The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Seadog on February 16, 2019, 10:56:08 AM
-
Saw this article the other day. Basically pro golfer Matt Kuchar was down in Mexico, his regular caddy couldn't make it, so he got a fill in. He ends up winning $1.3m, then offers the caddy the agreed upon money($4k), plus a $1000 tip. Not bad for a few days work I thought.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/article-matt-kuchar-the-rich-golfer-who-stiffed-his-caddie/
The internet however thought differently. Apparently, the 'going rate' for a tip is 5-10%, closer to the 10% if he finishes in the top 10. The caddy was expecting a minimum of $50k for his weekends work, if not well into 6 figures, and by not paying it he has been castigated by the media as a miserly scrooge.
As I was reading the story, I was kind of on the golfer's side. $5k for less than a week's work is a spectacular payday regardless, forget the fact you're in Mexico where the minimum wage is a few dollars a day. They had an agreement, he more than lived up to it. Had the golfer lost, would the caddy of offered to waive half his fee?
The comments on the story (not sure why I still read comments...) lambasted him be being so cheap. I'm not sure why I think it's dumb, the fact that he's outraged over the $5k payday, or the fact that 5-10% is the expected tip, even if it means paying hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think too I'm just annoyed at human nature. Whenever a big pile of money shows up not wholly expectedly, everyone and their dog has their paws out.
Other people's thoughts? Or am I just just as miserly as this Matt guy. The flavour de jour nowadays seems to railroad people (especially millennials) for an entitlement mindset. But here you have someone who made hundreds of times the local minimum wage, a rate that would put him squarely in 1%er territory in the US, forget about Mexico, and he's griping to the world that it wasn't 10x higher, and they're taking his side.
-
The real problem is that they did not have a signed, written agreement covering compensation before the tournament began. Any agreement should have covered the base salary plus any bonuses for placing well.
Since there was a lack of such agreement between the two parties, I think they're both at fault. Although since Kuchar probably has more power in this context, he probably bears more of the blame.
This is exactly why contracts exist and are regularly used in the business world - to prevent misunderstandings after the fact.
-
I think it's just a problem of expectations. One-off caddies expect a cut of the purse, and he didn't get it.
No different than a waiter expecting 15% of the check regardless of whether you order a salad or the $1000 bottle of champagne.
-
Oh, it wasn’t just the internet who thought the guy’s moral thermometer had dropped, it was other golphers as well. Have you read the golpher’s apology? It’s one of the best apologies I’ve ever read in a situation like this. He admits he got it wrong for a number of reasons. This isn’t about someone being frigidly, this is about someone who initially tried to exploit another human being merely because of his environment, not because of his value. End of the day, it’s your money and you choose the type of person you want to be, winning $1.3m, ignoring the usual tip of $130k to tip $5k and reject $50k says more about you and your morals than it does your financial management.
-
I think there’s a big difference between your standard caddy who is often like your long time coach/adviser on the field, vs someone standing in because your caddy couldn’t make it.
I think I’d need more details to decide. $5,000 if the standard is 10%-15% is a bit shy (many forum members here make that weekly).
If I was that golfer, even $10k-$20k is a very small part of the pot, unless your caddy was just some completely inexperienced person who offered no help aside from carrying your bag and handing you clubs for a week.
-
Golf and tipping. An elitist's game combined with an elitist's practice used to show how subservient others are.
Now disc golf on the other hand.... No caddies, no tipping, just right!
-
Read this for a good take: https://deadspin.com/golfer-matt-kuchar-weary-from-everyone-telling-him-hes-1832663030
-
I think the problem is that it is customary to pay 10% for a win. If he had been using his regular caddie, there would have been no question about paying 10%. Not paying the local caddie the same rate makes it look like he is exploiting a powerless individual. They probably never discussed what would happen if he won since Kuchar had not won in 4 years and it was unlikely he would win that week. He should have been happy to finally win again and share his good fortune with the caddie. He has since acknowledged he made a mistake and has agreed to pay more. Keep in mind that Kuchar has won over $40M on tour and has endorsement contracts with Sketchers and others. He will not miss the money.
-
A regular caddie earns their 10% share of winnings by doing a lot more than just carrying the bag and keeping up - they read putts, help with yardages and club selection, know when to tell a few jokes to distract the player, spend most of their life on the road, etc etc. There is just no comparison with a local caddie who has never worked with a player before.
From what I had read Kuchar and the caddie had an agreement, which paid a base amount well in excess of what he normally earns with 'bonuses' based on Matt's finishing position. I think the top 10 payout was $4k, so paying $5k for the win is still above what they had agreed.
