Feature: Are Golfers Paid Too Much For Losing

Colin Montgomery once said "to be truthful, I think golfers are overpaid. It's unreal, and I have trouble dealing with the guilt sometimes."1

The issue of money has come to pervade many sporting discussions. Are sports people paid too extravagantly? Do they merit all that money? Living in a society so consumed by wealth it seems inevitable that such issues would enter the sphere of sports. This is certainly true of Golf. Tiger Woods has already made over $40 million in prize money since turning professional in 1996. However what about the golfers who fail to reach the heights of his success?

Questions are constantly being raised over the excessive amounts plugged into golf. Essentially a game, golfers’ performances do not effect society; they do not serve society in the same way as doctors, teachers or politicians. However income seldom corresponds to the level of public service. In 2004 the Masters Tournament paid out $6.5 million in prize money. With the winner getting $1,170,000 of this money. However players as far back as 44th place got paid $22,750. This is an extortionate amount to be paid for not coming in a winning position.

There has consequently been much debate over whether golfers should in fact be paid so much when they lose a tournament. One hopes their desire to win is not stunted by the fact that they are still rewarded for losing. There can be a thin line between playing for enjoyment and playing for money. Perhaps they come hand in hand, inextricable. For the good of the game one hopes that enjoyment still outweighs the commercial benefits. However one cannot disagree that in recent years the commercial market has distracted from the true spirit of sports.

We live in a capitalist environment and sport has now become a lucrative market. Golf has always had a clean-cut image and so corporations tend to align themselves with this image, thus pumping more money into the game. Robert Green of Golf International reinforces this viewpoint stating “essentially people pay golfers because they think they are value for money.” Excuse the cliché but ‘money makes the world go round’ and this philosophy for better or for worst has come to determine many sports, golf included.

Golf, like most top class sports only hosts a few greats. Most people are not skilled enough to become professionals. Therefore one could argue that those participating in top competitions are in a way already winners, therefore do they not deserve a reward? Some would argue either way. We as fans demand a high quality of performance in tournaments. Yet if losers were not paid for their efforts they would have to have day jobs and then reduce the amount of time they spend practising. Inevitably their performance level would decrease and we would lose out on witnessing world-class golfers like Tiger Woods.

Furthermore high paid performers have a responsibility to entertain as well as to play to win, their aim is two-fold and in return for being constantly in the spot-light and continuously subjected to criticism and media hype they are paid huge sums. Sportspeople are glorified by supporters and turned into celebrities, which in turn earns them more money. There seems to be a vicious cycle. Sports stars are put on a pedestal and inherit fortunes from playing because of the huge fan base but subsequently they are subjected to criticism from the exact people who have enabled them to amass so much wealth.

In addition to this, few complain over the amounts agents, managers and corporations make. This is due to them being away from the public eye. Many feed off the success of athletes and gain the benefits without being subjected to the same public criticisms. It seems that we have come to focus on the labourer and not the owner.

One must also remember that unlike football and many American sports, golfers are not granted a basic salary. Robert Green adds that “you can earn an awful lot of money in golf, however they are paid essentially on what they deliver. It can all be taken away tomorrow.” Therefore the competitions and endorsements are golfers main income. If David Beckham broke his leg he would be covered through his contract, however a golfer is not granted such luxuries.

There are also benefits involved with such huge amounts pumped into the sport as it attracts younger players and has revitalised golf from a traditional game for the rich and privileged into a game open to all ages, abilities and class. It has gained appeal and produced sporting greats in the process.

The world is riddled with disagreements and complexities. A day doesn’t go by without finances being thought about. Therefore it is unfair to stereotype and only question golf. Living in a society, which is dictated by wealth, it is difficult not to become consumed by what can be obtained through money.

In the last decade the Premiership has been dominated by Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea, yet the rest of the teams in the league are being paid salaries when they fail to win the championship year in year out. Is this not the same situation as in golf? This problem does not merely pervade sport. If you exit the realm of games it can be witnessed everywhere. Music artists who fail to reach number one or teachers in failing schools, film stars who can call on £20 million a movie and fail to reach number one in the box office. They are all being paid even though they are essentially not winning, but losing. Life is full of failures and losses, but it is also full of winning, conquering and success. Nobody likes losing but inevitably those things happen, in every race there must be participants.

John Wooden once said, "Never believe you're better than anyone else, but remember that you're just as good as everyone else."2 It is unfair to judge who is better as each tournament poses a new test and sometimes produces a new winner. All players are striving to become better and should be given a chance to have a fair race, if this means providing players with money in tier order of how they faired in a tournament then it seems a fair price.