Lifetime Membership to the European Tour

This is something I briefly touched on before in a thread about an ET event. It has again come to light this week and something I find quite infuriating. Probably me being a saddo for letting it bother me but it really does when I look at who has lifetime membership and think about what have they really achieved to be given such an award.

This week the tour announce 2 new lifetime members to the tour for apparently service to the tour! Those new entrants were Darren Clarke, one I would not argue with as he has been on tour for 20years, won numerous times, been influential in Ryder cups both as a player and vice captain and who could forget the memories of his performance after the loss of his wife. He has now capped this off with a win in protugal this year and by picking up the Claret Jug with some fine play at RSG.

McIlroy however gets my goat. What the hell has this kid done for the tour. He won in Dubai a couple years back, then toddled off to the states leaving the ET behind, only to come back this year after realising he wasn't enjoying life stateside. No-one of that I hold against him whatsoever. He then astounds us with some sublime golf at the US Open and was deserved winner. I'm sorry though this has no way earned him the right to be a lifetime member of the ET for so called services to the tour. Yes he should get what is deserved his 5year exemption as a major winner but he does not deserve lifetime membership NO, maybe in another 15 years yes give the guy it if he continues as he is but not after less than 4years as a pro.

This leads me to look at other recent inductees as lifetime members Charl Schwartzel again he gets it on the back of his Masters win and not for services to the tour, same as Kaymer great year last year, average this year a good player with a great career ahead but not a deserved lifetime member yet! Then the other 2 from last year GMac and Oosthuizen, Gmac again great last year pretty poor this year does not yet deserve such an accolade nor does King Louis.

If you were to say what is the entry criteria I couldn't tell you but it should be far more than winning one major and having a decent season. As I say no issue with Clarke for long service and topping it off with a Major fair play and deserved.

Guys that deserve it like Monty multiple Order of merit winner, a ryder cup record that is nothing short of outstanding and a winning RC captain, he's not everyones cup of tea, but he has in my mind at least earned life membership through his services to the tour. Much like Sir Nick Faldo or Seve multiple major winners, mulitple wins on tour and former Ryder cup captains. Even Woosie and Langer and Olazabal with the number of years they gave to the tour and RC are deserved but not this new breed who have not been around long enough to qualify under the criteria of services to the ET

Seems to be the way with all things Mav. Like with OBEs etc, theyre running out of worthy people and so the entry criteria becomes less and less!

Agree 100%. Bloody sycophants. Is it true Chubby Chandler got himself a lifetime exemption too? Just asking . . . . .

Right with you here. You'd think for McIlroy, Schwartzel, Oosthuizen etc would be OK with their 5 year (or whatever it is) exemptions for their Major win. It's hardly "services to the ET" now is it? What "services" exactly?

It just seems to me that the first time they awarded this to a major winner (whose win will have provided the ET with a lot of publicity and extra sponsor interest, that's 'what services'? nbs) they set a precedent that they can't now very well not repeat.

I don't think any of the players we're talking about are likely to lose their cards ahead of time, anyway, and nor are they likely to keep turning up at the Madeira Island Open when they're in their seventies, so is it really that much of an issue?

Another thing is players like Gmac. King Louis and Schartzel are all awared this accolade and then immdeiately after turn and take up full time PG membership and that for me is another thing that cheapens the lifetime membership award

So what does lifetime membership get you?

does it mean you can play any ET event you like for the rest of your life. regardless of your OWGR or money list position?

Mac thats exactly what Lifetime membeship will get you on the ET. Entry to any event you choose to play regardless of OGWR, money list position and not having to meet the minimum number of events to maintain your card

Thing is though McIlroy is very young. Though it's not very likely, it's possible that he could lose form and drop down the rankings like a stone, I state not very likely, but it can happen.

His exemptions run out, then the tour is faced with a player who can play every single event when struggling to break 80 (I give you Michael Campbell). Would it be okay for Campbell to be in all the big ET events playing like he is (though slightly improved lately) for the next 10 - 15 years?

I re-inforce my point, not very likely but possible. Of course he will always draw a crowd whatever form he is in so I think that is what the tour is more interested in.

So does monty have it?


It is very astonishing that the likes og gmac, oost, Rory, schwartzel and kaymer go this. Any one of them could be finished by 30-35 at about 500 in the world rankings and keep turning up to miss the cut by 5 shots for 20 years.

Nobody should have it, it's a joke. You should play a sport on merit not past achievements.