I don't see why this is a story, other than the media wanting to create controversy and generate clicks. They had an agreement, and he paid above that.
-
Funny that it is OK for the golfer to expect over a million for a weekend's work, but ridiculous for the caddy to expect $50k.
-
It is a story because Kuchar was IMO clearly in the wrong.
He had a change of heart after being drilled for being a cheap bastard. He probably also stood to lose far more than $50k in endorsements.
-
I think it's just a problem of expectations. One-off caddies expect a cut of the purse, and he didn't get it.
No different than a waiter expecting 15% of the check regardless of whether you order a salad or the $1000 bottle of champagne.
Don't even get me started on that. I think tipping as a whole is a retarded concept, short of a little extra as a 'thank you for going above and beyond'. That isn't to say I don't think these people should be fairly compensated, but truly it doesn't take 20x the skill and effort to pour $1000 wine as $50 wine (and consequently deserve 20x the compensation).
It's restaurant owners (in the US) who lobbied and got away with paying servers $1.50 an hour who are the real crooks. I like Australia's system. Pay the workers a living wage, no tips, and expect good service because hey, that's their job. If they give bad service, complain and toss those bad workers to the curb. And then go on with your life. It wouldn't be the first time I paid money for something and was disappointed. I'm perfectly fine with meals out costing more, but once you have a system in place, it's either conform or die.
The other thing is that people say it allows the customer to have some influence over their service. Really? If you give a bad tip because the service was garbage, will the server really sit down and reflect about what they did wrong and how they can improve? Or will they take to the internet to castigate the cheapskate who stiffed them because their cognitive dissonance doesn't allow them to reflect honestly on themselves. I've seen 'suggested tipping' guidelines posted in places, and they even say that 10% should be the absolute starting point for showing up. At the end of the day the quality of service is only one factor, and I would bet money that regardless of any quantitative measure of ability, hot girls with big tits make more money than a speedy guy.
Anyways, tipping rant aside, the story said he was hoping to use the 50k to start a laundromat, so that implies he's not exactly swimming in money. But, if he's such a superstar caddy, and at least 10% responsible for this golfer's win, *surely* in the hundreds of times he's caddied in the past and been instrumental in other monumental wins he would have saved up way more?
Or more realistically is he scraping by like most, by luck happened to land himself at an arms reach of a payday, and said gimme gimme gimme.
To that end though, as a mustachian of decent means I do appreciate that all things can't be measured in dollars and cents. I do tip generously, but inside it's begrudgingly. Simply because (as this case demonstrated) the social cost is far greater than the few dollars it costs you, and it can often pay dividends farther down the line in terms of freebies or other perks which are entirely at the discretion of these gatekeepers.
-
Funny that it is OK for the golfer to expect over a million for a weekend's work, but ridiculous for the caddy to expect $50k.
I'm not sure how he 'expected' the $1.3m. He's a pro athlete where luck plays a large role on any specific day, and he could have just as easily gone home empty handed. In which case presumably the caddy would have halved his fee, because after all, win or lose they're both in this together right?
-
I believe they agreed a minimum payment of $2k. $3k if he made the cut, and $4k for a top 10 finish.
-
I believe they agreed a minimum payment of $2k. $3k if he made the cut, and $4k for a top 10 finish.
Yup.
But with the lightning strike good fortune of winning the thing, the RIGHT thing to do was to go above the agreed-upon amount.
As Jim Rome said on his show, imagine the good will, the Hollywood-esque story, the feel-good charm of what a great guy Kuchar is if he had done the right thing in the first place. He'd have been a hero. Instead he irreparably ruined his good guy image.
All for spare change he has in his couch cushions.
-
Funny that it is OK for the golfer to expect over a million for a weekend's work, but ridiculous for the caddy to expect $50k.
I don't know much about golf but my understanding is if it was his regular caddy he'd be obliged to pay 10%, but he got a fill-in caddy. It's not clear whether the fill-in caddy was somewhere near as skilled as his regular caddy and doing a similar job (in which case 10% should have been paid) or just some random half-decent caddy (in which case whatever agreement they had between them should be honoured).
What you 'expect' for a weekend's work is whatever you earn. On a good day I can earn $5k but on a bad day I earn $0 - I work in a profession that fluctuates wildly. This doesn't mean that on a good day I'm going to tip my waiter 50% and on a bad day I'll tip 0%. The two things (income/expenses) are completely uncorrelated. On a good day I don't pay more than what I think is market rate and on a bad day I don't pay less. That's one of the keystones of frugality - knowing how to separate your income from your expenses.
