Speaker 1: I think that if the result today had been different,
Speaker 1: and then with players who've been allowed to go back
Speaker 1: on the tour, that would have been devastating to hand
Speaker 1: in the GA. I got thoughts in my head. Can't
Speaker 1: get them John, Nothing what I'm thinking about? That got
Speaker 1: thoughts in my head. I can't get them out, John,
Speaker 1: Not to think what I'm thinking about. Hello, this is
Speaker 1: Alan Schipnak back for another Fire Drill podcast. A little
Speaker 1: bit of housekeeping real quick. We want to think our
Speaker 1: sponsors Part Points the best golf scoring at there is
Speaker 1: and Seed Golf, awesome little ball company out of Europe.
Speaker 1: They allow us to do fun things like this. So
Speaker 1: tonight we're joined by Matt Janella and a very special
Speaker 1: guest in Peter Ginsberg is one of the pre eminent
Speaker 1: legal minds in the sports field. He represented Vjcing and
Speaker 1: his very successful lawsuit against the PGA Tour, and he
Speaker 1: is represented a variety of tour players in different actions
Speaker 1: against the tour, most of which no one ever heard
Speaker 1: of because of Peter's skill keeping things quiet and getting
Speaker 1: things done behind the scenes. So Peter, thank you for
Speaker 1: being here, and let's let's just get right to it.
Speaker 1: I was courted today, big verdict. What do you make
Speaker 1: of the tour's first first victory and what's no doubt
Speaker 1: going to be a long legal process. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: not terribly surprised. We've been several very confusing, very confusing missteps.
Speaker 1: Then the players have really made this all about money
Speaker 1: and a new damage is usually on sufficient sustain a
Speaker 1: request for a joint for relief. They didn't make it
Speaker 1: much about prior to the game and the importance of
Speaker 1: the system, the points system. They also waited far too
Speaker 1: long to bring their request for in junctive relief and
Speaker 1: really created the emergency. Like the judge said, So it
Speaker 1: wasn't terrible surprising. There's a lot of talk about, you know,
Speaker 1: it's especially for a temporary restraining or there's a high
Speaker 1: threshold to prove the damages, and that was that was
Speaker 1: tossed around by non experts like myself. But can you
Speaker 1: explain to the listeners what live would have had to
Speaker 1: have done or the plaintiffs, I should say three individuals
Speaker 1: would have had to done to win this. Uh this
Speaker 1: tro so let me give you an example. Several years ago,
Speaker 1: I was representing a couple of people from the Minnesota,
Speaker 1: like in in case you became known as a star
Speaker 1: capsutation and the commissioner tried to suspend them. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to go into all of the details, but for
Speaker 1: something that they should not have been the subject of
Speaker 1: a substreension, and we went into court and Minnesota to
Speaker 1: ask for a junkerbe We didn't argue about the money loss,
Speaker 1: and we didn't argue about policies at the NFL. Instead,
Speaker 1: our argument was based on reputation and the pride of
Speaker 1: playing the game, and how much it would tarnish their reputations.
Speaker 1: Being heard in that way is an emergency. It can't
Speaker 1: be remedied by winning later on, as opposed to simply
Speaker 1: asking for money damages when you can always be compensated retroactively.
Speaker 1: So it has to be something more personal and frankly
Speaker 1: more important than simply I'm asking for money. I mean,
Speaker 1: I thought the you know, the the plaintiffs lawyer, I mean,
Speaker 1: he kept make trying to make the case that the
Speaker 1: FedEx Cup was now the avenue to get into the
Speaker 1: major championships for these players, if they could they get
Speaker 1: in the top thirty, that it's just a great platform
Speaker 1: for building their brand. And he tried to make that
Speaker 1: argument a little bit. But um, the judge didn't seem
Speaker 1: too impress you know, I mean, I guess from from
Speaker 1: your perspective, how how tall a mountain was was this
Speaker 1: for for the plaintiffs to actually climb? I mean it
Speaker 1: seemed like they you know, if you just look at it,
Speaker 1: the fact that they left the tour and now they're
Speaker 1: trying to get get back onto the tour. Uh, it
Speaker 1: was it was going to be an uphill battle. But
Speaker 1: how how much in your in your minds? But how
Speaker 1: how long were the odds against him before before this
Speaker 1: even began. I think the way this is played out,
Speaker 1: it was like a money grow and and that's who
Speaker 1: That's where the judge decided. Yeah, if they had focused
Speaker 1: from the beginning, you know, about the importance of the
Speaker 1: dead actual coup, of the importance of you should you're
Speaker 1: in the meeting for the game, I think they would
Speaker 1: have been far better off. But the people who are
Speaker 1: these smokes, people with um are gonna aren't the most
Speaker 1: atractive candidates should be made from that that claim, Matt,
Speaker 1: what were you gonna say? No? I mean I felt
Speaker 1: like we should probably just go back for a second.