Diggers wrote:Nobody should have it, it's a joke. You should play a sport on merit not past achievements.

Good point.

McLaren wrote:So does monty have it?


It is very astonishing that the likes og gmac, oost, Rory, schwartzel and kaymer go this. Any one of them could be finished by 30-35 at about 500 in the world rankings and keep turning up to miss the cut by 5 shots for 20 years.

Yes Monty does have it but as far as i'm aware has not had it that long. Thats my issue with it they are still relatively young in their careers and have not earned it. They could well end up like Campbell and turn up week in week out just making up the numbers..

I think the PGA tours version is much better in that it is only award post career dependant on success and what you have done for the tour and are then only aloowed to play a limited number of events each year that is agreed with the tour and not ones you can just pick and choose. e.g Nick Price when he played at PGA National was on eof only 5 events he was allowed to play this year.

If Monty doesn't have it, I would be gobsmacked and it should be sorted. As for those names mentioned most of which are on the Tubby Tour, do we need to read something else into Chubby's new found relationship with the ET?

Lifetime membership or in other walks of life 'Lifetime Achievement' Awards are just that, for services over many years in their respective fields. This smacks of rewarding new stars by allowing them to jet back and forth between the 2 tours to suit themselves.

Doc wrote:If Monty doesn't have it, I would be gobsmacked and it should be sorted. As for those names mentioned most of which are on the Tubby Tour, do we need to read something else into Chubby's new found relationship with the ET?

Lifetime membership or in other walks of life 'Lifetime Achievement' Awards are just that, for services over many years in their respective fields. This smacks of rewarding new stars by allowing them to jet back and forth between the 2 tours to suit themselves.

Im struggling to think of any other sports that allow contined participation because of past success.

You'd also be hard pushed to find another sport where it's paticpents can have such long and distinguished careers so have no need for such an accolade....

Steve McLaren keeps getting offered jobs

It seems to be the ET frightened of losing our latest stars to the USPGA with their new earning potential. So decided to keep hold of them by allowing them to come back and play when they want?

Would be good to see if Poults tweets about this, because he and others had to make decisions at the end of last season about which tour and how many events etc

Trying to do some digging re: what the criteria for ET life membership is and looks like the stanadrd for this was set sometime ago not a recent thing. Can't find actual list of what means you get given this accolade as yet but appears Trevor Immellman was also awarded this after his Masters win! looks omminously like Michael Campbell has this too from what I can find. I think this is a bad move for the ET

MustPuttBetter wrote:Steve McLaren keeps getting offered jobs

Only when a free umbrella is included to go missing under in the rain...

Monty ?! I think Jakarta should have put an end to any thought of a lifetime award/membership......

goodwalkspoiled wrote:Monty ?! I think Jakarta should have put an end to any thought of a lifetime award/membership......

Agreed

I'm not sure that one "questionable" incident should reflect what was a fantastic career for the European Tour. Monty deserves his lifetime exemption more than most as he supported the Tour when a lot of players were elsewhere.

As for the current dishing out of lifetime exemptions, unless the ET decide to change their rules so that any major winner gets a lifetime exemption then it is just plain wrong. Wouldn't surprise me if Chubby Chandler hasn't got a lot to do with it as he now must carry a huge amount of weight ( ) with ET officials now that his players are the ones that everyone wants to see. Fair play to him if he has as it's his sole job to get the best for his players but the ET would be wiser staying strong and not pandering to an agent.

I'm wondering how long it will take Chubby to copyright the term ChubbySlam if he gets the winner from the upcoming PGA.

sharrison

Couldn't agree less I'm afraid..... If a certain Mr Saltman went on to have a carreer like Monty's would you feel the same about him ?

If, If and if.

I don't think the two incidents were comparable at all!

goodwalkspoiled wrote:sharrison

Couldn't agree less I'm afraid..... If a certain Mr Saltman went on to have a carreer like Monty's would you feel the same about him ?

Saltman's cheating is something I can't get my head around as to what sort of advantage it was gaining him. Marking at 8pm and replacing at 2pm or whatever it was, only gains half a turn of the ball and not making much of a difference to the line or length of his putts. It is still wrong and he deserved punishment. Monty's cheating was blatant and improved his stance to enable him to play a recovery which then subsequently gave him enough points to gain entry to the US Open. A desperate act of a desperate man. Either way, both are cheats and shouldn't be considered for any special awards, end of.