-
I believe they agreed a minimum payment of $2k. $3k if he made the cut, and $4k for a top 10 finish.
Yup.
But with the lightning strike fortune of winning the thing, the RIGHT thing to do was to go above the agreed-upon amount.
As Jim Rome said on his show, imagine the good will, the Hollywood-esque charm, the feel-good story of what a great guy Kuchar is if he had done the right thing in the first place. He'd have been a hero. Instead he irreparably ruined his good guy image.
All for spare change he has in his couch cushions.
Yeah, I don't understand this. Say you have a real estate agent who's taking your house to auction. Imagine you're hoping for $20k above reserve but magically you get $150k above reserve due to, I dunno, a really desperate buyer. Would you pay your real estate agent a bonus fee, or just rely on whatever's stipulated in the agreement for the auction fees?
Isn't the whole point of financial responsibility separating your expenses from your income?
-
Yeah, I don't understand this. Say you have a real estate agent who's taking your house to auction. Imagine you're hoping for $20k above reserve but magically you get $150k above reserve due to, I dunno, a really desperate buyer. Would you pay your real estate agent a bonus fee, or just rely on whatever's stipulated in the agreement for the auction fees?
Isn't the whole point of financial responsibility separating your expenses from your income?
Exactly this. By coincidence upon seeing this story, I was also tossing around the idea of making a thread around the whole entire concept of 'affordability'.
The very term implies a relationship between your outlays and your means, such that if you're means are higher, your outlays (to the benefits of people with their hands out naturally...) should correspondingly be so. I can afford to pay $15/lb for my striploin steak. However, I would much prefer to wait until it's on sale, and then buy the further discounted stuff about the expire tomorrow for freezing at a third of that price, enough to see me through a couple months until it's on special again, which is the lowest price it typically hits here over any given year. Getting on a tangent here, but I casually map the cyclical costs of all staples, and only ever buy stuff ouside of milk and eggs when its close to it's typical low point.
Truly I can afford to pay $150/lb for steak. It wouldn't change my life in the least. But what does afford even mean? Able to buy and not go bust? OK then. After my $1200 rent, and $100 power, I guess I can 'afford' to pay 998,700k for my steak and not go bust. But it will mean I have to get a job which is contrary to the whole point of being here.
Bill Gates should be paying $1m for every pencil because hey, he can 'afford' it.
It's one of my greatest irritants when people go on about affordability, because without fail they are the ones who are the primary benefactor.
-
Then look at it from a purely financial standpoint. Kuchar had a sterling reputation as an easy-going "nice guy". That reputation has been worth millions to him in paid endorsements.
Then he does something stupid that makes him look cheap. Even his fellow golfers disagreed with him. When called on it he doubled down with borderline insulting comments. You'd think he'd have run it by his agent/PR people before shooting himself in the foot. As a public figure your "brand" is everything.
I don't know what's not to understand. Yup, based on their agreement he was fully within his rights to pay the guy $5k. Stick to your guns, consequences be damned. I'll bet his sponsors are none too happy.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFWGeos_BVk
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFWGeos_BVk)
-
Actually, he was fully within his rights to pay the caddie $4k. Instead he paid him an extra 25%.
Sure he could have paid him $15k, or $50k or even $500k and it would have made zero difference to his personal finances. Kuchar has won over $40m on tour.
I just don't see why he should be expected to pay more than the agreed rate to a guy who carried his bags for 1 week.
-
Then look at it from a purely financial standpoint. Kuchar had a sterling reputation as an easy-going "nice guy". That reputation has been worth millions to him in paid endorsements.
Then he does something stupid that makes him look cheap. Even his fellow golfers disagreed with him. When called on it he doubled down with borderline insulting comments. You'd think he'd have run it by his agent/PR people before shooting himself in the foot. As a public figure your "brand" is everything.
I don't know what's not to understand. Yup, based on their agreement he was fully within his rights to pay the guy $5k. Stick to your guns, consequences be damned. I'll bet his sponsors are none too happy.
It depends on what he thinks his sponsorships are worth and whether being "cheap" will affect his future income stream from sponsorships. Sure, you're right that there is an "optics" component. However, none of the posts to date have analysed his future sponsorship incomes. They have been talking about the legalities/ethics of "under-paying" a caddy.
-
Actually, he was fully within his rights to pay the caddie $4k. Instead he paid him an extra 25%.
Sure he could have paid him $15k, or $50k or even $500k and it would have made zero difference to his personal finances. Kuchar has won over $40m on tour.