Speaker 1: For me, from the outside not being in the courtroom. Alan,
Speaker 1: you were there, Peter, You've been in there, you know,
Speaker 1: a good jillion times. I'm sure I've listened to your
Speaker 1: interview on the Stripe Show podcast with Travis Fultman. I
Speaker 1: thought it was very informative. But before we get a little,
Speaker 1: you know, even in more depth, I just I think
Speaker 1: a little bit of color in terms of what the
Speaker 1: courtroom looked like, I think would be fascinating. Yeah, it was.
Speaker 1: It's just a gift from the content gods that somehow
Speaker 1: Northern California was as the venue and I can just
Speaker 1: drive up. There's in San Jose's about a hour and
Speaker 1: a half away, and so I blew up there. I
Speaker 1: kind of got there a little bit late and I
Speaker 1: was rushing, but walking into the courtroom, it's such a regal,
Speaker 1: formal setting, and in this chaotic political moment where it
Speaker 1: seems like every institution is under attack and the rule
Speaker 1: of law is always seems to be in question, it
Speaker 1: was neat for me, as someone who is rarely in
Speaker 1: a courtroom, just to see it play out and the
Speaker 1: formality of everyone rises, for the judge and all the
Speaker 1: lawyers and their beautiful Italian suits, you know, that are
Speaker 1: glistening in the lighting. Clearly those suits cost more than
Speaker 1: some of the people's cars in the parking lot. And
Speaker 1: just the the decorum and the respect that the lawyers
Speaker 1: showed for the judge and the whole process, it was.
Speaker 1: It was kind of neat to be there, honestly, and
Speaker 1: I enjoyed that aspect of it. And you know, I
Speaker 1: knew nothing about Judge Freeman coming in. I saw in
Speaker 1: gin she's a thirty three handicap. She put does play
Speaker 1: the game. But I thought she was really good. I
Speaker 1: mean she had she had these these lawyers on their
Speaker 1: toes and um, you know a few times I burst
Speaker 1: out laughing. Some things were said. I kind of look
Speaker 1: around like, oh sorry. It reminded me of being like,
Speaker 1: you know, around a green at Augusta National and someone
Speaker 1: whispers something funny to you when you're trying to hold
Speaker 1: it in, Like are you allowed to laugh? I don't
Speaker 1: even know what the rules are, but um, there was
Speaker 1: there was some levity, and you know, I really thought
Speaker 1: both sides did a good job in their arguments, you know,
Speaker 1: them the plaintiffs, they made some headway. They did explain
Speaker 1: the timeline a little bit. Peter White all these things
Speaker 1: had to happen by the scenes before they could bring
Speaker 1: their suit, and the judge found out persuasive because she
Speaker 1: was dubious to begin with. I thought, I thought the
Speaker 1: tour lawyers really made made some headway in explaining how
Speaker 1: how much these guys knew what they're getting themselves into
Speaker 1: and how much money they had taken. And that was
Speaker 1: kind of a little mini courtroom drama because the judge
Speaker 1: had access to the contracts, so she knows the actual numbers,
Speaker 1: and the lawyers know the numbers. They didn't want to
Speaker 1: say it out loud, and a couple of times the
Speaker 1: different lawyers that came up right to the edge and
Speaker 1: the almost said it, and you're like on the precipice
Speaker 1: of something juicy revelation. They pulled themselves back and I
Speaker 1: could see people like me and the other there's twelve reports.
