The concert example with one band is inapposite. However, this could be analogized to a music festival. Let's use dear old Ozzy, perhaps, and say Ozzfest involves 25 bands over three days (so, uh, four golfers per band).

Would it be disappointing if Ozzy didn't show? Certainly, but with such a large field the attraction was less one single person rather than a large bundle of entertainment you might not get otherwise, even if by attending a festival or a (cough, cough) second-rate tournament you know that it's not necessarily going to be legendary sets from each band.

In fact, I'd argue that the loss of Tiger in this situation is actually blunted by the larger field. Contra a hypothetical limited scramble match or driving competition where he's featured prominently in a narrow field of 20 or so other golfers (the one-night concert where he's the headlining band). In that situation his presence is much more important. But in the expanded field, the larger value is of the breadth of the field.

This hypothetical is broken if we assume that Tiger is the sole, or majority, motivating factor of fan attendance. That's simply not true, although he is a huge draw. It may serve to be a good "out" for disappointed sponsors and promoters, but they should really be looking at the field of golfers who did show or the amenities offered by the tournament. (The prices seemed ultra-reasonable, though).

 gorjus -- 7/03/2007 12:06 PM  

Had the promoters known Tiger was not playing, perhaps ticket purchasers could complain. I have a friend who got Tigers autograph just before the tournament. So clearly, Tiger *intended* to play, and there was no bad faith promotion in this event.

 Anonymous -- 7/03/2007 4:00 PM  

Perhaps this would turn on the consumer protection laws of the state of Michigan? Typical consumer protection laws involve a misrepresentation that induced a consumer to enter into the transaction. There is no good-faith or bad-faith exceptions, the question is just whether there is a misrepresentation.

I doubt whether a picture of Tiger on a poster could rise to the level of an affirmative representation, but perhaps it might be plausible? So, if it were deemed a representation, all that would matter is whether it turned out to be false.

Anybody know the status of consumer protection laws out there in Michigan?

 Anonymous -- 7/03/2007 6:32 PM  

ESPN's Terry Blount recently observed that NASCAR is unwilling to suspend drivers or racing teams for even the most serious rules violations, for precisely the reason Michael is getting at: NASCAR doesn't want to alienate fans who come to a race to see one particular driver, much less the sponsors of that driver, in the one week where that driver happens to be suspended.

Also, the NBA has been known to discipline coaches or even whole clubs for supposedly failing to field their best competitive team when the coach sits his star players in meaningless late regular-season games, to avoid serious injuries before the playoffs. (This practice, it should be stressed, is not the same animal as "tanking".) I recall the Chicago Bulls being fined for this on at least one occasion during the Jordan-Pippen era. In spite of the NBA's competitive pretense, undoubtedly the same principle applied: the league didn't want to disappoint paying customers, TV viewers or advertisers who were expecting to see the big stars in action.

So, it seems the policies regarding the appearance of star performers (either explicitly advertised or merely presumed) vary from sport to sport, and no doubt change with the times. In short, that's the business side of sport for you.

 Joshua -- 7/04/2007 1:17 PM  

It's a PGA event. The most high profile golfer in the PGA is Tiger. It only makes sense for the PGA to use Tiger's image when advertising it's events. I think the majority of the spectators are sophisticated enough to understand that when you buy the ticket there is no guarantee that you will see any specific golfer. If you had tickets for the second day and tiger was cut after the first day you couldn't complain right?

 Jimmy H -- 7/04/2007 4:31 PM  

Just ask us in Colorado about the "Tiger effect" on the International--cancelled after 20 years, only two or three times did Tiger show up, and none after 1998. I remember reading, the year before Tiger, that this was the fifth-highest-rated event on television for the Tour--only behind the four majors! Now, any event with Tiger in the field gets high ratings; no Tiger, lower ratings . . .

 Anonymous -- 7/05/2007 2:58 AM  

Post a Comment