ShareThis Page
Pay to watch golf? Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson in money grab |
U.S./World Sports

Pay to watch golf? Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson in money grab

The Associated Press
| Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:54 a.m
Phil Mickelson hits a shot on the sixth hole during the third round of the Northern Trust golf tournament, Saturday, Aug. 25, 2018, in Paramus, N.J. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)
Tiger Woods hits a tee shot on the fifth hole during the final round of the Northern Trust golf tournament, Sunday, Aug. 26, 2018, in Paramus, N.J. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)
FILE - In this May 10, 2018, file photo, Phil Mickelson, left, and Tiger Woods shake hands after the first round of the Players Championship golf tournament, in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. The winner-take-all match between Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson is on. WarnerMedia says it has secured the rights for a pay-per-view event it is promoting as 'The Match.' It will be 18 holes between Woods and Mickelson held Thanksgiving weekend at Shadow Creek in Las Vegas. The winner will receive $9 million. The pay-per-view cost is to be announced later. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File)

It’s probably pure coincidence that the Tiger Woods-Phil Mickelson match on Thanksgiving weekend was announced the same week as the first anniversary of one of the biggest con jobs in pay-per-view history.

You might remember a year ago when Conor McGregor went from mixed martial arts into boxing to challenge Floyd Mayweather Jr., and the gullible fans of UFC couldn’t wait to plunk down $100 to see all the action unfold on their TV screens at home.

Unfortunately there wasn’t much action, much as predicted beforehand by those who saw through the smokescreen and recognized the whole thing as a farce. Mayweather systematically broke McGregor down in a mismatch that went into the 10th round only because Mayweather carried McGregor to appease the crowd that paid to see it.

That’s not to say the so-called fight wasn’t a success, at least for the bank accounts of both men. It may have bordered on WWE, but it made Mayweather $300 million or so and gave McGregor a reputed $100 million payday that he could have never gotten toiling in UFC.

Woods and Mickelson won’t make that kind of money, not even close. The winner of their 18-hole match is supposedly guaranteed $9 million, while the loser will have to hope there are golf fans eager to buy the match so there will be a cut of the pay-per-view revenue to take back home on the private jet.

Thankfully, their match in Las Vegas likely won’t cost close to $100, either, though you will have to pay something to watch all the, er, action unfold. The price hasn’t been officially set for golf’s first pay-per-view, but the general consensus is it will be in the $20-30 range.

So what will you get for the money that you don’t get every week the two play on the PGA Tour? Well, so far the best Woods and Mickelson are offering is some trash talk as they make their way around the Shadow Creek golf club the day after Thanksgiving.

They are also promising some side bets, including perhaps a long drive wager. None of it with their own money, of course, but the broadcast will need a lot of filler to pad the time between actual shots.

So far, the match hasn’t gotten nearly the hype Mayweather and McGregor generated to fuel pay-per-view buys for their fight. The response has been lukewarm at best, with golf fans complaining online about having to pay money to watch the kind of thing they’ve always gotten for free.

“You should be ashamed at the PPV choice,” one wrote to Mickelson as he made his debut on Twitter to promote the match.

Actually, there’s nothing to be ashamed of. The Woods-Mickelson match is, as Woods is fond of saying, what it is. And what it is is a calculated money grab that should pay off handsomely for two players who between them have only one win in the past five years.

It doesn’t matter that the match is so contrived that Mickelson had to sign up for Twitter to promote it. Woods and Mickelson won’t draw anywhere near the 4.3 million pay-per-view buys generated by McGregor and Mayweather but there are enough golf super fans who will be willing to spend money to get what they believe will be the inside look at the players they have followed over the years.

Again, nothing wrong with that. They’ll have a little less Christmas money, but the memory forever of having Woods tell Mickelson, “No you’re up.”

Yes it would be a lot more fun if they were playing for their own money. Even more fun if Mickelson was playing Billy Walters, the golf hustler and gambler he got involved in insider trading with. Unfortunately, Walters is in prison for his part in that scheme and they don’t give out day passes in the federal system.

It’s silly season golf, a tradition that goes way back. The Skins game was a Thanksgiving weekend staple for years on network TV, and before that Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player teamed up in a series of televised exhibitions called Big Three Golf.

The money is a lot bigger now, and so is the marketing machine. Woods and Mickelson will both do their best to generate some as the match approaches, even if their showdown is probably 20 years past their prime.

Enjoy it if you can’t resist, but remember what it is that you’re buying. In the end, much like Mayweather-McGregor, it’s a glorified exhibition with only one real overriding purpose.

And that’s to separate dollars from your bank account.


Tim Dahlberg is a national sports columnist for The Associated Press. Write to him at or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.