Hey guys - new to the Nest so I thought I’d jump right into the belly of the beast.
I think it could be partially a bandwidth issue. With women’s tennis you have them playing the same event on basically the same channels as the men. If I am a tennis fan, I know Wimbledon is coming up and I only have one thing on my mind - the men and women will be playing Wimbledon. The men and women build off each other and actually make each event a bigger deal. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
For golf, if I am interested in watching men’s and women’s tournaments, I have to not only get up to speed on a new group of players but I also have to figure out what channel the women are on (exposure issue) and then I have to learn the course they are playing to really enjoy the tournament. The two don’t build off each other at all. If anything, they detract from each other with the women bearing the burden in lost exposure. Mike Whan’s interview would support this as well. He said the LPGA’s best ratings are when golf fans can switch back and forth between the men’s and women’s events simultaneously.
I think one possible solution would be to start with the US Open and do what they did in Pinehurst in 2014 (the Masters would be better but shutting down a private course for an extra week every year probably isn’t doable and they do have the Amateur tournament). Ideally they could play the tournaments together but to start just have them play the same courses in consecutive weeks. Ratings for the women’s Open were up in 2014 - NBC Has Best U.S. Women's Open Since 2008 - Sports Media Watch.
Granted you could put literally anything on Augusta National and people would watch it but that’s kinda the point. Let the women’s tournaments and the men’s tournaments feed off each other. Then the great story lines from one tournament bleed into the other tournament.
I don’t even know what you’re reading to say that. And you can look up the same definition of “discussion” as I can.
I think the U.S. Open versus USWO purses were $12.5M and $5.5M. That’s a fairly good sized gap, particularly as they’re not going to be dropping the men’s purse size.
Yes, yes, yes!
But as you would admit, this is where we are now, and Mike Whan seems to think we’ll be much farther along than I do.
@Randy, when do you think we’ll have five or more comparable events on the PGA Tour and LPGA Tours that have an equal-sized purse? What answer do you think Mike Whan would give?
Maybe the whole thing I’ve got wrong here is that Mike would have voted “15 years” in the poll if that was an option. That’s what my vote is (I voted within 20 years). Maybe I misread what it “seems like” he would say for a timeline. Maybe I read his comments about the joint events (and their likelihood) as being about this purse size issue, too?
Point is some seem to be acting as if I voted never (like the first quote in this post). I voted within 20, and I’m curious as to, again, the “when” and “how” things can get there sooner.
Since I’m not a course superintendent, I’d love to hear how easy or hard it is to do something like this. I’d like to think this is something that could happen more and more, even for regular events, but I’m not sure if it’s possible.
I laid that out earlier with some facts. Total prize money and major purses are increasing at a % much higher than the men. The demographics of the game are changing. The LPGA is fighting for more network time, and the asian gambling stat can not be overlooked.
The problem is you want a hard and fast number. None of us know that, but the facts say it will happen
Let’s also acknowledge that 26% of the 42 people who voted on your garbage poll. Voted for “Butthurt/Steve/Pizza”.
To be clear I voted for 5 years. My reasoning here is based on facts;
Fact 1 - Mike Whan has all the facts, proofs and reasoning beyond what we would ever have.
Fact 2 - Mike Whan is the professional.
So it is my opinion that Mike Whan is far more qualified than you and will likely be far more accurate than you, your ridiculous poll or your never ending parade of why women/women’s professional sports will never be of equal value to men’s.
Yes, that was a good post, with facts. I remember asking about the adjustment for # of events.
When do those lines cross or meet, if they continue the current trajectory of the past 10 years? Granted, that would be for “all” or “averages” to meet, not just five+ events, but when do they meet?
And women’s sports can grow… but still be way behind the men for awhile. A 34% increase sounds great, but it was still < 10% of the viewers for the worst rated NBA finals game this year.
Not sure I’ve seen the betting/gambling part mentioned here. I never would have thought that gambling on LPGA would hold much value, but seeing that 75% of sports gambling comes from Asia (Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that’s what Whan mentioned), the LPGA has a unique opportunity to expand on the opportunity. My guess is that stateside gambling on LPGA would only increase viewership and fandom as well.
paging @DavidElliottHHCC. feasability of course holding up to two major tournaments playing concurrently over the span of ~1 week. men and women playing different days until the cut when they all start to play the same day.
Start with 3. USGA. R&A. PGA. They host equivalent championships where the difference is the sex of the field. They choose to pay out those championships differently. They do not have to make that choice.
You provided a 5.5 /12.5MM split. Let’s shift that to 8/10, and then figure out how we can find another $2M for the women. The men’s purse can’t go down you say? Ask why that is. Because the system can only work for them? It can never disadvantage them?