Speaker 1: They're kind of leaning forward, like ooh, and you know,
Speaker 1: the plaintiff layer lets slip at one point that the
Speaker 1: live earnings are counting against the advance that some of
Speaker 1: these players got. He didn't go in any more detail,
Speaker 1: but that was a little mini bomb show that was
Speaker 1: interesting that wasn't and at the same time, you know
Speaker 1: that that can be explained in different ways. Every contracts
Speaker 1: different and some things are bare frontloaded and some have
Speaker 1: it on the back end. So two things can be true.
Speaker 1: Were at once, where you win the tournament, they send
Speaker 1: you a check, But what that means on the back
Speaker 1: end your deal, who knows. But what when that happened,
Speaker 1: you know, I was looking around and some other guys
Speaker 1: were looking around. We made that contact, like, oh that's juicy.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just like funny little moments like that.
Speaker 1: It was um And then of course the judge takes
Speaker 1: this fifteen minute break and leave, and so now women's
Speaker 1: in the hallway buzzing about what's going to happen, trying
Speaker 1: to bird dog the lawyers, and and then you go
Speaker 1: back in the courtroom and just waiting for it to
Speaker 1: come in, and like it really felt like the emotion
Speaker 1: of it all was fun. I mean, you've been down
Speaker 1: that road many times. But when when you're one of
Speaker 1: those lawyers and you're waiting for the judge to come
Speaker 1: in and render their verdict, Like, what does it feel
Speaker 1: like on the inside for you? Not quite as bad
Speaker 1: as when you're waiting for a jury to come back.
Speaker 1: But what was the rationalization did the liverturnments gave from
Speaker 1: why they waited so long that there was there was
Speaker 1: all these different protocols that they had, they got suspended,
Speaker 1: they had to do, they had to appeal, the peel
Speaker 1: had to be heard. Um the tour uh did X
Speaker 1: they had to do? Why that led to Z and
Speaker 1: I haven't in some of my notes, but it was,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of this process that had to play
Speaker 1: out behind the scenes, and the lawyer did a good
Speaker 1: job of laying it out. The tour pushed back a
Speaker 1: little bit, but ultimately in our closing remarks, the judge
Speaker 1: did nod towards the plaintiffs lawyer and said, you know,
Speaker 1: I do agree that this was about as timely as
Speaker 1: it could have been filed, this lawsuit, and so so
Speaker 1: they did a good job explaining that. But you know, really,
Speaker 1: for all the different complicated factors that went into this,
Speaker 1: it just came down to um proving that you know,
Speaker 1: I repel were all harm would we'd be done to
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs. And because they'd already gotten so much money
Speaker 1: from live golf, then keep making money. They have other
Speaker 1: ways to play play their way into the majors. Theoretically
Speaker 1: the judge ruled against him, but I thought it was
Speaker 1: I thought the lawyers kind of argued to a draw
Speaker 1: and that the deck was are we always stacked towards
Speaker 1: towards a tour on this particular issue, So it was
Speaker 1: it was an interesting, interesting kind of repartee. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: glad that the justice justice system worked. Yeah, god man, Peter.
Speaker 1: I one thing I'm I'm curious about is is your
Speaker 1: sense that that this is all just a part of
Speaker 1: the long form process. This literally needed to play out.
Speaker 1: Not very surprising that these particular players lost this this battle,
Speaker 1: given the case they presented and when they presented it
Speaker 1: and how they presented it, and and yet this will
Speaker 1: be all part of what's going to be the long,
Speaker 1: the long narrative arc of of kind of the anti
Speaker 1: trust uh you know battle. I think that's right. I mean,
Speaker 1: think how that if the result today had been different
Speaker 1: and then with players have been allowed go back on
Speaker 1: the tour, that would have been devastating to Monahan the FA.
