
Speaker 1: about that stuff. All that matters in golf these days
Speaker 1: litigation and all these all these macro issues, and you're
Speaker 1: uniquely position to help us through this. I thought we'd
Speaker 1: start with the Patrick Read lawsuit against Brandel Shambli and
Speaker 1: the PGA Tour just because it's such. Is any fun
Speaker 1: of my reading and I'm not a I'm not a
Speaker 1: legal expert. I just play one on the internet. Is
Speaker 1: that it's more of a public relations document that doesn't
Speaker 1: have a lot of merit. But what do you make
Speaker 1: of of Read's assertions, and does this thing have any
Speaker 1: chance of going the distance into an actual trial? Well, um, like,
Speaker 1: I know, you guys are not lawyers, and I don't
Speaker 1: want to get like hyper technical um in in discussing
Speaker 1: this lawsuit. But you know, there's there's a legal word
Speaker 1: that you can use to describe Patrick Read's lawsuit and
Speaker 1: that lawsuit. That word is it's a joke. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I'm not getting too technical here, I hope no. I
Speaker 1: mean it's it's it's I mean there are judges who,
Speaker 1: upon receiving that complaint would sanction the lawyers who brought
Speaker 1: it because it's so frivolous um. And I mean we
Speaker 1: can go into why, but just as a bottom line judgment,
Speaker 1: there is no way, uh, that case will ever get
Speaker 1: to trial, much less, um, reach any sort of result
Speaker 1: for for for Read. I mean, it's it's just preposterous. Well,
Speaker 1: let's do to tell us you why is it a joke? Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: there's sort of two. There two parts to his complaint. Um.
Speaker 1: The first is that um, he alleges libel or defamation,
Speaker 1: you know, which is a tort, which is you know,
Speaker 1: damage damaging someone's reputation unfairly. And there's sort of two
Speaker 1: collections of complaints that he has about stuff that Brandall
Speaker 1: Chambly Schambily said on on the Golf Channel. One relates
Speaker 1: to the Live Tour and the other part relates to
Speaker 1: Read specifically and his his history of alleged cheating. And
Speaker 1: in the first part, you know Schambily has is you know,
Speaker 1: anyone who follows the Golf Channel knows that he's been
Speaker 1: very um hostile condemn tory of the Live Tour and
Speaker 1: saying that, you know, the Saudis are have a terrible
Speaker 1: human rights record and you shouldn't be associated with killers,
Speaker 1: and and and Read quotes a lot of those comments
Speaker 1: about the Live Tour, but he doesn't say anything about
Speaker 1: Read in those comments. I mean, he's just denouncing the
Speaker 1: Live Tour. So you know, one of the basics of
Speaker 1: the torque defamation is that it has to be about
Speaker 1: you in order to bring the lawsuit. So those so
Speaker 1: those parts just regardless of the truth or falsity or whatever,
Speaker 1: they get thrown out because they're just not about Patrick Reed.
Speaker 1: You know, he is obviously now in the Live Tour,
Speaker 1: but you know, there's no transitive property I mean you
Speaker 1: had had the statement has to be about you. Now.
Speaker 1: The more interesting and an amusing part of the lawsuit
Speaker 1: relates to um reads shall we say, history of problems
Speaker 1: with the rules of golf and uh particularly um this
Speaker 1: incident that took place. I guess it's almost two years
Speaker 1: ago now, um the the embedded ball controversy, where I
Speaker 1: assume you're extremely learned and sophisticated audience is familiar with
Speaker 1: this already. But you know, I forgot which tournament it was.
Speaker 1: Do you guys remember Pines Story Pines where he he
Speaker 1: hit a ball into the rough. He said it was embedded,
Speaker 1: so he was entitled to a free drop. But and
Speaker 1: that was and the cameras saw him do it, and
Speaker 1: he just sort of picked up the ball and took
Speaker 1: it upon himself to decide the ball was embedded rather
Speaker 1: than calling over a rules official. I would say the
Speaker 1: reaction of the golf world was approximately you know, Ukraine
Speaker 1: Russia level of anger. It was just you know, people
Speaker 1: with nuts because read you know, has a history of
Speaker 1: of of controversies and you guys know this, you know,
Speaker 1: are a lot more familiar than I am. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: say he was ever the most popular player on the
Speaker 1: on the PGA tour. Um and Champloe, with his usual restraint,
Speaker 1: you know, said it was cheating, said it was outrageous,
Speaker 1: said it was terrible. And so that clearly was about
Speaker 1: about Read. So that box is checked. The problem is
Speaker 1: is that under the First Amendment, UM, opinions are protected. Um.
Speaker 1: You you you can say, um anything, You can have
Speaker 1: any opinion you want. What you can say is something
Speaker 1: factual about someone that that is false, and I think
Speaker 1: one at one level, UM, this would be dismissed because, um,
Speaker 1: it's just a protected opinion. He thought it was cheating
Speaker 1: other people. You know, the the ultimately Read was not
Speaker 1: penalized for the drop. But you know, sports journalism is
Speaker 1: all about criticizing players, criticizing officials, saying they were wrong,
Speaker 1: and in that respect it's just protected opinion. The other
Speaker 1: the other you know, part of the legal aspects here
Speaker 1: is that Read is a public figure, and there are
Speaker 1: special rules about libel and defamation cases involving public figures,
Speaker 1: and and basically, um, even if a statement is false
Speaker 1: about you and you're a public figure, you have to
Speaker 1: prove that the statement was made with what's called actual
Speaker 1: malice and actual malice means either you knew what you
Speaker 1: said was false or you had reckless disregard for whether
Speaker 1: it was it was false. Now now Shamble will say, uh,
Speaker 1: not only didn't I know it was false, I believe
Speaker 1: it was true. I believed he was cheating, and so
Speaker 1: it would get thrown out on that on that theory
Speaker 1: as well. So so Reed's case is really of no
Speaker 1: merit at all. And you know, he and you guys
Speaker 1: you know, probably better judge, better position to answer this
Speaker 1: than I am. But you know, it's it's designed to
Speaker 1: help his reputation. Do you think this is going to
Speaker 1: help his reputation filing this scoofy lawsuit? I mean I
Speaker 1: think it's it's likely to have just the opposite, Yeah, Michael,
Speaker 1: I mean for sure. It just it's it's nonsensical. And
Speaker 1: the one thing that I thought was interesting that they
Speaker 1: kept coming back to in in the brief was that
Speaker 1: that Read was exonerated by the rules officials or he
Speaker 1: accepted the penalty, And they said, well, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: he broke the rules, but that's not Accidentally, that's not
Speaker 1: the same as cheating. And I guess I wonder if
Speaker 1: that gives them any merit in this whether because the
Speaker 1: PGA tours over and over exonerated Patrick or carried his
Speaker 1: water or just slapped him on the wrist, they've never
Speaker 1: suspended him that we know of. They haven't sanctioned him
Speaker 1: in a big way that you know, the weight of
Speaker 1: the Professional Golf Association is like, well, he didn't he
Speaker 1: didn't really do anything that bad. And that's where there's
Speaker 1: a departure between what Brandle saying versus what the official
Speaker 1: version is that does that Does that pose any jeopardy
Speaker 1: for brandal? I don't think so, because you know, this
Speaker 1: is journalism and this is you know, commentary and read it.
Speaker 1: Read is a public figure in a in a in
Speaker 1: a sport where there's a great deal of public attention,
Speaker 1: and journalists are entitled to make judgments about um, about
Speaker 1: you know what, whether people behave honorably or not. Now,
Speaker 1: if if Brandon Chambley said on the air that, um,
Speaker 1: you know, Patrick Reed has been convicted of bank fraud, UM,
Speaker 1: that's very likely to be libelous because that's a factual
Speaker 1: statement that um would be false. Now let me just
Speaker 1: say Patrick Reed has not been convicted of bank fraud.