Nothing like the Saltman incident?!? He consciously cheated on several occasions whereas Monty made a single mistake that his playing partners and the referees were also accountable for as he asked their advice before making it. He also gave away his winnings as that was all he could do after realising his mistake.

but not the World Ranking points.....

I find it hard to believe that someone who was struggling as much as Monty was to get a stance [to the extent that he was getting very annoyed and frustrated at the situation] would forget the position he was in overnight. Ended up with both feet outwith the bunker without a difficult stance at all.

The context of the situation was that he was toiling to get into the Ryder Cup team or a Major [can't recall which] and the points meant more to the [multi millionaire] golfer than the money did.

Personally think Monty got bad press for that, why did no-one criticise the officials in the aftermath of the incident, yes it was incorrectly replaced etc but he was advised by the officials as well on the incident.

He also asked his playing partners and all were happy for him to put the ball down where he did. Monty's incident was a mistake by a big baby when he wasn't playing well - he was having a stinker and stormed off the course without thinking about what he was doing and when he returned he took the advice of his playing partners and the referees which turned out to all be wrong after viewing it again on the TV.

Easy to point to him giving his winnings away as a millionaire but he didn't have to and that seems to be a common way of criticising someone that people don't like - give to charity and they should as they can afford to, don't give to charity and they're an ass hole. He didn't give back his ranking points because this had never been done before and he thought that it could not be done.

Hardly the behaviour of a conceited cheat and this was the only questionable incident in a long and successful career that supported the European Tour when very few were. (Am now waiting for people to now point out that he couldn't make it in the US anyway - the same could be said of a lot of players that deserted the ET in favour of the better fields and bigger purses of the PGA)

I have always understood that golf is self regulatory and the ultimate responsibiliy rests with the player. What others [who would have been paying far less attention to Monty's lie than he was I am sure] thought the situation was does not absolve him from responsibility as far as I am concerned.

I also do find it difficult to believe that Monty thought that the lie he ended up with was close to the lie he had been so steamed up about a day before but ....

Re the ranking points, I would imagine that he only had to ask [which he seems happy to have done re the lie in the first place from what you have indicated].

I am not getting at him for giving away the winnings but just making the point that, given his financial situation, that probably did not hurt him the way it would many others. Losing the ranking points would have cost him more money ...............

We'll have to just beg to differ on this one I think, sharrison !

Not so long ago - mid 2000s - Vijay Singh's merits on the US PGA Tour were always highlighted on the ET website as "another good result from European Tour member Vijay Singh". Usually it had its own dedicated article and was often top news on the website. And this despite he had hardly played a regular ET event in 10+ years.

I always found that strange and quite academic (but was of course partly a symptom that the ET had few successes at the time).

But in that light, Mav's article makes good sense. Life membership should only be awarded to players at the end of their career -- not to youngish players whom we might never see on the ET again.

sharrison01 wrote:I'm not sure that one "questionable" incident should reflect what was a fantastic career for the European Tour. Monty deserves his lifetime exemption more than most as he supported the Tour when a lot of players were elsewhere.

As for the current dishing out of lifetime exemptions, unless the ET decide to change their rules so that any major winner gets a lifetime exemption then it is just plain wrong. Wouldn't surprise me if Chubby Chandler hasn't got a lot to do with it as he now must carry a huge amount of weight ( :yahoo: ) with ET officials now that his players are the ones that everyone wants to see. Fair play to him if he has as it's his sole job to get the best for his players but the ET would be wiser staying strong and not pandering to an agent.

Not sure it's fair to pile into Montgomerie when his career is pretty much done but I don't think this is the only incident he's been involved in. There was a very dodgy moment in the Volvo Masters in I think 2002 when he tied with Langer after it got too dark to complete the play-off. Don't remember it exactly but I think during the last round Montgomerie missed a putt and in a typical fit of pique jabbed at the ball which, although TV pictures were inconclusive, I'm pretty sure hit the putter. As with the other incident only he will know for sure but it definitely looked dodgy to me.

Even so I'd still say he more than anyone would/should qualify for lifetime membership of the European Tour.

Rory again proves my point that this accolade is no longer being given to deserving long serving ET members that have shown appreciation to the tour and its fans.

9months after quiting the states saying ET was his home and where he belongs long term. He wins a major, gets life membership (undeserved) then says "I play my best golf in america and it feels like home" so is looking at homes in Flordia and going back to the PGA...

