Tim Finchem Tells BBC He Thinks PGA and European Tours Should Unite...

From Golf Punk....

TIM FINCHEM THINKS PGA AND EUROPEAN TOURS SHOULD UNITE

.....“The opportunities here are so much better and that’s why we feel strongly over time we have to do things that will help balance the strength of tours,” said Finchem in an interview with BBC Sport.

“It’s not necessarily healthy for the next 25 years for everybody to wake up and want to come to the United States to play their golf. I think the challenges, though, are difficult. It is no secret, I think the best answer is that a new organisation be formed that represents professional golf on a global basis, like Fifa does with soccer. That can best take advantage of golf being in the Olympic Games and can offer consistent delivery of value, which is missing now.

“It is very uneven globally. I think steps like that would help.” Finchem, who took over the top PGA Tour post from Deane Beman in 1994, steps down at the end of the year, when his No 2, Jay Monahan, succeeds him.....

http://www.golfpunkhq.com/news/article/tim-finchem-thinks-pga-and-european-tours-should-unite

I would have no issues with a global golf association running the professional game. Do not need to tier anything, just have different event in different countries under one main umbrella.

It will never happen though./

Finchem speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Considering no-one did more to disparage Shark's ideas for a World Tour all those years ago.

Proposing an organization akin to FIFA suggests Finchem has taken his eye off that particular ball. But, hey, maybe he'll take the Tour Championship to Moscow. Or Qatar.

beninho wrote:I would have no issues with a global golf association running the professional game. Do not need to tier anything, just have different event in different countries under one main umbrella.

It will never happen though./

Agree with you to this extent... IMO Finchem's vision of "Global Golf" extends only as far as the PGA Tour in effect has complete and total control of it... like they do with the current WGC's (despite the false and misleading "window dressing" suggesting they're run by the International Federation of PGA Tours)

kwinigolfer wrote:Finchem speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Considering no-one did more to disparage Shark's ideas for a World Tour all those years ago.

Proposing an organization akin to FIFA suggests Finchem has taken his eye off that particular ball. But, hey, maybe he'll take the Tour Championship to Moscow. Or Qatar.

IMO FIFA is a prime example of exactly WHY that model is a bad idea.

But there is one portion of this in which I very much agree with Finchem. Golf would be better served if world golf were stronger and more competitive with the PGAT.

IMO the win-win-win scenario would be to have THREE strong world Tours... The PGA Tour, The European Tour and a unified Asian Tour (like the failed OneAsia experiment was supposed to be). Then the three regions would send it's best to compete in an overlay of "world events" not too dissimilar to the Majors, Players & WGC's now. But NOT too many of them... maybe 12 max compared to the current 9 (with new ones being outside the U.S). That would allow each region's marquee players not only compete in "world events", but it would also leave about half of their schedules free to play in their home regions before their home fans.

What I would hate to see is a full time unified "World Tour". IMO that would in effect demote the remaining good or decent PGAT or ET events to an even more minor status than they are now.

Think you're probably spot on; the PGA Tour would never subscribe to a Tour where they weren't at least "first among equals", which is what the WGC's became (though equals is stretching things a bit).
And their members would never do the requisite travel when they can make a pretty darn good living playing at home.

The main reason that most Americans play The Open is tradition and prestige, certainly not for the money, culture, travel, whatever. And most don't travel otherwise except for appearance fees or guaranteed money.

I'd like to see some world-class events played on world-class courses around the world; anything less and the status is better off being quo.

kwinigolfer wrote:... the PGA Tour would never subscribe to a Tour where they weren't at least "first among equals", which is what the WGC's became (though equals is stretching things a bit).
And their members would never do the requisite travel when they can make a pretty darn good living playing at home.

Exactly. Maybe things would be different should the day come where the PGA Tour needs "the rest of the world of golf", more than the other way around.  But the concept of  the PGAT, at least while it still remains in a position of strength, to EVER simply give away what it's built to some world organization it doesn't control... well it's just NOT conceivable.  

And back on the WGC's for a moment... you're right with you "though equals is stretching things a bit" comment.  Except not just a "bit" of a stretch... more like a HUGE one.   The IFGT is in essence an organization created by the PGA Tour for the INITIAL purpose of inviting in the other world Tour representation to sanction Timmy's WGC concept.  But make no mistake about it, beyond the legitimization their sanctioning affords,  the IFGT has basically NO role in the WGC's except as "invited and allowed" by the PGA Tour.  The PGAT owns and operates the events themselves and they own the broadcast rights.  The HSBC is a "slight" hybrid from the others with some partnership aspects with IMG, but it's still mostly the same.  And that's the reason you haven't see expansion of the WGC concept.

I think a world tour is inevitable for professional golf. But don't have clue when "when" is.

You are on target Kwin -- the players will generally stay close to home if they can make a similar living without the travel. For most events, 50% of the players do not play the weekend and do not cash a paycheck from that event. Easier to manage that eventuality when you are close to home.