Speaker 1: But that's that's the kind of thing that could give
Speaker 1: rise to a libel suit. But cheater is is a
Speaker 1: matter is both a matter of opinion and something that
Speaker 1: is an inference that you could draw from what what
Speaker 1: happened here. Now, I don't know enough about the rules
Speaker 1: of golf frankly to know you know who's right and
Speaker 1: all that, But I know enough about libel law to
Speaker 1: know that this is something that people debate and um,
Speaker 1: have strong opinions about, and that's what the first dependment
Speaker 1: is designed to protect. And also, Jeff, I'm I'm sure
Speaker 1: you took evidence at Harvard Law School. He interfered with
Speaker 1: the evidence. Um, you know, golf is sort of like soccer,
Speaker 1: where where you're never supposed to touch that golfo except
Speaker 1: for on the tay and then taking it out of
Speaker 1: the cup. That's the broad strokes starting point. So when
Speaker 1: your ball is in a funky situation that does happen
Speaker 1: quite frequently in any round of golf, you're supposed to
Speaker 1: you know, you you mentioned bring over the rules official. Well,
Speaker 1: the first thing you're supposed to do is get your
Speaker 1: fellow players involved. Not every situation requires the rules official.
Speaker 1: When he touched that golf ball, he interfered with the evidence,
Speaker 1: and really everything that happened after that was half a
Speaker 1: joke in terms of the rules of golf, or really
Speaker 1: half is probably understating it because because the crime scene
Speaker 1: if you want to call it that, and I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's a crime scene because I picked up at
Speaker 1: one tube and did earlier. But if you would like
Speaker 1: to call it a crime scene, um was already interfered with.
Speaker 1: So it was shall we say, fucked up on many levels, yes,
Speaker 1: And and just to take it back to the basis
Speaker 1: for this is, you know, Chambley was making the point
Speaker 1: that you're making, which is he's just what he did
Speaker 1: was wrong. And if you want to call it cheating,
Speaker 1: or you want to call it being a jerk, or
Speaker 1: you want to call it um, you know, being a
Speaker 1: unethical golfer. That's why we have a First Amendment to
Speaker 1: be able to say things like that about about public figures.
Speaker 1: Because as I as I you know, recall the Constitutional Convention,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of discussion about golf. Um no
Speaker 1: but there. But but the the idea that there should
Speaker 1: be robust and aid of public issues is certainly something
Speaker 1: that the First Amendment is designed to protect. The only
Speaker 1: thing that because I know this from watching movies and
Speaker 1: a little bit from my brother who was a few
Speaker 1: years ahead of you in law school. Um, you also
Speaker 1: have the weight of history. And sometimes it's a bit
Speaker 1: of all and some admissi admissible and sometimes it's not.
Speaker 1: But of course, as many of our listeners would know,
Speaker 1: he has had a previous history. And I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about all the allegations that have improven. I'm just talking
Speaker 1: about the one that we could all see watching the
Speaker 1: golf tournament on TV and the Bahamas tournament what do
Speaker 1: they call it, Alan, whatever your challenge, thank you the
Speaker 1: hero of event that that was the thing and the
Speaker 1: thing of the bunker. So once you have that reputation,
Speaker 1: like Ricky Fowler, not a lawyer, very good golfer. He
Speaker 1: watched it almost you know, he watched a video replay
Speaker 1: of it, and he's there at the tournament. And one
Speaker 1: of our former colleagues was there at the tournaman as well,
Speaker 1: a Dylan to cheer, and Fowler said the moment, I
Speaker 1: don't even think I don't even think there's a debate here.
Speaker 1: You can't ground your club there, and it was well,
Speaker 1: now I'm going down the Chamblie Road, which I really
Speaker 1: shouldn't do in this sentences we have jump on, but
Speaker 1: just to finish at one thought, they kind of did read.
Speaker 1: I think it disservice by allowing them to continue in
Speaker 1: that tournament when it was so egregious, and it brings
Speaker 1: in many other factors, one of which it is Tiger's event.
Speaker 1: Read was Tiger's pick for the President's Cup. The next
Speaker 1: week they were golf or that Sunday night they're all
Speaker 1: flying to Australia to play in the President's Cup. So
Speaker 1: there were lots of different other other mitigating factors at
Speaker 1: play in that event. But that event in a way
Speaker 1: was a stepping stone to this event. Yeah. Well, the
Speaker 1: rules of golf, they don't happen in a vacuum. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are human beings involved, and there's agendas. We've seen
Speaker 1: that Augusta National over and over where they've been the
Speaker 1: rules for the stars, and so, uh, that's a that's
Speaker 1: a really good point, Michael. There was a lot going
Speaker 1: on there besides just this did a few grains of
Speaker 1: sand move, it was. It was much bigger than that
Speaker 1: in the moment, and now you know, before we get
Speaker 1: to your other area, which is really in the area
Speaker 1: of contract law. Let's get Mr Tuban on this question,
Speaker 1: if we may. Um. There's a lot of discussion in
Speaker 1: our country there always has been in recent years, especially
Speaker 1: that we are a country of laws. We are governed
Speaker 1: by a rule of law. Without it, we have chaos.
Speaker 1: And we've seen a book called Chaos about the about
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. I'm just like, because I've been hon
Speaker 1: at soapbox about this really pretty much all my adult life.
Speaker 1: But I'd like to hear your view of there are
Speaker 1: a lot of lawyers who are interested in golf. But
Speaker 1: the relationship between a system of laws that golf has
Speaker 1: and that our American democracy has, and the protection of
Speaker 1: sanity for lack of a better word, and the and
Speaker 1: the tampering down of chaos. Wow, that's a that's a
Speaker 1: big That's that's a big subject there. I guess I
Speaker 1: don't know if this is an appropriate answer to what
Speaker 1: you're you're saying, but I guess one of the things
Speaker 1: that has always fascinated me about golf, particularly at the
Speaker 1: highest levels, is the degree to which the participants um
Speaker 1: are the judges, which is something we don't allow in
Speaker 1: most other circumstances. And it's something that I think is
Speaker 1: really kind of wonderful about golf, and I think it
Speaker 1: is part of what it's part of, UM, what makes
Speaker 1: the Patrick Reed story so interesting is that these golfers
Speaker 1: you know, who have millions of dollars on the line,
Speaker 1: UM you know, call called the equivalent of fouls on themselves,
Speaker 1: and and they really do do it, and they take
Speaker 1: that part of the game very seriously, UM. And I
Speaker 1: it's so different from the rest of our society, which
Speaker 1: you know, increasingly um seems to seems to have very
Speaker 1: few rules that that people subscribe to it all. And
Speaker 1: when there are rules, they have to be imposed by
Speaker 1: the courts. Um. No one is going to be calling
Speaker 1: fouls on themselves politically or or otherwise. And that's why
Speaker 1: I just think golf is so interesting because at least
Speaker 1: still for the time being, it operates according to an
Speaker 1: honor system that it's very different from the rest of society.
Speaker 1: Very well said, thank you, Alan, the floor is yours. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was that was profound, and that's part of the charm.
Speaker 1: And so that Michael always goes back to, I mean,
Speaker 1: the foundation of the game is the rules and golfers
Speaker 1: observing them. So that that that was really beautifully said.
