So it transpires Rory McIlroy isn’t the only person to link golf and legal affairs this week. In the United States, the long-running grievance of caddies over the commercial logos on their bibs resulted in a lawsuit being filed against the PGA Tour on Tuesday. In short, the caddies object to the fact they aren’t paid for or consulted over Tour sponsors’ badges on their person during events; an issue they value at $50m (£32.8m) a year. The caddies also insist they have never agreed to the PGA Tour using their images or likenesses for promotional material.
Gene Egdorf, the lawyer acting on behalf of 81 caddies in this case, explained: “This lawsuit is intended to protect the rights of caddies who are required to endorse tour sponsors with zero compensation from the PGA Tour.
“Any working professional deserves to be paid based on the income they generate, but that’s not happening on the PGA Tour.”
The Tour has declined to comment in response but it can be assumed the body won’t be amused by this negative publicity. The caddies for McIlroy, Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson are reported as “supportive” but not part of the group of 81. Those working on behalf of other top PGA Tour players such as Jimmy Walker, Steve Stricker and Zach Johnson are represented. A key point, of course, is that caddies are employed by individual golfers rather than any tour.
There is a wider debate in play here. That is, the treatment of caddies as second-class citizens or otherwise by those who derive riches from golfing sponsors. There was a horrible snapshot of this in Europe last year, when the Madeira Open was allowed to reach conclusion despite the death of a caddie, Iain McGregor, on the course during the final round.
The European Tour were at pains to say otherwise, but the clear implication was that it was “only a caddie” who had passed away. Added, of course, to the spurious and unprovable argument that he would have wanted the event to conclude, anyway.
Caddies at the upper echelons of golf can earn a fantastic living. But it comes at a cost; inevitably the caddie will be blamed for a missed putt or over-hit pitch, sometimes quite viciously, routinely without justification. They are the instant buffer for a golfer’s frustration.
Theirs can also be a perilous role. Players can chop and change caddies on a whim. If a caddie is out of work, or employed by a player who is struggling himself to collect meaningful prize cash, life is a struggle. This is a very tough, rather nomadic career which tests character more than casual onlookers would appreciate.
Treatment of caddies has generally improved in recent times but the odd worrying tale still emanates. In the specific context of this case, it is alleged that the PGA Tour treats caddies as “second-class participants of the game”. Papers point towards an incident at the Barclays tournament in 2013, when during a rain delay some visiting wives and children of caddies weren’t allowed into a caddie shelter despite there apparently being plenty of room.
The location of this case is telling. It has been filed to the same Californian court which provided landmark rulings in relation to college athletes and payment for image rights. The PGA Tour has shown no willingness to bow to the demands of caddies thus far; whether such a serious step forward by the frustrated group changes that stance will prove fascinating.
Perspective needed over Sky deal
The debate about what impact the decision to move the Open Championship to Sky Sports will have on golf is a valid one. In many respects, it had been played out long before Tuesday’s confirmation of the new deal from 2017 onwards.
Still, there have been a couple of ludicrous points over the past 24 hours. One, that Sky should somehow be criticised for removing another marquee event from a terrestrial platform. The satellite broadcaster has enhanced and invested heavily in its coverage of this sport in recent years; this is merely the next step. Sky is simply doing its job. It just so happens its scaling up in golf has coincided with the complete opposite from the BBC.
Another strange argument is the one which lambasts the Royal & Ancient for “only doing this to make money”. Isn’t that as perfectly obvious as it is legitimate? Such money, it should be remembered, is invested back into the game. It isn’t trousered by executives.
The R&A has a clear and deep-rooted responsibility to develop golf. It seems bizarre to criticise more investment as it seeks to honour the same.
Johnson’s battle of credibility
Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson have won a dozen times between them at Torrey Pines but key interest may be elsewhere at this weekend’s Farmers Insurance Open.
Dustin Johnson returns to competitive action after a six-month break to handle “personal issues”. The absence is as curious now as it was in August, a matter only emphasised by golf’s veil of secrecy in such scenarios. Johnson has the talent to be one of the best players in the world; the recurring question surrounds whether or not he has the maturity to match.