Life membership has been cheapened again and he will use it to only play when he can be bothered as he now no longer needs to meet minimum number of events and ET can't rescind what has already wrongly been awarded. So its back to PGA for Rory and and 2 fingers to the ET

Diggers wrote:

Doc wrote:If Monty doesn't have it, I would be gobsmacked and it should be sorted. As for those names mentioned most of which are on the Tubby Tour, do we need to read something else into Chubby's new found relationship with the ET?

Lifetime membership or in other walks of life 'Lifetime Achievement' Awards are just that, for services over many years in their respective fields. This smacks of rewarding new stars by allowing them to jet back and forth between the 2 tours to suit themselves.

Im struggling to think of any other sports that allow contined participation because of past success.

Darts and snooker

Mav,
How would this affect Ryder Cup eligibility, if McIlroy chose not to fulfil minimum European Tour event requirements - 13?
Seems to me the European Tour is going to have its work cut out in 2012 as several players are going to be right on the edge of retaining Tour eligibility. Interesting yesterday watching Luke Donald talk about his struggle to fit 13 in this year.

All these guys are going to have the PGA Tour's FedEx Play-Off noose around their neck, as Casey (especially) and Poulter are finding this year.

If McIlroy plays this year's silly season events, he runs the risk of not getting any proper break for more than 18 months, McDowell also.

Kwini

This is one of the issues of being awarded such an accolade so early in a career. DC for example even if he never plays ryder cup again has had a good run and deserves it at his stage of his career. But Rory is now going to struggle to meet the minimum required especially as the Ryder now falls into the period of the Fed Ex silly season.

The only way they can make it I can think is from the world list players, but this means a lot of players that you would think are Ryder cup definates will miss out as Casey and Rose did last time. If you look at 5 top world list players your looking at least 2 bigger name good match players never making the team unless they get a captains pick but will that be deserced if their are guys on the fringe of points qualifciation in europe and in form.

It really is becoming increasingly more difficult to play minimum of 13 events if your a PGA tour regular because the Fed-Ex is slap bang mid season/end of summer. Whereas when it was the regular money list culminating in the Tour Championship (a better way of judging the T30 if you ask me) it was easier to pick and choose enough events. Now though it's just not possible to give the commitment and they spread themselves to thin much to the detriment of their games just look at McDowells performances this year as a result

Personally I think the whole concept of loyalty to tours is a complete crock.
Last year Rory was lauded for returning to Europe, the facts were it just suited him and his schedule and life at the time. I would say exactly was the same for Monty during his career, he could win over here and he saw his family while still playing 8-10 times a year in the States anyway at his peak. Same for Westwood, these guys are selfish competitive pros who will make decisions that are best for them, not for the punters or for the governing bodies.
Golf should be like any industry, you "work" for the tour for a number of years when you get a gold watch, not a free meal ticket to plod round a golf course when you are past your sell by.
The idea of giving full time membership to younger players is just stupid beyond belief IMO.

Maverick wrote:...Life membership has been cheapened again and he will use it to only play when he can be bothered as he now no longer needs to meet minimum number of events and ET can't rescind what has already wrongly been awarded. So its back to PGA for Rory and and 2 fingers to the ET

Indeed. Good riddance. Enjoy your gated 'community'.

Diggers wrote:...The idea of giving full time membership to younger players is just stupid beyond belief IMO.

Re. the Ryder Cup, not sure McIlroy will be that big a miss (if he doesn't make it) TBH.

Diggers wrote:Personally I think the whole concept of loyalty to tours is a complete crock.
Last year Rory was lauded for returning to Europe, the facts were it just suited him and his schedule and life at the time. I would say exactly was the same for Monty during his career, he could win over here and he saw his family while still playing 8-10 times a year in the States anyway at his peak. Same for Westwood, these guys are selfish competitive pros who will make decisions that are best for them, not for the punters or for the governing bodies.
Golf should be like any industry, you "work" for the tour for a number of years when you get a gold watch, not a free meal ticket to plod round a golf course when you are past your sell by.
The idea of giving full time membership to younger players is just stupid beyond belief IMO.

What you trying to say here about Monty and Westwood? You are almost speaking like players schedules should be set up for them by the USPGA or the European tour. I dont see how a golf pro should make the decision to play anywhere to please the punters or the governing body.

Sorry, you have got completely the wrong end of the stick Sand.
Im saying the players decide where they want to play, not out of loyalty to the PGA or European Tour but to suit themselves. Which is fine, I think thats how it should be, but it bores me when people bang on about what a great servant Monty was to the Tour when ultimately playing most of his golf there just suited what he wanted to do.