Speaker 1: But I think it's you know, I think the question
Speaker 1: of whether there's an anti trust violation is a closer
Speaker 1: call and far more complicated and will take a while
Speaker 1: to play out. You said that there are two aspects
Speaker 1: of anti trust law, monopoly and conspiracy, and monopoly is
Speaker 1: obviously one that seems to be the dark shadow looming
Speaker 1: over the PGA tour um. Well, how, how, given given
Speaker 1: the fact that it feels like they've been monopolistic and
Speaker 1: and gotten away with it for a long period of time,
Speaker 1: how is there a way that they that they win
Speaker 1: the anti trust case. Well, you know, let me let
Speaker 1: me say, I think anyone who tells you how this
Speaker 1: is going to play out who's going to win, is
Speaker 1: um being overly confident his or her own abilities, because
Speaker 1: they are really very complicated issues. Monopolies can happen because
Speaker 1: of nefarious or purposeful actions, and monopolies can happen because
Speaker 1: of market forces and events that are not necessarily indicative
Speaker 1: of anti trust violations. And there are certain aspects of
Speaker 1: the doctor world with points in playing in the tournaments
Speaker 1: and things that can have an almost when you were
Speaker 1: referred to as a monopolistic effect, but really simply as
Speaker 1: a way to strengthen the appeal at the PGA. There
Speaker 1: are media rights and media contracts which are more or
Speaker 1: less valuable depending on the or the sanctity of the game,
Speaker 1: and the higher the contracts are, the more monopolistic the
Speaker 1: game is. Because the persons are high, as so the
Speaker 1: incentive the players high. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's
Speaker 1: anti competitive. It could it could mean just the opposite.
Speaker 1: You know. I think that if the the PGA would
Speaker 1: do wealth for itself, if it focuses on so many issues, um,
Speaker 1: involving the politics, the the sort of psychological aspects of
Speaker 1: the game, whether the players themselves feel like the game
Speaker 1: will retreated, and their retreat If people from Live, for instance,
Speaker 1: are allowed to make their way the tournaments without having
Speaker 1: to go through the same rigorous um, you know, rigorous
Speaker 1: schedule and and rigorous standards that they have to go through,
Speaker 1: it would might be you know, it might be interesting
Speaker 1: if this took the turn so it was less monetized
Speaker 1: to use that it were I think it was used
Speaker 1: in the courtroom today and more focused on what the
Speaker 1: effect of the PGA would be. Two um, not to
Speaker 1: buy it against society, Arabian government and the politics of that.
Speaker 1: It may be that the PGA are to be taking
Speaker 1: a more political standard. UM. I mean, certainly you're not
Speaker 1: going to see an awful lot of basketball players going
Speaker 1: over the rush to play basketball and there I mean,
Speaker 1: there's certain political undercurrents that might be more attractive and
Speaker 1: make this less of a forensic battle over monopoly. So
Speaker 1: you know, I do I think this is just the beginning. Well,
Speaker 1: and that was interesting because in some ways this today's
Speaker 1: hearing transcended the moment because whether or not these three players, who,
Speaker 1: let's be honest or not stars in the game, we're
Speaker 1: gonna get to play in the FedEx Cup. I don't
Speaker 1: think anyone was that emotionally invested in that particular question,
Speaker 1: other than the fact it was just this was the
Speaker 1: first battle, but the larger anti trust case is what
Speaker 1: really matters. And so the tour tipped its hand a
Speaker 1: little bit in its defense when the lawyer, you know,
Speaker 1: he put up a slide that showed the player impact
Speaker 1: program from last year and that five of the top
Speaker 1: ten are now playing on on the Live Tour, and
Speaker 1: they had some stats about the three events that Live
Speaker 1: has played, how many elite players have had in the
Speaker 1: field versus the PGA Tour event that same week, and
Speaker 1: it was it was stacked in the direction of Live,
Speaker 1: and you know, the lawyer basically says something the effect like,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to say, but the competition is fierce, and
Speaker 1: so the tour is in this funny position of now
Speaker 1: what they haven't wanted to acknowledge Live publicly, but now
Speaker 1: in the court of law they're saying, Hey, these guys
Speaker 1: are kicking ass and they're a real threat. We can't
Speaker 1: be ANOPU laue because they're taking all our players and
Speaker 1: they got better players than we do, and so they're
Speaker 1: kind of it's a little dance between the public relations