Speaker 1: So the Patrick Read lawsuit kind of fun, kind of silly,
Speaker 1: a bit of a side show, but really this antitrust
Speaker 1: suit between the live golfers Michelson at All versus the
Speaker 1: PGA Tour is a huge deal that has potential to
Speaker 1: reshape the entire landscape of professional golf. And that that's
Speaker 1: where we wanted your expertise a little bit, Jeff, is
Speaker 1: to understand, Uh, is this a real thing? I mean, Uh,
Speaker 1: there's there's been a lot of talk about you know,
Speaker 1: they not have a date. They're gonna go to trial
Speaker 1: in January of twenty four if it doesn't get settled
Speaker 1: ahead of time. Um, you know this this could be
Speaker 1: a bombshell for professional golf. What does your take on
Speaker 1: the lawsuit and where do you think the game is headed? Well,
Speaker 1: let me let me just start by saying that, you know,
Speaker 1: this is not the Patrick Reed lawsuit. This is a
Speaker 1: very serious lawsuit with serious lawyers, with with good arguments
Speaker 1: on both sides. You know, I have a view of
Speaker 1: the outcome, but my view is not nearly as certain
Speaker 1: as it is about the Patrick Reed case. The the
Speaker 1: anti try, this, the the the the issue the rubric
Speaker 1: of law that this lawsuit is under his anti trust
Speaker 1: and anti trust is a very discreet area of law.
Speaker 1: Um that at um is frankly you know, not not
Speaker 1: understood really well by non specialist but you know this
Speaker 1: is a serious lawsuit. I mean, just to cut to
Speaker 1: the chase, I think ultimately the PGA Tour would win
Speaker 1: if this case goes you know, actually goes the distance.
Speaker 1: But um, it's not a frivolous lawsuit by any means.
Speaker 1: And and I could see another another result, and and
Speaker 1: I was, can I just explain why why I think that?
Speaker 1: And I think that's literally why you're here. That's true,
Speaker 1: I know, I I but I just didn't want to
Speaker 1: filibuster here. Um. I think it's it's useful to sometimes
Speaker 1: think about anti trust in terms of sort of metaphors
Speaker 1: to two things we can relate to. I mean, the
Speaker 1: PGA Tours view of this is essentially, Um, we we are,
Speaker 1: we are an employer and and we're like you know,
Speaker 1: we have let's say we're we're an oil company and
Speaker 1: we're we're excellent, and we we hire engineers, and our
Speaker 1: engineers have contracts with us, and our engineer, one engineer
Speaker 1: comes to us and says, well, you know, I'd also
Speaker 1: like to be an engineer for Shell UM and the
Speaker 1: excellent says, well, what do you mean you can't You
Speaker 1: can't work for both companies. They like, you gotta pick one,
Speaker 1: and and he says, no, no no, no, I really want
Speaker 1: to work for Shell And in fact, I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: like help them drill a whale and okay, you do that,
Speaker 1: but you're gonna get fired here, and then you get fired.
Speaker 1: That's that's how the PA views their situation visa v.
Speaker 1: The Lift Tour. Now, the Lift Tour's view is no, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's not like, uh, two different companies. It's one company,
Speaker 1: the p g A Tour that runs all of professional golf,
Speaker 1: and we can't compete on a on a level playing
Speaker 1: field because this is a monopoly situation that they have
Speaker 1: monopolized professional golf and um UM so we have to
Speaker 1: be allowed to both participate in um our own tournaments
Speaker 1: and the Lift Tour, but also participate in the pg
Speaker 1: A Tour. And I think they're too good. Responses to
Speaker 1: that um by the by the PGA Tour in their
Speaker 1: court papers and in general, the first is we're not
Speaker 1: a monopoly because there's the Lift Tour, and the Lift
Speaker 1: Tour has gotten an enormous amount of money and attention
Speaker 1: and players and um, so that's the key. So you
Speaker 1: can't claim that you're this big success at the same
Speaker 1: time as claiming you're this horrible victim of the big Man,
Speaker 1: big bad PGA Tour and other argument that I think
Speaker 1: is is a strong one on big card behalf of
Speaker 1: the the p g A Tour is the biggest tournaments
Speaker 1: in golf. The biggest issue, the four biggest events in
Speaker 1: golf are not under our control. And at least so far,
Speaker 1: the Lived Tour participants are allowed to play in the
Speaker 1: four majors. You know, the U s g A runs
Speaker 1: the the the US Open, the p g A runs
Speaker 1: the p g A, UM Augustin National runs the Masters,
Speaker 1: and the Royal and Ancient runs runs the British Open.
Speaker 1: We don't We're not in charge of them. So how
Speaker 1: can you say where a monopoly? And you know, Alan,
Speaker 1: I was, I was reading your your scoop about what
Speaker 1: went on at the you know, the Tiger, you know
Speaker 1: session with with the top players, and you know, I
Speaker 1: thought it fascinating of of sort of how they want
Speaker 1: the PGA tour to respond uh to the live tour,
Speaker 1: and you know, they create these new super tournaments with
Speaker 1: no cuts, and and and what occurred to me in
Speaker 1: reading your piece was the private market is working here.
Speaker 1: That there there are these two competing entities and they
Speaker 1: are essentially bidding for the services of the top players,
Speaker 1: and they are trying to make the best deal. And
Speaker 1: if I'm a judge looking at this, I'm gonna say,
Speaker 1: why do I want to get involved in this? Let
Speaker 1: let them, let them fight it out, I and and
Speaker 1: not I I don't I there's just no need for
Speaker 1: judicial intervention here because this is you know, the the
Speaker 1: the the free market for top professional golfers and employers.
Speaker 1: You know, they're not technically employers, their independent contractors, but
Speaker 1: the people who run the business start competing for the
Speaker 1: services of the top people, and let him fight it out.
Speaker 1: And I don't you know, don't make a federal case
Speaker 1: out of it. So that's my take. Well, that's fascinating.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Mike. Well, Jeff, if you uh, as a
Speaker 1: student of politics and and and the love both, UH,
Speaker 1: if you were hired for a week to be the
Speaker 1: advisor to Jay Monhan, what would you tell him to
Speaker 1: do right now legally and politically. Well, I mean it's
Speaker 1: the one thing that I think he's done that that
Speaker 1: is smart is he's let the players talk, not himself.
Speaker 1: That the spokesman for the players have been the players.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's been Rory McElroy, it's been it's been
Speaker 1: Justin Thomas, um, you know, and and and Tiger to
Speaker 1: to to a certain extent. And and that I think
Speaker 1: is is smart because you know, he's he's a bureaucrat.
Speaker 1: He makes all you know, all of his money is
Speaker 1: due to the skill of others. So I think that's
Speaker 1: been it's been a smart I mean, I think he
Speaker 1: gave he did one interview with Jim Nance, you know,
Speaker 1: during a tournament. But as far as I'm aware, he
Speaker 1: at least on the record publicly, he has said he
Speaker 1: has said very little. Um, you know, as for you know,
Speaker 1: how you know, I mean, to be honest, I don't
Speaker 1: really know enough about the golf business to know what
Speaker 1: the most effective responses. I mean, reading Allen's piece, I thought,
Speaker 1: you know, the way the way to become what they're
Speaker 1: doing is, uh, they're sort of trying to become more
Speaker 1: like the live tour um, you know, more guaranteed money,
Speaker 1: more you know, for for the top people, and you know,
Speaker 1: some no cut tournaments, you know. I mean, it seems
Speaker 1: like a reasonable response, but I don't want. One thing
Speaker 1: that I thought was very weird, frankly in the proposal
Speaker 1: that Allan talked about was this idea that the players
Speaker 1: would somehow become owners of the tour, you know, through
Speaker 1: private equity or something. And I just thought, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the whole points of golf, in any professional
Speaker 1: sport is that, you know, the top people turn over
Speaker 1: over over years. So you know, like, should justin Leonard
Speaker 1: be I mean, you know, the the you know, the
Speaker 1: stars of yesteryear, should they be owning the golf tournament,
Speaker 1: the PGA Tour. That struck me as a an idea
Speaker 1: that I don't think made a lot of sense. But
Speaker 1: again I don't I don't pretend to know enough about
Speaker 1: the golf business to know, you know, what the what
Speaker 1: the right answer is for the p G A tour.