I just don't see why he should be expected to pay more than the agreed rate to a guy who carried his bags for 1 week.
Yes, I don't understand the 'expectation' argument. In this forum if you say you've gone from a $20k car to a $100k car merely out of "social expectation" because your income went from $100k to $500k I'm sure that you would be pilloried. Well, this is the exact same situation. You need to get a handle on your expenses BEFORE the 'good thing' happens to you. If it is the case that the golfer agreed with the caddy on the rate prior to the "good thing" happening, then he has no obligation to change the rate. This is the fundamental principle of FIRE. Work out your expenses in advance, and don't let lifestyle inflation eat into your savings (unless you specifically want to).
-
I've now read that the caddie emailed Kuchar (or his agent) some time after the event asking for $50k. They offered him an additional $15k, and he turned them down and went public.
I realise that I'm in the minority on this issue, but this just sounds like extortion to me.
-
It’s “expected” because the common and customary payout to the caddy is 5-10% for a win.
But I agree, he was well within his rights to stick to the deal. He then better not complain about the consequences. I’m guessing this will cost him far more than$50k in the long run.
-
I've now read that the caddie emailed Kuchar (or his agent) some time after the event asking for $50k. They offered him an additional $15k, and he turned them down and went public.
I realise that I'm in the minority on this issue, but this just sounds like extortion to me.
Depends on the terms of their contract. If there was an open-ended interpretation then maybe the caddie was just arguing his own point. However, if the terms could reasonably be construed as being "$4,000 for a top 10 finish" then yes, the caddie was basically blackmailing the golfer.
I have always thought that you analyse income and expenses separately. I can't believe so many FIRE proponents would buckle on the basis that the golfer "could afford" to pay. What you can afford to pay is completely irrelevant.
-
It’s “expected” because the common and customary payout to the caddy is 5-10% for a win.
But I agree, he was well within his rights to stick to the deal. He then better not complain about the consequences. I’m guessing this will cost him far more than$50k in the long run.
But as stated, the caddy he used was not his customary caddy, and he agreed on separate terms.
I'm sure if the golfer did poorly, and earned only $10,000 from the tournament, and tried to get away with paying $750 (7.5%), the caddy would not have been happy.
Like it or lump it, you have to stick by your contractual agreements.
-
It’s “expected” because the common and customary payout to the caddy is 5-10% for a win.
But I agree, he was well within his rights to stick to the deal. He then better not complain about the consequences. I’m guessing this will cost him far more than$50k in the long run.
But as stated, the caddy he used was not his customary caddy, and he agreed on separate terms.
I'm sure if the golfer did poorly, and earned only $10,000 from the tournament, and tried to get away with paying $750 (7.5%), the caddy would not have been happy.
Like it or lump it, you have to stick by your contractual agreements.
I’ll say it again, yes he was 100% within his rights based on their agreement. Like it or lump it, he’s done serious damage to his public image.
-
There is no customary or accepted payment % for a one-off caddie. People need to stop perpetuating this myth.
-
...and one last point, from the statements of both parties it appears there was no agreement in the event of a win. Probably because neither expected it given his 4 year drought. So chipping off an extra thousand (again when the custom is 5-10%) is a cheapskate move.
-
Why is it a cheapskate move?
He's simply followed the tenets of FIRE:
- Separate your expenses from your income
- Try to use LCOL areas to reduce expenses
- Treat each expense on its merits and try to find a good deal
- Pay what something is worth, not what others expect you to pay
- Be brave and buck societal conventions if it doesn't fit with your analysis
-
Why is it a cheapskate move?
Because the customary payout is 5-10%.
-
Because the customary payout is 5-10%.
Except it's not. I've addressed this above. A regular, professional caddie does a lot of things to earn that share of winnings that a one-off, local caddie will not be expected to do.
The attempts to claim otherwise are either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
-
Because the customary payout is 5-10%.
Except it's not. I've addressed this above. A regular, professional caddie does a lot of things to earn that share of winnings that a one-off, local caddie will not be expected to do.
The attempts to claim otherwise are either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
Except Kuchar himself admits he did the wrong thing and the caddy was worth more.
-
Because the customary payout is 5-10%.
Except it's not. I've addressed this above. A regular, professional caddie does a lot of things to earn that share of winnings that a one-off, local caddie will not be expected to do.