But the bottom line is this: the players will follow the money. It generally does not work the other way around. Money needs to make the first move.

Shotrock wrote:I think a world tour is inevitable for professional golf. But don't have clue when "when" is.

IMO we look at it the wrong way... there already IS a World Tour... it just needs some refining.

When you look at the fields of the Majors, WGC's and Players, you have about as "WORLDLY" a field of top players you could possibly have. What's NOT worldly about it is only 7 of the 9 have been played outside the United States. (Now 6 of 9 with the WGC moving from Doral to Mexico). IMO an expansion of a few more WGC type events outside the U.S. and maybe even the PGA rotating outside the U.S. from time to time and you have all the world Tour you need.

Robo - That is a really good point.

We are already getting the best players in the world to compete against each other. It's just that they compete in a more concentrated geography.

The Tour de France works the same way.

"First among equals": robo, you're proving my point; perhaps I should have written "so-called" in brackets between among and equals.

Whatever they do, the Tours need to think this through carefully - and:

Is it a coincidence that both of Greg Norman's strikes to revolutionize golf have come as the PGA Tour Commissioner relinquishes the throne, as the incoming Commish is still getting his feet wet?

kwinigolfer wrote:Whatever they do, the Tours need to think this through carefully - and:

Is it a coincidence that both of Greg Norman's strikes to revolutionize golf have come as the PGA Tour Commissioner relinquishes the throne, as the incoming Commish is still getting his feet wet?

Agree 100% with that first sentence.  Two major risks I see in a world tour for both the PGAT and ET. 1) Further "bunching" of the worlds best players into premium events, diminishes the events on both tours that are no longer getting any of those players... and 2) in an attempt to make too many events "extraordinary", if you're not careful you run the risk of making all of them "ordinary".

As far as Norman... hadn't thought about that aspect of it. I suspect Monahan is no lightweight, but we don't know that yet. We (and Greg) knew that Finchem wasn't... so if it's something that really is a potential threat to shake up the PGAT, then better to wait 'til Finchem was gone.

kwinigolfer wrote:

The main reason that most Americans play The Open is tradition and prestige, certainly not for the money, culture, travel, whatever. And most don't travel otherwise except for appearance fees or guaranteed money.

I think the prize money at the Open is about the same as for the US Open and the Masters. It disappoints me that the Open is now so expensive to watch, and so very expensive to eat or drink anything while you are there.

I know I'm old school and a dyed in the wool amateur, but this money escalation can't go on forever. Time to draw a line in the sand and freeze ticket prices, make the on course catering prices sensible and state that the prize money isn't going up for a decade. There's a choice here - if a pro wants to win the oldest Championship then he'll only (ONLY!) make $1½ million bucks. If that's not enough then there are people over here who will play instead, who will be familiar to the crowds, who understand the culture and tradition, and most of all will want to be at the Open.

I've long since lost any interest I had in the European Tour, which only cares about the corporate money and therefore hardly seems to play where there are European golfers - ie in Northern Europe. If there's a World Tour then so be it, but I'm not expecting them to play anywhere near me anytime soon.

Good luck trying to sell Cody Gribble to a bloke who ploughs fields in Turkmenistan with an ox and hasn't been on a golf course before.

It's not expensive to watch. The tickets are pretty reasonable.

super_realist wrote:It's not expensive to watch. The tickets are pretty reasonable.

what are prices there Super? IMO ticket prices over here are very reasonable compared to any of our other major pro sports. Plus at a golf tournament you can get opportunities to be literally 10'-20' away from them as they play shots in real competition. You don't get that in other sports.

£55 a day Robo, not bad value considering you can watch from daylight to end of play, can sit in the stands, and walk anywhere you like to get a viewpoint.

Compare that to 90 minutes at somewhere like Chelsea, Spurs or Arsenal at a much more expensive price then it is good value.

That's the discounted price available now, £5 lower than standard. I'm sure I paid £60 for a ticket last time I went in 2012 so it's not gone up in a while.

Still it's a lot of money for many people.

I think the Open has been around £60 a day for a while now. That's good value compared to other sporting events... Wimbledon, British Grand Prix, Test matches at Lords/Oval, premier league football, and also non-sporting events... theatre, opera, concerts.

The problem with the pricing is accessibility. Some of the venues are so remote that it's very difficult for the majority of fans to do a day trip. When you add in travel and accommodation costs it becomes too pricey for many. The numbers don't lie: attendances at Troon were way down compared to Hoylake. The R&A needs to focus on venues where there is a catchment area of golf fans.

What does he mean by unite?

Is some small fry European tour event suddenly going to cough up fedex points? If not they are not united in a competition sense but just owned by the same people.