Speaker 1: I mean, the fundamental problem that the PGA Tour has
Speaker 1: is that it's not competing against another business that has
Speaker 1: to you know, show a return in a reasonable amount
Speaker 1: of time. They're competing against the Saudis who have unlimited money.
Speaker 1: And can you know, give Phil Mickelson two hundred million dollars.
Speaker 1: I mean, the PGA tour, as rich as it is,
Speaker 1: can't give people two hundred million dollars. They don't have
Speaker 1: two hundred million dollars to give one golfer. And and
Speaker 1: that's I mean, that's a legitimate problem. And I don't
Speaker 1: know what what the solution to that is. Well, that's
Speaker 1: where the equity comes in. Is if you if you
Speaker 1: have you know, I'm hearing people have continued to blow
Speaker 1: up my phone since out story posted, So now I'm
Speaker 1: hearing that the actual valuation they're working off is is
Speaker 1: five billion dollars for for this this new enterprise. And
Speaker 1: if you can I don't think to your point, you know,
Speaker 1: poor Justin Learn out here catching trays. But you're right,
Speaker 1: I mean you don't. You don't want to reward too
Speaker 1: many guys because they're gonna they're gonna get replaced. But
Speaker 1: I think, you know, Tiger Rory, maybe Justin Thomas, that
Speaker 1: they've been carrying the water for the tour, and if
Speaker 1: you if you can't compensate them for staying and for
Speaker 1: all that they've done all they will do. I think
Speaker 1: that the equity becomes the money. They don't have the
Speaker 1: Sautie's money, but the equity is is valuable. And you know,
Speaker 1: one of the things that I love about golf as
Speaker 1: a as a fan is, you know, Tiger Woods or
Speaker 1: a Monday qualifier. You know, when they show up for
Speaker 1: their tea time on Thursday, they may walk away with nothing.
Speaker 1: And and that's not true in any other sport. And
Speaker 1: I think, and as I understand it from what I've
Speaker 1: been reading, that was a big point that Greg Norman
Speaker 1: was making as he was making the rounds. Is you know,
Speaker 1: if you are a you know, uh, mid level basketball player,
Speaker 1: you know you're making five, six, seven million dollars a year,
Speaker 1: and if you get hurt in the second game, you're
Speaker 1: still gonna get the money for the rest of the year.
Speaker 1: And and it's all guaranteed money, and um, you know,
Speaker 1: other than endorsements, there's no guaranteed money and golf. And
Speaker 1: you know, I can see why when the golfers look
Speaker 1: at their you know, elite athlete peer group and they think, well,
Speaker 1: why the hell shouldn't I get, you know, guaranteed money,
Speaker 1: And you know, the Saudis are offering. You know, I
Speaker 1: you know is Pat Pere is going to make a
Speaker 1: hell of a lot of money anymore on the PGA tour.
Speaker 1: You know, Kevin na is a you know it is
Speaker 1: a good sort of mid level player who wins every
Speaker 1: once in a while. But if he can get tent,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know what the numbers are, but
Speaker 1: if you can get ten million dollars from the Saudis,
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems like a pretty easy call for them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: oh no, I mean all that you say is true.
Speaker 1: I want to go back to the antitrust lawsuit because
Speaker 1: the way you break it down, it sounds like liv
Speaker 1: has has no chance. But I guess the count of
Speaker 1: argument is it's not that they work for Excellent and
Speaker 1: they want to work for Shell. It's that they don't
Speaker 1: work for either company. They're they're essentially private contractors, and
Speaker 1: they want to be able to dabble with both and
Speaker 1: go wherever the better deal is. Just like you know,
Speaker 1: if if I'm if I'm looking for a plumber, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna call a couple of guys and I'm gonna tell
Speaker 1: whoever gets a better deal, I'm gonna go with that. Person.
Speaker 1: You know, I think that's where the notion that they're
Speaker 1: not employees to the tour, and golfers have have always
Speaker 1: been able to go from tour to tour. You play
Speaker 1: some in Europe, you play some of the US, you
Speaker 1: might go down to Australia and South Africa, and like
Speaker 1: Roy mclroy has done that. You know, some of the
Speaker 1: other Live guys who are more international players, like an
Speaker 1: Ian Poulter, like they bounced from tour to tour throughout
Speaker 1: their careers and so they would like to continue doing
Speaker 1: that with Lived being one of those tours. And so
Speaker 1: that's where I think the counter argument is, like this
Speaker 1: already existing golf. Why why is it suddenly you were
Speaker 1: banned and you're turning into a closed shop. Well that's
Speaker 1: I mean that that and that's that is not that
Speaker 1: is not about a bad argumentum Again, what the PGA
Speaker 1: Tour will say is, you know we we yes, we
Speaker 1: do allow under certain limited circumstances to play a certain
Speaker 1: number of events um in in other in other tours.
Speaker 1: But that's in our discretion and we are not obliged
Speaker 1: to destroy ourselves to to give um, you know, an
Speaker 1: opportunity to play a directly competing tour. I mean, yes,
Speaker 1: you can play in what's I guess called the DP
Speaker 1: Tour now, the European Tour, the Asian Tour, uh if
Speaker 1: you want, but they're they're not directly competitive with the
Speaker 1: PGA Tour. We are not oblige the PGA Tour to
Speaker 1: essentially subsidize our competitors. And um, but you know your
Speaker 1: point is is not a you know that that that's
Speaker 1: not that's not a frivolous argument on on the part
Speaker 1: of the lift golfers, you know, and and also um,
Speaker 1: you know, just to to argue with myself before the
Speaker 1: four major tournaments. You know, one of the ways you
Speaker 1: you main ways you qualify for the for the four
Speaker 1: majors is through the p g A Tour. So um,
Speaker 1: you know that's that's an argument that that the lived
Speaker 1: the Lived Tour will make I mean as that that's
Speaker 1: why you know these are not, um, you know, the
Speaker 1: frivolous arguments. You know what what it seems to me,
Speaker 1: I mean, you tell me because you're you're much more
Speaker 1: intimately involved with this is what Norman and um, you know,
Speaker 1: the saudiast seem to want to do or I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe do you tell me it's sort of like what
Speaker 1: happened with the A f L in the NFL or
Speaker 1: the A B A and the NBA. Is that, you know,
Speaker 1: this competing tour starts up, competing league starts up, and
Speaker 1: ultimately the the the old established league says well, all right,
Speaker 1: let's all get together and um, will will I mean,
Speaker 1: is that the goal here? Well? I think I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's anyone's goal, but it's it's definitely a
Speaker 1: possibility as a compromise. I mean, we'll we'll find out.