Sand wrote:

Diggers wrote:Personally I think the whole concept of loyalty to tours is a complete crock.
Last year Rory was lauded for returning to Europe, the facts were it just suited him and his schedule and life at the time. I would say exactly was the same for Monty during his career, he could win over here and he saw his family while still playing 8-10 times a year in the States anyway at his peak. Same for Westwood, these guys are selfish competitive pros who will make decisions that are best for them, not for the punters or for the governing bodies.
Golf should be like any industry, you "work" for the tour for a number of years when you get a gold watch, not a free meal ticket to plod round a golf course when you are past your sell by.
The idea of giving full time membership to younger players is just stupid beyond belief IMO.

What you trying to say here about Monty and Westwood? You are almost speaking like players schedules should be set up for them by the USPGA or the European tour. I dont see how a golf pro should make the decision to play anywhere to please the punters or the governing body.

What a pro does is at the start of a season is commit to a home tour! Meaning one tour is their main tour and they must play a minimum number of events I believe the ET's is 13 and PGA is 15. So they do in fact have a commiment to the tours they play and the Life membership basically scraps the rules and lets them do what they want and in Rory's case has allowed him to go back to the PGA knowing his ET membership is guaranteed no matter what. Which at his age is a joke.

It's a complete U-turn from him and one that is now gong to put RC qualifaction further up the shoot but based on Rors matchplay record I don;t think he'd be missed except by his buddy Gmac and his form is so poor he will plummet down the rankings and not deserve his place anyway

The thing that is difficult to convey is that the PGA Tour commitment is really for at least 16 tournaments, possibly 17.
And, if you doubt that, check out the plight of Casey and Oosthuizen if they fail to make the Play-Offs - they'll be short about two or three events and will then have to play Fall Series tournaments. OK for the Tour, but not much good for them; Stenson had exactly that issue last year and he ended up sleep-walking through the "Fall", somewhat ridiculously.

My tuppence worth is that on the surface it basically looks like the ETs decision to award McIlroy lifetime membership has backfired as the tours biggest crowdpuller will be swanning off back to the States. On the other hand it could be seen as a shrewd move. Like him or loathe him Mcilroys performance at Congressional was a game changer in terms of his worldwide popularity. The ET will have expected that greater demands would be made on McIlroys schedule with more pressure to play in the States. What they've effectively done is give him the flexibility to arrange his schedule as he sees fit.
The 2 tours are a lot closer now than they used to be in terms of cash available and strength of fields. I think they need to get to the point where they stop competing for the best players. Golf is a global game and the sooner it has a global tour the better, the big crowd pullers (McIlroy, Big Phil, the world number 21 whatever his name is) should be able to ply their trade globally without having to pander to the intricacies of individual tour protectionism. I thought it was refreshing (despite his comments) to see Watson play a few ET events, likewise DJ. Also good that Big Phil is contemplating spending more time in Europe.
Life is too short for petty tour rivalry (save that for the biennial jamboree called the Ryder Cup)

Diggers wrote:Sorry, you have got completely the wrong end of the stick Sand.
Im saying the players decide where they want to play, not out of loyalty to the PGA or European Tour but to suit themselves. Which is fine, I think thats how it should be, but it bores me when people bang on about what a great servant Monty was to the Tour when ultimately playing most of his golf there just suited what he wanted to do.

Ok understand now.

Can anyone confirm that lifetime membership does not require a player to play minimum events to keep membership?

I have jus tread Iain Carters blog and, talking about McIlroy's decision to return to PGA, he has totally missed the fact the McIlroy has lifetime membership stating that he will struggle to fit in the minimum numver of ET events?

JPX wrote:Can anyone confirm that lifetime membership does not require a player to play minimum events to keep membership?

I have jus tread Iain Carters blog and, talking about McIlroy's decision to return to PGA, he has totally missed the fact the McIlroy has lifetime membership stating that he will struggle to fit in the minimum numver of ET events?

I read that to JP, I have kindly sent message to carter to adjust this as he seems unaware of Rory's Lifetime membership. I can confirm ET lifetime membership means no minimum number events are required for participation of the ET, this comes form someone who has worked for the ET for over a decade.

Thanks Maverick. That's what I thought but I questioned it when a golf journalist manages to completely miss the point.

Carter gets paid for writing that stuff. He should be ashamed of himself.

I must admit I was puzzled when reading Carters latest blog on BBC. Can't believe he missed a major factor behind Rory's decsion to return to America full time!