I also don't get why he is complaining about players wanting to come to the PGAT, the way to prevent that is to weaken the PGAT relative to the European tour or strengthen the European tour so that it is the PGAT's equal. Does he really want either of those scenarios?

raycastleunited wrote:I think the Open has been around £60 a day for a while now. That's good value compared to other sporting events... Wimbledon, British Grand Prix, Test matches at Lords/Oval, premier league football, and also non-sporting events... theatre, opera, concerts.

The problem with the pricing is accessibility. Some of the venues are so remote that it's very difficult for the majority of fans to do a day trip. When you add in travel and accommodation costs it becomes too pricey for many. The numbers don't lie: attendances at Troon were way down compared to Hoylake. The R&A needs to focus on venues where there is a catchment area of golf fans.

£60 per day is very expensive considering that -

* there are no capacity controls, so you could be sharing the course with hundreds of thousands of others
* you may not get a seat
* you have to pay to park
* you may have to stay overnight somewhere

Attendances might have been down at Troon, but it is easy to get there from Glasgow, which is one of Britain's biggest cities. Attendances are down because it's just too expensive. It's all very well comparing the Open to a football match or Wimbledon, but it's not the same thing. They don't just let as many people in to Wimbledon or Wembley as want to see it.

My limited experience ...

Regular PGA events are pretty cheap. A couple years ago general admission at an event we hosted was $25.

The US Open at Merion a different story. Because of tight quarters, they had to limit crowd (25,000 a day). They simply upped the ticket cost (I think $125/day) and it sold out 6 months in advance.

George1507 wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:I think the Open has been around £60 a day for a while now. That's good value compared to other sporting events... Wimbledon, British Grand Prix, Test matches at Lords/Oval, premier league football, and also non-sporting events... theatre, opera, concerts.

The problem with the pricing is accessibility. Some of the venues are so remote that it's very difficult for the majority of fans to do a day trip. When you add in travel and accommodation costs it becomes too pricey for many. The numbers don't lie: attendances at Troon were way down compared to Hoylake. The R&A needs to focus on venues where there is a catchment area of golf fans.

£60 per day is very expensive considering that -

* there are no capacity controls, so you could be sharing the course with hundreds of thousands of others
* you may not get a seat
* you have to pay to park
* you may have to stay overnight somewhere

Yes, there are capacities George. They do not have facilties or security to let in unlimited numbers. The Open cannot and will not permit unlimited people per day.

You can always get a seat, you just move around.

You may well have to pay to park, but you can't get to many venues for free, and looking at it another way, you only pay parking per car, regardless of how many people are in your car, that's cheaper than travelling by public transport and buying individual tickets.
You don't have to stay overnight if you live near, just as you don't have to stay overnight if you stay near Wimbledon, Lords, Old Trafford etc.

The bottom line is, the price is very competitive in comparison to other sporting events, and on a per minute basis, much better value.

Of course venues near cities are going to be better attended, but the R&A is not a profit making organisation. It simply doesn't need to court venues that take hundreds of thousands because it's successful wherever they play it.[/quote]

George1507 wrote:
£60 per day is very expensive considering that -

* there are no capacity controls, so you could be sharing the course with hundreds of thousands of others
* you may not get a seat
* you have to pay to park
* you may have to stay overnight somewhere

I hope I've got the quoting correct here - apologies in advance if I've misquoted

£60 a day is NOT expensive considering you could get maybe 10 hours or more for that price - even if you don't arrive too early, or not stay to the end you could get maybe 6 hours viewing for that

No capacity control? Maybe not but how may events get "hundreds of thousands" on one given day? I'd venture to say none

You may not get a seat? No you probably won't at the grandstands around the 18th green but there is usually plenty of seating around the rest of the course and (IMO) the best value is walking the course anyway. who wants to watch a putting contest?

You may have to pay to park? Well of course you may - but when you compare to other events, sporting and non-sporting you probably have to pay to extra parking there too

You may have to stay somewhere? Well yes if you travel 100s of miles to get there you may - but the same applies to any other form of sporting or non-sporting occasion.

Compared to football, international rugby, Wimbledon, test cricket, F1, theatre, concerts etc. it's still a massively good value day out

If you go and see a major band such as U2, it's going to cost you about £100 for about 2 hours, and you have to put up with a truly dreadful band, awful music and an egotistical knobend of a singer, though you may get a laugh when the Edge falls off the edge.
Going to the golf is far better value than that.

Furthermore, U16's at the Open is 10 bloody quid. That's outstanding value.
16-25 year olds are 25 quid and you can buy a Twilight ticket for action after 4pm for £25 and there's plenty action still to be had.

I can't think of a single sport which offers that much flexibility or value, even though I find watching golf to be extremely boring.

No one is really priced out of the event, especially when it's an annual event, and nothing like as expensive as a season ticket for a football club like Arsenal, which is 1019 for the absolute CHEAPEST season ticket for an adult, that's a whopping £53 per game, not including food, travel, parking etc and it's all over in 95 minutes.

And when watching U2 half the ticket price ends up in tax havens.