Speaker 1: It seems like the PGA Tour and its stars would
Speaker 1: like to to sort of do an end around, an
Speaker 1: end around and take the Live concept, make it their
Speaker 1: own and not have to get involved with Greg Norman,
Speaker 1: who some of them don't hold in high esteem, and
Speaker 1: not get involved with the Saudis, which of course is
Speaker 1: a very complicating factor on a lot of levels. Um,
Speaker 1: But ultimately, you know, I think I think if Live
Speaker 1: was given the opportunity, they would love to have a
Speaker 1: seat at the table, and they might they would be
Speaker 1: willing to compromise. I think the tour is a little
Speaker 1: more dug in its position, but um, you know that's
Speaker 1: what all these secret meetings are about is can can
Speaker 1: the players find their own path to making the tour
Speaker 1: more attractive, more profitable for them um, more guaranteed money
Speaker 1: um and and sort of by the loyalty of its
Speaker 1: stars because uh, you know it's I think that that's
Speaker 1: really the fundamental issue here is is how can the
Speaker 1: PG you Tour find a compromise? Can they do it
Speaker 1: without the Saudis? If the answer is yes, then they will.
Speaker 1: But if if they can't make that work, then I think,
Speaker 1: you know, a compromise becomes more attractive. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: the whole Saudi aspect of this. I mean I I
Speaker 1: I mean I I am highly familiar with the human
Speaker 1: rights record of the Saudis, but but the idea of
Speaker 1: the PG eight Tour as the human rights guardians of
Speaker 1: the world, you know, give me a fucking break. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, this is a this is a tour that
Speaker 1: has a big operation in China. They they you know,
Speaker 1: there's a tournament in Saudi Arabia every year that you
Speaker 1: know a lot of p G A tour plays and
Speaker 1: a player. I mean, look, I just you know, I
Speaker 1: can understand why individual golfers don't want to be affiliated
Speaker 1: with the Saudi regime. But the idea that the reason
Speaker 1: the PG eight tour is uh objecting to the Lived
Speaker 1: tour is because of human rights, I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: think so. I mean, you know, I think that's that's
Speaker 1: kind of a joke. Jeff is someone who has written
Speaker 1: a lot about you have a lot about power dynamics
Speaker 1: and different situations in the court in politics, Patty hurts
Speaker 1: lots of different situations. Um. Greg Norman's starting point is, well,
Speaker 1: I came to you Jay Monahan, and I came to
Speaker 1: you Fred Ridley, and you wouldn't even take my my call.
Speaker 1: And now that it seems that we we seem to
Speaker 1: have the upper hand with this Outias and Live Golf
Speaker 1: seem to have the upper hand, and you're going to
Speaker 1: come back to us with something. Um, But my question
Speaker 1: is is it the way power politics play out? Is
Speaker 1: it may be too late for a compromise. Do the
Speaker 1: Outiaes and and live in Greg Norman, do they actually
Speaker 1: have the upper hand now and there's really nowhere to
Speaker 1: go for a compromise. Well, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: I think the answer maybe that we have to see
Speaker 1: how this plays out for for a while. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: one of one of the things, um, that that I
Speaker 1: find about the Live Tour is that the press conferences
Speaker 1: of the players are more interesting than the golf tournaments.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, I am unlike you guys. I mean,
Speaker 1: I am like a I am not a pro golf journalist.
Speaker 1: I am a pro golf fan. And I can tell
Speaker 1: you a hundred that I do not give a ship
Speaker 1: who wins a Lift Tour event. I don't care about
Speaker 1: those tournaments. I think the team concept, you know, the
Speaker 1: fireballs or whatever the hell they're called, I think it's
Speaker 1: it's ridiculous. I don't and it may be and they
Speaker 1: don't have a TV contract so you have to watch
Speaker 1: it on YouTube or something. I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I haven't watched any of it. So I mean, it
Speaker 1: may be that the Lift Tour just sort of doesn't
Speaker 1: take off, And it may be that no one goes
Speaker 1: to their tournaments and no one watches, and no one
Speaker 1: cares other than the players who make four million dollars
Speaker 1: for winning the tournaments, and and which which could change
Speaker 1: the power dynamics. On the other hand, you know, if
Speaker 1: you know, you know, it looks like they're gonna get
Speaker 1: camp Smith, who is, like, you know, arguably the best
Speaker 1: golfer in the world right now. Um, you know Brooks kapta, Um,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't have to tell you. You know,
Speaker 1: Nicholson I think is sort of weirdly irrelevant at this
Speaker 1: point because he's so you know, he's so over the
Speaker 1: hill and thanks to you Alan having all sorts of
Speaker 1: mental problems. Um. It's one might say the mental problems
Speaker 1: pushed Bill to call Alan in the first place, confusing
Speaker 1: Alan's role as writer with that a therapist. But but
Speaker 1: but in any case, I mean, just my point is,
Speaker 1: it seems to me that there's the standoff now, but
Speaker 1: events will will intervene and uh like for examply mean,
Speaker 1: one thing that's interesting is, you know, we've got the
Speaker 1: President's Cup coming up, which has always seemed to me
Speaker 1: is sort of like, you know, the poor man's ryder cup.
Speaker 1: I don't really care much what happens in the President's Cup,
Speaker 1: and I think most people. But but it's going to
Speaker 1: be a diminished field because of live you know, will
Speaker 1: that hurt um will that will that have an effect
Speaker 1: on the whole dynamic? I don't know, what do you
Speaker 1: what do you think? Yeah, for sure. I mean that
Speaker 1: week will show we'll throw into sharp relief the damage
Speaker 1: that lives done because you're not gonna have Dustin Johnson
Speaker 1: just went five and note with the Ryder Cup and
Speaker 1: what was the hero at Whistling Straits and uh, it
Speaker 1: seems like a certainty you won't have Cam Smith who
Speaker 1: was going to be the big dog on the international team.
Speaker 1: And you know Bryson Deshambo who is a lightning rod
Speaker 1: but it was certainly fun to watch at the Ryder
Speaker 1: Cup and is built for match play. Um, just say
Speaker 1: nothing of Patrick Reed. Patrick Reed, formerly known as Captain America. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know Kepta hasn't been playing well, but he's he's
Speaker 1: still he's he's a he's kind of built for match play.
Speaker 1: So both teams are diminished. You know, their biggest star
Speaker 1: in Latin America ABE answer is not going to be there.
Speaker 1: Um we woose ties in the most popular players in golf,
Speaker 1: who's you know, kind of flying the flag of South
Speaker 1: Africa golfing nations. So yeah, that that week is going
Speaker 1: to be eerie because it's gonna be about who's not
Speaker 1: there as much as who is. So that that will
Speaker 1: be a testament to what you're saying earlier of live strength,
Speaker 1: and it does undercut their case that the Tours of
Speaker 1: Monopoly whe they've siphoned off all these players. Well, and
Speaker 1: and here's a here's a question for you. Um, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to be asking questions rather than answering them,
Speaker 1: but you know, it seems to me the one big
Speaker 1: factor about whether the Lift Tour uh of or dies
Speaker 1: is whether they can get a TV contract in the
Speaker 1: United States, because if they're really only on YouTube, I
Speaker 1: don't really see them, you know, have any sort of
Speaker 1: have any real sustaining power. Um, obviously, I guess Foxes
Speaker 1: is the obvious possibility. Do you think they'll get a
Speaker 1: TV contract? Well, I will say you might possibly be
Speaker 1: dating yourself, because YouTube is a second and most visited
Speaker 1: website there is, and you know, the number of people
Speaker 1: who spend countless hours on YouTube is substantial. So I
Speaker 1: think it's is better than than I mean, us old
Speaker 1: folks might give it credit for. But um, yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean definitely, being on network TV is a is a
Speaker 1: sign that you've arrived, and if you're not on TV,
Speaker 1: you don't exist in the imagination of a lot of fans.
Speaker 1: So I agree with what you're saying. Well, no, but
Speaker 1: I mean the point isn't so much about Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I I am dating myself. I'm happy to acknowledge that.
