Running 2013 Golf Thread

[TheSportsPredictor]

At first I thought his drastic changes meant he was finally going to lose some forking weight.

 

[Mark2010]

If a player wants to reduce his schedule, fine. All it means is that someone else will fill that spot in some tournament. Play as much or as little as you want. I'll watch as much or little as I want.

 

[hondo]

While Phil's not all that sympathetic here, pro golfers are very good examples of the effects of changes in marginal rates. If you just look at the golf portion of their income -- not endorsements, etc., just golf -- an increase in marginal rates is almost guaranteed to result in their playing fewer tournaments. A touring pro's travel overhead is fixed, and his income in a given week is iffy. The change in tax rates shifts the expected cost/benefits calculus such that it's almost a mathematical certainty that the established stars will be playing fewer tournaments, and the ones they'll play will have the richer purses. Bad news if you're running one of those mid-tier events, because you're going to have fewer big names in your field.

The tradeoff for having to pay for your own travel and not getting paid for missed cuts is that golfers' careers reach their prime earning years in their mid-30s and into their mid-to-late 40s, unlike other athletes, who are at or near the end at that age. Then, at 50, they go to the Champions Tour and play no-cut events -- free money.
Also, the good-to-great golfers have much more potential for lucrative equipment deals than team sports athletes. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning do not do commercials endorsing footballs or helmets -- mainly shoes. Golfers have clubs, shoes, balls, instructional videos, corporate outings, guaranteed money for international events (not allowed in the U.S.), endorsements for hotel chains, money for representing clubs or resorts ... the list goes on.
Knowledgable golf fans know this. That's why they're not impressed because Lefty isn't happy with his tax bracket.
And John Feinstein just made a good point on The Golf Channel: does Phil think California and the U.S. government are going to reduce his tax rate because he blows smoke about cutting back on his schedule?

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

Further proof that Phil simply has no clue.

 

[hondo]

Further proof that Phil simply has no clue.

What's funny is that he thinks he knows it all. And he somehow has this man of the people aura yet his comments about his tax situation suggest a large disconnect between himself and the average Joe Fan. Are tax rates, both federal and state, to high? Probably. Are you going to get people to have a whole lot of sympathy for Phil when he still makes eight figures AFTER TAXES, even at the new rates? heck no.

 

[qtlaw]

You want to whine about the tax rates? Don't live in Rancho Sante Fe, California or wherever you are. Go move to Orlando, Florida, enjoy the mosquitos and humidity while we get breezeless 80's by the water. Yeah, there's a reason its sweet in California Phil, you'll just have to make do. WE DON'T NEED YOU!! WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OUR RATES FOR YOU!!

Don't like the U.S.? Move to Monte Carlo, we DON'T CARE!! Enjoy the proximity to the Eastern European border and NATO protection. Just don't pretend to live somewhere else, then jet back to the US every month because you enjoy the US health laws that give you piece of mind about your food and water supply.

 

[Double Down]

If Mickelson is paying 62 or 63 percent, he has absolutely the worst accountant ever. He can make his point without straight up fibbing about it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100398096

 

[Captain Obvious]

While Phil's not all that sympathetic here, pro golfers are very good examples of the effects of changes in marginal rates. If you just look at the golf portion of their income -- not endorsements, etc., just golf -- an increase in marginal rates is almost guaranteed to result in their playing fewer tournaments. A touring pro's travel overhead is fixed, and his income in a given week is iffy. The change in tax rates shifts the expected cost/benefits calculus such that it's almost a mathematical certainty that the established stars will be playing fewer tournaments, and the ones they'll play will have the richer purses. Bad news if you're running one of those mid-tier events, because you're going to have fewer big names in your field.

I didn't hear Phil talk about the ham-and-eggers on the Tour.

 

[LongTimeListener]

The idea that a golfer like Phil Mickelson would choose how many and which tournaments he plays because of his tax rate is ... well, it is not an idea befitting the mind of GeorgeFHayek.

Those guys choose their tournaments based on where they want to be in the competitive cycle (how long till the next major), prize money and appearance fees (which exist, they just exist as pro-am "participation"). It's the money that is the mid-tiers' problem, not the tax on that money.

 

[hondo]

Anyway, Phil said he was sorry today. Said his remarks were "insensitive" to people living paycheck to paycheck. Called his remarks "dumb."
http://www.pgatour.com/news/2013/01/23/mickelson-interview-at-torrey-pines.html

 

[JackReacher]

I get that Tiger cost himself tens of millions of dollars with the scandal a few years ago, but gosh darn. The guy still managed to rake $86 million last year, including $77 million off the course.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2013-03/photos-gd-50#intro

How about Davis Love III still bringing in $7 million in endorsements? Strong.

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

Surely someone had to tell Dopey McDimples how insensitive his comments are, since he is too forkin' stupid and aloof to figure it out on his own.