Speaker 1: you get in the Jay Monhan's press conferences and then
Speaker 1: the legal argument is totally contrary to that. So I
Speaker 1: thought that was an interesting part of today the tour
Speaker 1: on some level, conceding defeat to Live, which then might
Speaker 1: end up biting them when it comes to the battle
Speaker 1: of World golf rankings and whether or not that you know,
Speaker 1: whether or not Live deserves the rankings, and whether or
Speaker 1: not Live can taggle their competitive you know, forum to
Speaker 1: be four rounds instead of three, that that could end
Speaker 1: up being being used against them, Yes or no. I
Speaker 1: kind of doubt that the world rankings are PGA focused clearly,
Speaker 1: and Live can have its own ranking system. But I
Speaker 1: think then as long as the PGA doesn't conspire with
Speaker 1: the majors and as long as you Live is you know, viable,
Speaker 1: it's going to be it's going to be difficult to
Speaker 1: prove anti competitive behavior. Yeah, I mean what you're saying,
Speaker 1: Matt is interesting because there's there's the quest, and both
Speaker 1: both entities, the Tour and Live are also battling in
Speaker 1: the court of public opinion, which is different than a
Speaker 1: court of law, and so um it is there's a
Speaker 1: little dance going on which I found intriguing. And even
Speaker 1: on the point of um, you know this is this
Speaker 1: is different, but this it looked like there was going
Speaker 1: to be a key point in the ruling was whether
Speaker 1: or not the commissioner has the absolute power when when
Speaker 1: someone is suspended for any reason, that they can like
Speaker 1: make them sit out tournaments. Because in one regulation Peter
Speaker 1: said that when when you're on appeal, you're you're allowed
Speaker 1: to keep playing. But then there's another by law that said, well,
Speaker 1: the tour, the commissioner, at his discretion essentially can even
Speaker 1: someone who's on appeal, he can bar from playing because
Speaker 1: this their very presence could be so inflammatory. The lawyer
Speaker 1: used kind of a weird example if a guy had
Speaker 1: hate speech on his hat, that's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: But you know, the idea that these live golfers would
Speaker 1: show up wearing live gear at at one of the
Speaker 1: PGA Tour flagship events, it was kind of a fun
Speaker 1: thought exercise. And you know, I think the tour dodged
Speaker 1: a bullet there because the judge is not overly impressed
Speaker 1: by the language in these regulations. But it does speak
Speaker 1: to a larger question that abuses this whole debate is
Speaker 1: how much power does the commissioner have to set policy?
Speaker 1: Does he work for the players or do the players
Speaker 1: work for him? And I know you've jousted with Tim
Speaker 1: fincham anam with Jay Monahan, and I want to get
Speaker 1: your opinion on the unique role of the PGA Tour
Speaker 1: commissioner to set policy and to make unilateral decisions. What
Speaker 1: is their role and when it comes to dealing with
Speaker 1: their own membership to say, for for Monahan to say
Speaker 1: that he works for the players is fashionable. I mean Monahan,
Speaker 1: Monahan runs the PGA, and if the PGA is successful,
Speaker 1: the players make more money. So in that very simplistic
Speaker 1: way he could he can without breaking you know, laughing
Speaker 1: out loud, make that clean. But Monahan has really almost
Speaker 1: unfettered power in many ways. He has greater power than
Speaker 1: commissioners of other leaders because since the players are independent
Speaker 1: contractors and there's no union representing the players, and Monahan
Speaker 1: doesn't have the and I can the the the the
Speaker 1: anti competition or exemption that some of the other commissioners
Speaker 1: have it. On the other hand, he doesn't have any
Speaker 1: group fighting against him. Golfers, by their nature, are not
Speaker 1: a particular cohesive group. They don't really and they have
Speaker 1: never historically joined together to fight for any particular principles
Speaker 1: as far as I know. So in that respect, Mona
Speaker 1: handles more. It can be more draftonian than some of
Speaker 1: the other sports commissioners. Peter, if Phil Nicholson had called
Speaker 1: you a year and a half ago and said, look,
Speaker 1: I've got some gripes, I got some issues. I'm doing
Speaker 1: these side games. They're charging me a million bucks. I
Speaker 1: don't have a control over my brand, my ability to
Speaker 1: market my brand. We don't have a collective bargaining agreement
Speaker 1: within the structure of the PAH or unlike all the
Speaker 1: other sports. Peter, I want you to help me form
Speaker 1: a group of players to take on the PGA tour.