Speaker 1: But but YouTube doesn't pay them anything. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: no and and and you know the other thing that
Speaker 1: that's worth thinking about in all of this is, you know,
Speaker 1: and this guy, this comes out of my my, you know,
Speaker 1: Maggie and you guys you know, from Sports Illustrated alums. No,
Speaker 1: this is that you know, people say, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 1: these rich people, they'll just buy a prestige product and
Speaker 1: they'll keep subsidizing it forever. Yeah. Maybe, and maybe you
Speaker 1: know what this so Saudi guy, this guy who's you know,
Speaker 1: the big golf fish and I forgot his name, but
Speaker 1: the guy who's you know, Norman's sugar daddy, his excellency. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what happens if he catches a coal? What happens if
Speaker 1: he says, you know, this isn't working out so well,
Speaker 1: or or his you know, NBS says, you know, we
Speaker 1: don't we're we're we're we're sick of this. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not stay. You know, things that are not profit
Speaker 1: making in American life are not necessarily sustainable and if
Speaker 1: the Saudis are losing you know, literally billions of dollars
Speaker 1: on golf, like at some point and maybe not too
Speaker 1: long from now, and say like why are we doing this?
Speaker 1: What do we care? I mean, I just think that's
Speaker 1: a possibility worth considering. I agree, Michael. Do you think
Speaker 1: do you think there's a TV contract out there for
Speaker 1: live golf? I don't see it. I mean, now, Alan,
Speaker 1: you've been to events and I haven't, but you know,
Speaker 1: three rounds, it's not the shotguns start, but the shotgun finished.
Speaker 1: I don't see how you can do that on TV.
Speaker 1: You don't have that building to a climax like you have,
Speaker 1: you know, the fourth quarter of a football game or
Speaker 1: the ninth inning of a baseball game. You know what
Speaker 1: I just you know, just what you just said. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe I'm just ignorant, but I recognized the shotguns start,
Speaker 1: but a shotgun finish is terrible for TV. What they
Speaker 1: do is that for the for the they send the leaders.
Speaker 1: So the leaders go off of one, the nearest pursuers
Speaker 1: go off of two. You know, so it is it
Speaker 1: is based on scores. So the last round where quite
Speaker 1: possibly the eighteenth hole could be the deciding hole. But
Speaker 1: there's definitely someone could start an hour and a half
Speaker 1: ahead of the leaders and shoot just sixty two and
Speaker 1: win the tournament by finishing on number thirteen. I mean
Speaker 1: that you know that that's well within the real possibility
Speaker 1: and that scenarios sort of played out already out there. So,
Speaker 1: um it is. It is messy, and we all know
Speaker 1: the golf courses are sequence in a certain way. There's
Speaker 1: a rhythm, there's a charm, and they're designed. You know,
Speaker 1: if imagine a shot can't start an augusta National right
Speaker 1: like there's there's there's a whole ebb and flow or
Speaker 1: pebble beach. You know, it's a gentle beginning and then
Speaker 1: you get killed in the middle. Then you catch your
Speaker 1: breath and you finished by the ocean, like you know,
Speaker 1: the great courses. It's like a symphony. And it definitely
Speaker 1: it gets just stroid when when you start going off
Speaker 1: the you know, the fourth T or the seventh T
Speaker 1: or the nineties. So it's, um it is. It is problematic.
Speaker 1: But on the flip side, it just feels like live
Speaker 1: sports is more and more valuable as a property because
Speaker 1: in this this fragmented landscape of of media. It's the
Speaker 1: one thing that people all watch at the same time.
Speaker 1: You can't skip the ads, and um, it's it's appointment
Speaker 1: viewing that it's really the last appointment viewing there is.
Speaker 1: So I mean, you know you mentioned Fox, Jeffrey. I
Speaker 1: think that's that's a possibility. Um, it could be, it's not.
Speaker 1: It could be just a streaming deal. But it goes
Speaker 1: from from YouTube where they're not making money, to an
Speaker 1: Apple TV, which could pay them a lot. And uh,
Speaker 1: you know these streaming services are all desperate for content.
Speaker 1: Uh so, uh, you know Amazon has gone big into
Speaker 1: original content and into the sports world. And you know,
Speaker 1: if you if you have Apple and you have Amazon
Speaker 1: come to the table all of a sudden, the price
Speaker 1: could go up pretty quick and they could do something
Speaker 1: close to a big deal that would edge them in
Speaker 1: the direction of profitability. So I think the streaming deal
Speaker 1: will get better. I don't know if they'll be on
Speaker 1: TV or not, but it's it's obviously a fundamental question
Speaker 1: for the future of live jeff Can you imagine a
Speaker 1: scenario where you may not know the chef and and
Speaker 1: you follow golf closely. It's impressive how much you do
Speaker 1: know about it. But you may not know this that
Speaker 1: the awarding of UM world ranking points is done by
Speaker 1: a committee and the PGA Tour sits on that committee,
Speaker 1: so that so it has a vote in deciding whether
Speaker 1: live golf events will get World Ranking points or not,
Speaker 1: which of course is critical to the feeding of the
Speaker 1: major tournaments as well. Um, could you imagine a lawsuit
Speaker 1: arising by which the PGA Tour has challenged over whether
Speaker 1: or alan correct me if this has already come up,
Speaker 1: and I don't know it, I don't believe it has,
Speaker 1: but correct me if if if it has, could you
Speaker 1: imagine a lawsuit where the PGA Tour is successfully challenge
Speaker 1: on the DOA that No, you can't be the judge
Speaker 1: and jury in this decision of who gets points and
Speaker 1: who doesn't. Yes, I mean, I I think that's Um,
Speaker 1: that's that's part of them. I'm trying to remember from
Speaker 1: from reading the complaint whether the world golf rankings are
Speaker 1: mentioned in there, But um, it is a pretty good
Speaker 1: I mean, especially since the world golf rankings are a
Speaker 1: big factor and who gets into the big fourt you know,
Speaker 1: the majors. Um, you know that that that is an
Speaker 1: argument against the p G eight saying, you know, we
Speaker 1: don't even run the majors. You know, they they obviously
Speaker 1: have a voice. Um, you know, whether it's you know too,
Speaker 1: the connection is to attenuated that they are just one
Speaker 1: voice among many. That's something that would obviously be dispute
Speaker 1: did in litigation. But you know that that that shows
Speaker 1: that they are not just you know, another um employers
Speaker 1: that they have. They have a considerable amount of power
Speaker 1: over the professional game of golf around the world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: at your point, Michael, I think it's clear that that
Speaker 1: j Montamial and any PGS representative will have to sit
Speaker 1: out or recuse themselves from any of these discussions. But
Speaker 1: even so, there's you know, there's there's a lot of
Speaker 1: people on the board. But it does get to the
Speaker 1: question where the tour has has such a cohesive relationship
Speaker 1: with the PGA of America, with the RNA, with Augusta National,
Speaker 1: and they all sit on the board of the world ranking.
Speaker 1: So uh, the question becomes is the tour pressuring them
Speaker 1: behind the scenes? Um? What other agreements have been in place,
Speaker 1: handshake or not? What are the you know, for instance,
Speaker 1: I mean the PGA Tour did Augusta National a huge
Speaker 1: solid for decades when they had a rule on books
Speaker 1: that you had to have a device diverse membership to
Speaker 1: host a pg Tour event, and they look the other way.
