Earlier this morning I posted a story on the SB Nation golf section that involved a brief opinion on appearance fees for professional golfers at the sponsor's discretion. In that article I wrote:
A funny thing happened this past weekend on the PGA TOUR: Ben Curtis, winless since 2006, won an event where he very well could have been one of the bigger names in the field. That's right; Ben "I Almost Lost My TOUR Card" Curtis was one of a few standouts at the Valero Texas Open.
Meanwhile, Lee Westwood, the third-ranked player in the world, successfully defended his title at the Indonesian Masters, a tournament he likely would not have even played in had it not been for the appearance fee he was paid to attend. As a result, the Indonesian Masters became a strong ratings competitor to the Valero Texas Open, all because of one name golf fans everywhere recognize.
Now there is definitely more to the offering of "appearance fees" than what I lead on in the above excerpt, but the question remains the same: why doesn't the PGA TOUR allow for appearance fees?
ESPN.com's Bob Harig also chimed in on this topic in January 2012, this time involving Tiger Woods playing in Abu Dhabi instead of California to begin his 2012 season:
Asked if the payment of appearance fees influences his scheduling decisions, Woods said, "I'd have to say yes, it certainly does. That's one of the reasons why a lot of the guys who play in Europe, they do play in Europe, and they do get paid. I think the only tour that doesn't pay is the U.S. Tour."
The PGA Tour prohibits the payment of appearance fees. While the subject is not officially discussed among European Tour officials, it is a widely accepted practice. It is perhaps the biggest reason this tournament has attracted the best field of the year to date.
Seems to me that the PGA TOUR might be missing out on a practice many of the "big names" in the U.S. are already accustomed to when playing overseas. Then again, I'm sure Ben Curtis isn't complaining.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar