Tiger weighs in on the Ryder Cup pay issue…
When Tiger speaks the golfing world listens. Unfortunately, Woods is still side-lined after his most recent back surgery but, in the run up to the Hero Challenge, he has been asked about the Ryder Cup pay dispute. The headlines will read that he thinks the players should receive $5million each! He goes on then to say that this should then be given to charity, which in principle sounds great, but it does raise other questions.
The ethos of golf has been a “gentleman’s game”. That is not to be confused with any gender issues, but with the concept of integrity and honesty within the game. When there is no financial consequence involved then the pride, the honour and opportunity to represent one’s nation/continent were once considered reward enough, without any need for financial recompense. It isn’t that long ago that Olympic athletes were all amateurs, with the symbolic end of this being the Barcelona Games in1992. In many ways, then, the Ryder Cup was the last bastion of a sporting contest where financial remuneration perhaps was not a consideration for the participants. Equally, given a ticket to next years event at Bethpage will be $750 per tournament day, you can see why players might feel entitled to some of the rewards! Unfortunately, the current debate rages on under the watchful eyes of the media, with the backdrop being the vast amounts of money afforded to players who moved to LIV. The net effect? The paying public see only greed on the part of the players.
So, would Tiger’s suggestion go some way to mitigate that? I’m not so sure.
I’m fairly confident that there are very few spectators or fans of the event who would have any form of issue with the principle. Given Scottie Scheffler earned $62million in on course earnings alone this year, the mooted $400,000 won’t make any difference to him. It would seem eminently more sensible, and marketable, to the paying public if they felt that money was going to good causes.
It would however beg another question; why would it need publicised?
For any of us regular folks, if we are raising money for charity, it generally involves publicising the event in order to generate sponsorship. Most of us then have to rely on family and friends, contacts and social media in order to do this. If the Ryder Cup team were each given any sum, regardless of the amount, then surely this donation need not be made public?
The only rational reasons for publicising such a move would be either to generate more funds or improve the image of those involved. Since the former is not likely a consideration, unless of course there is then representation for the charities at the event itself or via the vast TV coverage, then it can only be derived that the public donation of those funds is designed to be self-serving, which isn’t really in keeping with the “gentleman’s game” philosophy, nor is it remotely altruistic.
Personally, I think the notion of the money being given to charity is a great idea in principle. I’m writing the day after the announcement that Dundee’s sole remaining municipal golf venue is to close in 2025. The course is a mere 40 miles from Gleneagles, host of the 2014 Ryder Cup. The Scottish Government pledged to grow the game of golf as part of it’s bid to host the event, yet 2024 has seen a litany of course closures and threats of closure. Of course, there is not a linear relationship between the event and course closures, however it could be argued that events such as the Ryder Cup could afford the opportunity to secure the future of the game we all love so much. For many golfers’ municipal courses represent the “grass roots” of the game; the place where it all began.
If the players were given the monies to donate to grass roots developments of their choosing, on a bi-annual basis what difference would $60million dollars make to safeguarding the future? Potentially, if properly invested, then the impact could be significant.