Speaker 1: So Augusta National and the Masters could become official money
Speaker 1: and count as official win and so there's there's always
Speaker 1: some quid pro quo on these things. And you know
Speaker 1: that that's where if if lives deniable ranking points, you
Speaker 1: could see a lawsuit saying well, this this was the
Speaker 1: fix was in. This was another monopolistic situation where the
Speaker 1: tour exerted his influence and we didn't get a fair
Speaker 1: affair shake. So but but I guess you know, I'm
Speaker 1: just thinking thinking this through as you are, um, you know,
Speaker 1: describing all these issues. You know, oftentimes when when you
Speaker 1: have a dispute between parties, there is a fairly obvious
Speaker 1: compromise solution. I mean usually it's like the exchange of money.
Speaker 1: You know, you sue for a million dollars, so we'll
Speaker 1: settle for hundred thousand or five hundred thousand. At least
Speaker 1: as far as I'm aware, it's not an obvious compromise
Speaker 1: here between Live and the PGA Tour. I mean, is there, Well,
Speaker 1: we we've talked about this in some other forums. I mean,
Speaker 1: one way would be to take these live events and
Speaker 1: absorb them into the tour schedule, and so maybe you
Speaker 1: play them in the fall, or maybe you sprinkle them
Speaker 1: throughout the year. And for a lot of players, that
Speaker 1: would be a dream scenario. You keep your PGA Tour card,
Speaker 1: you get to cherry pick these these huge money live events.
Speaker 1: For the live folks, they could get a slice the
Speaker 1: TV contract, and more than that, they would get what
Speaker 1: they create, which is legitimacy and and being you know,
Speaker 1: welcomed into the halls of power by the Western world. So, um,
Speaker 1: it gets very complex. There's a lot of questions have
Speaker 1: to be answered. But that if you're just if you're
Speaker 1: just spit bawling like that could be the compromise and
Speaker 1: the tour gets to keep its stars, they get to
Speaker 1: bring back their former stars. Um, everyone can declare victory
Speaker 1: on s level, but it's it's message. So that's basically
Speaker 1: like a merger. I mean, if the schedules are are
Speaker 1: coordinated and the players can go back and forth. I mean,
Speaker 1: isn't that essentially I mean, I guess the administration of
Speaker 1: the different tournaments, but it would be like like it's
Speaker 1: it's just one one outlet, no is that? Yeah? And
Speaker 1: and the PGA Tour, I mean they did the strategic
Speaker 1: alliance with the European Tour and then it allows players
Speaker 1: on each tour access to the tournaments and they acknowledge
Speaker 1: each other in different ways, and they share the money
Speaker 1: and they share the social media resources and so there
Speaker 1: there's a blueprint for it already they and they just
Speaker 1: did it so um and if you get live, you're
Speaker 1: also getting the Asian Tour because they're now linked. So
Speaker 1: on some level you could you could unify the entire
Speaker 1: sport and come up with some global schedule that made
Speaker 1: a lot of sense. And you know, one of the
Speaker 1: key points from this meeting that Tiger just held was
Speaker 1: this this bedrock belief that we've got to get the
Speaker 1: top players together more often. That's where the juices, that's
Speaker 1: where the TV ratings are. It's good for the sports,
Speaker 1: good for all of us, and so you know, LIV
Speaker 1: could help accomplish that. Now, again it's there's a lot
Speaker 1: of there's a lot of things you'd have to sort through.
Speaker 1: But is that that would be the compromise To answer
Speaker 1: your question? I love I love in the all the
Speaker 1: ridiculous arguments that the live tour makes. My favorite is
Speaker 1: like it's too much travel. I can't I I the
Speaker 1: PGA tour is too much travel. Like Matthew Wolf, he's
Speaker 1: twenty three years old. He's like he misses his dog.
Speaker 1: He's in and he's like, you can't travel more than fourteen.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like what a heartship for a fourteen
Speaker 1: you know, twenty three year old to have to travel
Speaker 1: like sixteen weeks a year, It's like it's like in
Speaker 1: human it's like such a bullshit. I mean, I you know,
Speaker 1: why don't they just I mean, I guess it wasn't
Speaker 1: Pat Paris, Who's who said it's like, yeah, like they
Speaker 1: gave me a lot of money. That's where I went.
Speaker 1: I mean, isn't that's really what this is all about? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, of course, of course, but there are some
Speaker 1: some Shakespearean things at work here, you know, some of
Speaker 1: these themes of of greed and vengeance and legacy, and
Speaker 1: you know it's playing on a few different levels. But
Speaker 1: you know, money is certainly driving so much of this,
Speaker 1: as it often does. But well, and and and I
Speaker 1: guess your point is, I mean they just a lot
Speaker 1: of these people at all levels of the of of
Speaker 1: professional golf just despise Greg Norman and that they don't
Speaker 1: want him to win. And that seems to be, as
Speaker 1: you say, sort of one of the Shakespearean aspects of
Speaker 1: all this, that that you know, if this were some
Speaker 1: anonymous private equity guy, maybe they'd make a deal, but
Speaker 1: they don't want to make a deal with Greg Norman. Right. Uh,
Speaker 1: that's very well said, Jeff. I think you're really hit
Speaker 1: upon the most important question. You know, what could be
Speaker 1: a path to compromise. And we had Jeff Ogilvie Allen
Speaker 1: I did, or we were together with Jeff Ogilvie, we
Speaker 1: couldgo and he talked a lot about compromise and really
Speaker 1: opened up people's eyes, that opened a mindset idea that
Speaker 1: there could be. But this is a very big button,
Speaker 1: this situation. We don't know what the Saudis want here.
Speaker 1: If the goal here is really a geminy of all
Speaker 1: of golf, and here's this great capitalist tool golf that
Speaker 1: America has you know, banked for for a hundred years now,
Speaker 1: done so well with it, and we're going to take
Speaker 1: it over, which I believe is their goal. But I
Speaker 1: don't know that at all, but that that would be
Speaker 1: a guess. Uh, then there really isn't a path. Uh.
Speaker 1: Then it's sort of you know, like almost everything in
Speaker 1: life can be answered by, you know, trying to apply
Speaker 1: the logic of the Godfather to whatever is going on
Speaker 1: in the real world. Well, the answer usually is that
Speaker 1: the guns come out and people get killed and one
Speaker 1: guy's left standing and I think it's gonna be MBS
Speaker 1: because he's got the most ammunition. And Jay mon Hans
Speaker 1: already admited to that. You know, people say, oh, Monahan
Speaker 1: misplayed his cards. There were no cards to play because
Speaker 1: professional golfers, by their very nature, are drawn to money.
Speaker 1: They don't care about Randall Shamblee going on by name
Speaker 1: and Lynch and you and the three of us going
Speaker 1: about human rights abuses. They want to get paid and
Speaker 1: these guys are paying and they're gonna go no. I mean,
Speaker 1: the the the the I mean, you know, I think
Speaker 1: you know what you're saying about Monahan is is so right.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, why don't you pay Phil Nicholson two
Speaker 1: million dollars? He doesn't have that kind of money. And
Speaker 1: if the players are gonna go to who will pay
Speaker 1: the most, which, as you say, is what they generally do.
Speaker 1: That's what they're gonna do well. And but this is
Speaker 1: where we're talking about My Monahan didn't have cards to play,
Speaker 1: but Tigers coming in with a new deck of cards.
Speaker 1: And this this is where this this reshaped tour becomes interesting.