Speaker 1: I mean, is that would that have been a better
Speaker 1: system a way of going about this then going out
Speaker 1: and forming a breakaway tour with Saudi Arabia and undermining
Speaker 1: sort of like if Nicholson had called you a long
Speaker 1: time ago and sort of started fresh, would would you
Speaker 1: have taken the case? And do you think you would
Speaker 1: have had a better case than what? And then the
Speaker 1: way this is all unfolded. Oh well, let me answer
Speaker 1: the first question first. I've had that conversation with some
Speaker 1: other players and I've tried to make that point. But
Speaker 1: golfers are very independent, independent people, and it was very
Speaker 1: hard to convince a core group of them to organize
Speaker 1: sort of wrestles some of the control from the commissioner
Speaker 1: the institute's programs that are fair to the individual players.
Speaker 1: I think you know your second question is whether it
Speaker 1: would be better, and I guess that depends on what
Speaker 1: their goals are. If their goals are to make more money,
Speaker 1: I think that they lived tour probably is better for
Speaker 1: Niffers than if he had formed a unit to fight
Speaker 1: the PGA, and the better protect the player's rights, and
Speaker 1: if that's his priority, that's his priority for sure. I
Speaker 1: think if you could ever organize the members to actually
Speaker 1: act together for a greater good, it could make the
Speaker 1: game a lot better. It could make the sort of
Speaker 1: procedural protections and other safeguards much stronger for the players.
Speaker 1: Like I said, if if all nifolers really cares about money,
Speaker 1: he probably went about in the way that it's better
Speaker 1: from Nicholson. Yeah, I'm not sure that he particularly cares
Speaker 1: about the game as much as he cares about himself
Speaker 1: at leastuch sort of just my opinion from watching him
Speaker 1: and listening to him over the years. Interesting how much
Speaker 1: weight should this decision carry? You know, if you're if
Speaker 1: you're a fan and you're trying to make sense of
Speaker 1: all this, It's like, Okay, the tour is going to
Speaker 1: declare victory um, and they've I've already my inbox, I'm
Speaker 1: already getting statements and from the tour, and and you
Speaker 1: know they're they're trumpeting this like a major political victory.
Speaker 1: But in the larger scheme, can can you give some
Speaker 1: context to what this this really means? Like I should
Speaker 1: be where I really do think this is just the
Speaker 1: first step. And I think at this point, the PA
Speaker 1: you ought to sort of step back and think about
Speaker 1: their overall strategy and whether over lisening members views on
Speaker 1: this and thinking about some of the political positions that
Speaker 1: can be taken would benefit them in the long run.
Speaker 1: I think it's really it is the first step, and
Speaker 1: it's too early to tell how this is going to
Speaker 1: play out and to give us to people some idea
Speaker 1: of how long this process is going to be. At
Speaker 1: the end of the hearing, excuse me, the judge laid
Speaker 1: out a tentative timeline and she said September of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three as the anti trust trial date, so that's
Speaker 1: thirteen months, and she was kind of apologized. I said, hey,
Speaker 1: I know, this is a really compressed timeline. You guys
Speaker 1: have to work really and there's like, oh boy, thirteen
Speaker 1: months is all we have. Like, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know what having for breakfast tomorrow, So it's funny to
Speaker 1: think about it so far in the future. But I
Speaker 1: know these are complicated things. And over the next thirteen months,
Speaker 1: if there's no settlements and both sides to get dug in,
Speaker 1: how many hearings and how many public events could we
Speaker 1: expect that will train a spotlight on the ongoing process. Well,
Speaker 1: part of it depends on whether everyone plays not actually
Speaker 1: or because the first battle will be over discovery of
Speaker 1: production of doctor making people available for depth visions. And
Speaker 1: you know, lawyers can be lawyers, and so they either
Speaker 1: decide to work together or they'll have one dispute after
Speaker 1: another in the judge will have to get involved in
Speaker 1: the magistrate more likely at some point, probably suited than later.
Speaker 1: They'll be the first iteration of legal motions, probably emotions
Speaker 1: to dismiss like the PGA. I'm claiming that they can't
Speaker 1: they they can't make out and a trust violation, so
Speaker 1: they'll be they'll be motion practice. You know, the same
Speaker 1: warriors are representing the PGA in this case is represented
Speaker 1: the PGA in the sink case. And you know we
Speaker 1: were in colort a lot and they were made a
Speaker 1: lot of emotions. It's just sort of the way they
Speaker 1: played the game. And sometimes it's effective and sometimes it's
Speaker 1: counter productive. Sometimes the judge is intriguement. Sometimes judges gets angry.
Speaker 1: But if you like going to court, it's a good
Speaker 1: show for you, and it's um it's at a point,
Speaker 1: I mean, it'll be interesting to see and the strategies
Speaker 1: that become more and more evident. It's that process is
Speaker 1: going on, and then once they go through discovery, there'll
Speaker 1: be a second round. We used to second round the
Speaker 1: emotions hearings down those motions and ultimately maybe they'll get
Speaker 1: to trial. But thirteen months is not much time to
Speaker 1: put together a case like this. That's amazing. I'm just
Speaker 1: thinking of all the billable hours because I counted up
Speaker 1: the tour lawyers in the courtroom. There was twelve of them,
Speaker 1: and they had their little rolling suitcases full of stuff.
Speaker 1: Some dude had like four huge boxes on a dolly,
Speaker 1: like they came two sopranos. They came heavy, and they
Speaker 1: were they were ready, and oh yeah, it was. It
Speaker 1: was an impressive mobilization of manpower. Like um I was.
Speaker 1: I was amazed. And it seemed like every time the
Speaker 1: lawyer had a thought, someone would scurry over and had
Speaker 1: him a document and run back. It was like watching
Speaker 1: a ball boy at the US Open tennis, you know,
Speaker 1: Like the choreography was impressive. So um. Clearly, the you know,
Speaker 1: the tour sees US as a threat to its very
Speaker 1: sort of bival and they're gonna throw h every resource
Speaker 1: necessary to defend themselves. And uh, it was. It was
Speaker 1: quite a display, honestly. Oh yeah. And and you look,
Speaker 1: the representing the tour had represented the PGA for a
Speaker 1: long time, so they they know, they know these they
Speaker 1: know the association, they know the players, and they'll they'll
Speaker 1: do a good job, you know. I think that they
Speaker 1: have to be careful not to sort of necessarily follow
Speaker 1: the old traditional payball because it's gonna be a heart occasion.
Speaker 1: I'm really looking forward to seeing how this all plays out. Obviously,
Speaker 1: this is this is fascinating stuff. I really love your
Speaker 1: perspective and especially given your background in your history, so
Speaker 1: I really appreciate you. You're spending time with us and
Speaker 1: uh and informing us and hopefully we can have you
Speaker 1: on again in the future. Be great anytime. It's fantastic stuff.
Speaker 1: Good to talk to you too. I mean, my grandma
Speaker 1: really want me to go to law school, and I'm
Speaker 1: now regretting it because who knew that this was going
Speaker 1: to take such a turn. I mean, but anyway, um,
Speaker 1: I was hoping you'd say that your grandma wanted you
Speaker 1: to be a sports writer, you know, and we could
Speaker 1: have anyway, we could have swapped. Yeah, so after we
Speaker 1: have not a horrible idea. All right, well, this that
Speaker 1: was Peter Ginsburg, pre eminent lawyer. Thank you for your thoughts,
Speaker 1: Matt Janella. As always, I'm Alan Scheff. This is the
Speaker 1: the end of this fire drill, but we know there's
Speaker 1: gonna be many more. We'll we'll keep doing these as
Speaker 1: events warrant. You know. There was a big news break
Speaker 1: about Cam Smith joining Live, which is not official yet
Speaker 1: but it seems very close um anecdotally. After the Tour
Speaker 1: champion Ship, other players are expected to jump. So this
Speaker 1: story will continue to evolve and we will keep keep
Speaker 1: talking about it and then trying to educate and entertain
Speaker 1: all the listeners out there. So thanks for thanks for
Speaker 1: being here, Thanks to Pure and Matt. This is Alan
Speaker 1: Shipnik and that's the end. I been big and I
Speaker 1: played to win, made a fortune within my ship game. Man.
Speaker 1: I ran the table, never thought I could fall. Then
Speaker 1: the winter time hit me like a cannon the ball
Speaker 1: and now I can't shake this losing the stream. Every
Speaker 1: road I take is a dead end stream. I got
Speaker 1: thoughts in my head, can't get them out, trying not
Speaker 1: to think what I'm thinking about. I got the thoughts
Speaker 1: in my head. I can't get them out. Trying not
Speaker 1: to think what I'm thinking about