Speaker 1: If they privatize is and they go they bring in
Speaker 1: private equity money, and they bring in investors, they could
Speaker 1: very quickly have a war chest of five or seven
Speaker 1: or ten billion dollars and that that's not quite sauty, bunny,
Speaker 1: but it's now you haven't brought a knife to a gunfight,
Speaker 1: you know, to use your analogy, Mike, which probably in
Speaker 1: appropriate given this whole geopolitical, uh backdrop to this. But
Speaker 1: now they've got some ammunition. And are they outgunned to
Speaker 1: extend the metaphor, yes, but at least at least they're
Speaker 1: you know, they're shooting back. And so um, I think
Speaker 1: it's what happened in Delaware with Tiger jetting. In the
Speaker 1: second such meeting, they had one in adair manner and uh,
Speaker 1: there was only one person in the room who wasn't
Speaker 1: a golfer. It was it was a big swinging Dick
Speaker 1: in the private equity world. That's an industry term. I
Speaker 1: didn't make that up um And he was there as
Speaker 1: an advisor, and I've been told that he met with
Speaker 1: Tiger and Rory for two hours before that meeting to
Speaker 1: really hash this plan out in more detail. And so
Speaker 1: this is how the tour fight is by bringing in
Speaker 1: this outside money. Can I just I mean, I know
Speaker 1: you guys need to go, and I probably should go,
Speaker 1: but I let me put on my golf fan hat
Speaker 1: for a while. I mean, just, you know, independent of
Speaker 1: all this, which is who needs this fight? I mean
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, one of the things in the
Speaker 1: world that I thought was not broken was the p
Speaker 1: G A Tour. I mean, as a golf fan, I
Speaker 1: didn't give a lot of thought to the p G
Speaker 1: A Tour. But you know, on I I love my
Speaker 1: PGA tour dot Com webs you know, the website, and
Speaker 1: I'm always checking the you know, the leaderboards, and you know,
Speaker 1: I know that there's the West Coast Swing and then
Speaker 1: there's the Florida Swing, and then there's the Masters. And
Speaker 1: I was happy with that. I didn't I didn't like
Speaker 1: need a a another tour, and and I didn't need
Speaker 1: more tournaments um and team play and fifty four hold tournaments.
Speaker 1: I mean, I just think, I mean, I again, I
Speaker 1: don't I haven't spoken to other golf fans about this,
Speaker 1: but when I look at these, you know, when I
Speaker 1: you know, obviously I've paid a lot of attention to
Speaker 1: the live tour stuff. You know, I think it's a
Speaker 1: fan of like, who needs this? It was not broken
Speaker 1: in the first place. Now obviously you you you know,
Speaker 1: money changes everything, as they say, But I just find
Speaker 1: it sort of the whole thing kind of unnecessary and
Speaker 1: irritating as a fan. Go ahead of Michael Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: golf for a long time, the PHA Tour, you know,
Speaker 1: I think Al and I would both very much agree this.
Speaker 1: It got boring, It got arrogant. We had all the
Speaker 1: cards we're gonna you know, we're dictating to the world
Speaker 1: how this whole thing plays out. The President's Cup, you know,
Speaker 1: the international team is dictated, the rules by which their
Speaker 1: team is even assembled is dictated by the PHA Tour.
Speaker 1: Tim Fincher became a member of Augusta National almost in
Speaker 1: me to leap on retirement. There's a lot not to like,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot to like Jordan's speech and what
Speaker 1: you know, the way camp Smith plays golf, there's a
Speaker 1: lot to liken the three officer drawn drawn to golf
Speaker 1: and golfs like. But this is a long winded preamble
Speaker 1: of the following. Jeff, what you described as the American
Speaker 1: golf fans point of view, and what Greg Dorman would
Speaker 1: be here to tell you is that he grew up
Speaker 1: in Australia, he played the Australian Tour, he played the
Speaker 1: European played the American Tour, and it's not fair to
Speaker 1: the rest of the world that everyone's got to come
Speaker 1: to the United States to play the game's best tour,
Speaker 1: just like everybody's got to come to the NBA to
Speaker 1: play the best basketball. Um. But I think I would argue, maybe, Jeff,
Speaker 1: you would two, golf works well in a regional system
Speaker 1: of European Tour, Nation Tour, an American Tour, and it
Speaker 1: has worked well, and we don't need all this, I
Speaker 1: think would be my shorthand except for this OUTI see,
Speaker 1: my opinion, the capitalist tool that is the pro golf
Speaker 1: tour and golf period and it's like, yeah, let's get
Speaker 1: let's get more of that, or let's own that. I
Speaker 1: think you said it perfectly, Jeff. I mean, nobody really
Speaker 1: wanted this, but it's here and it can and there.
Speaker 1: It comes with so many interesting questions, some of which
Speaker 1: you've helped us. And one guy, one guy wanted it out, Yeah, Greg, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and he, I mean he's you know, hats wanted it
Speaker 1: for twenty five years, right, and to his credit, he's
Speaker 1: never given up on it and he's gotten it much
Speaker 1: much farther than anybody would have gone credit for for doing.
Speaker 1: I agree, and I think you know, Johnygree, Phil Cholson
Speaker 1: wanted it us. There's been other agents of change, you know,
Speaker 1: working in the background here. So some people wanted the
Speaker 1: average fan didn't. But it's been you know, foisted upon
Speaker 1: us and we're trying to make sense of it. Also, Jeff,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your your insight, um in
Speaker 1: guiding us through the legal mind fields. And you're also
Speaker 1: a great representative just of a serious fan because Michael
Speaker 1: and I are so in the weeds. Nice to talk
Speaker 1: to someone who follows it, but also as questions and
Speaker 1: so that was that was edifying. Let me tell you,
Speaker 1: let me say one other thing about Tube and having
Speaker 1: played golf them a number of times. You know, there's
Speaker 1: that character in Men in Green. I can't remember his name,
Speaker 1: but he's the annoying guy who just hits it straight,
Speaker 1: has got a plan all the time, will never make
Speaker 1: worse than bogey on any hole. That's your Jeff Tuban.
Speaker 1: It's like, what did you shoot? The range is eight six?
Speaker 1: The fact that I had two seven's today, um like
Speaker 1: it is a refutation of that. But I appreciate the
Speaker 1: the the misleading compliment. Higley's highly cerebral golf. Unlike your
Speaker 1: emotional writer friend, al I wish I was less cerebral
Speaker 1: and world talented. Already, guys, see you later. Thanks, that's good. Alright,
Speaker 1: this has been another fire Drill podcast. Thank you to
Speaker 1: Jeffy Tuban and Michael Bamberger Zalen Chipnuk. Want to think
Speaker 1: part points. Who's our our longtime sponsor, our favorite golf
Speaker 1: scoring app you've heard just talk about it. It's great fun.
Speaker 1: You should definitely check it out for a highly cerebral golfer.
Speaker 1: It would add a whole new layer to the game.
Speaker 1: And uh, Michael and I endorse it so so listeners
Speaker 1: out there, thanks for sticking with us to the bitter end. Here.
Speaker 1: We will certainly be back at it as the story
Speaker 1: continues to evolve, and I have a feeling this will
Speaker 1: not be the last time we go to Jeff for
Speaker 1: some for some counsel. Uh so uh that's a rap
Speaker 1: from Carmel, California, Willington, Delaware. And where are you, Jeff?
Speaker 1: New York City, New York City. We got them all covered,
Speaker 1: all right, Thanks for listening. Foe bye. Then Big and
Speaker 1: Play to Win. Made a fortune with my ship game,
Speaker 1: and I ran a table and thought I could fall
Speaker 1: them to win. A time hit me like a cannon.
Speaker 1: The ball and now and Shake is losing the street.
Speaker 1: Every real I take is a dead end stream. I
Speaker 1: got thoughts in my head. Can't get him out, trying
Speaker 1: not to think what I'm thinking about. I gott thoughts
Speaker 1: in my head. I can't get him out, trying not
Speaker 1: to think what I'm thinking about.