The attempts to claim otherwise are either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
Well the Golf Channel
https://www.golfchannel.com/news/thats-not-story-matt-kuchar-denies-only-paying-local-caddie-3000-after-mayakoba-win
(https://www.golfchannel.com/news/thats-not-story-matt-kuchar-denies-only-paying-local-caddie-3000-after-mayakoba-win)
and Golf Monthly magazine
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golf-monthly.co.uk/news/tour-news/matt-kuchar-denies-caddie-pay-rumours-172043/amp
(https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golf-monthly.co.uk/news/tour-news/matt-kuchar-denies-caddie-pay-rumours-172043/amp)
as well as others including current and former PGA players, disagree with you.
-
And this interesting article from Golf.com shortly after the tournament:
https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/11/11/matt-kuchar-wins-local-caddie-cashes-in/
(https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/11/11/matt-kuchar-wins-local-caddie-cashes-in/)
-
You are completely missing the point. I'll try one last time.
A regular, professional caddie will get paid a small salary (that barely, if at all, covers expenses) and a share of earnings. That share will vary, both by player and by result. It will probably be in the range of 5-10%.
BUT to earn that money a regular, professional caddie will do some or all of the following - carry the bag, keep the clubs clean, keep the grips and player dry in the rain, learn the players game inside out so that they can provide advice on club and shot selection, discuss course strategy, help with yardages, read putts, know when the player needs to focus or relax (and know how to help them do that), overrule a player on shot selection, live out of a suitcase and follow the player around on tour... and probably a bunch of other things that I've either forgotten or don't know about.
Ortiz, who reportedly doesn't speak much English, would have been expected to do a fraction of what Kuchar's regular caddie does - basically carry the bag and not much more. That is why a regular caddie gets paid what they get paid, and why a random replacement does not.
So, if you are basing your view that Kuchar underpaid him on 'custom', I don't think you understand golf.
If you are basing it on the fact that Kuchar is already rich and doesn't need another $1.3m (less taxes, agents fees, etc), then that's a completely different argument. I disagree with it, but it's not a totally unreasonable conclusion.
And I don't think Kuchar is sorry at all. He gave his honest view when this first blew up. I'm also sure that plenty of players ageee with him, but none are going to risk the backlash from the media or uninformed 'fans'.
-
Why is it a cheapskate move?
He's simply followed the tenets of FIRE:
- Separate your expenses from your income
- Try to use LCOL areas to reduce expenses
- Treat each expense on its merits and try to find a good deal
- Pay what something is worth, not what others expect you to pay
- Be brave and buck societal conventions if it doesn't fit with your analysis
Being cheap is not part of FIRE. If you go to a restaurant and tip 5% because it doesn't fit your analysis, you're a jerk.
Also, could you please use any examples from this guy's life (his home, cars, vacation style, etc) to show he is in anyway planning his finances using "tenants of FIRE". He's an extraordinary rich guy who was trying to get away with being cheap.
Cheap and frugal are not the same thing.
-
That's because restaurants expect a 15% tip.
My understanding is that only regular caddies expect 5-10% of winnings and ad hoc caddies get whatever they contract to. If that's the case, then there's no such expectation.
If the convention is that all caddies including ad hoc caddies get 5-10% of winnings then yes, the guy should have paid more. But it seems that there was a clear agreement that $4,000 would be the figure.
The fact that he is extraordinarily rich does not mean he can't follow FIRE principles. FIRE is about being financially independent and taking control of your spending - not about necessarily doing so without being very rich. I intend to be very rich one day, but I still intend to be frugal, because two good things are better than one.
-
Yes I understand golf.
Here is another article you won’t read that says you’re wrong. If you did read it, I’d advise you pay particular attention to the statements of the former PGA pro who occasionally one-off caddies on the LPGA.
http://www.realclearlife.com/sports/was-matt-kuchars-5k-caddie-payout-after-winning-1-3m-actually-wrong/
(http://www.realclearlife.com/sports/was-matt-kuchars-5k-caddie-payout-after-winning-1-3m-actually-wrong/)
-
That's because restaurants expect a 15% tip.
My understanding is that only regular caddies expect 5-10% of winnings and ad hoc caddies get whatever they contract to. If that's the case, then there's no such expectation.
If the convention is that all caddies including ad hoc caddies get 5-10% of winnings then yes, the guy should have paid more. But it seems that there was a clear agreement that $4,000 would be the figure.
The fact that he is extraordinarily rich does not mean he can't follow FIRE principles. FIRE is about being financially independent and taking control of your spending - not about necessarily doing so without being very rich. I intend to be very rich one day, but I still intend to be frugal, because two good things are better than one.
One can be extraordinaryily rich and also follow tenants of fire. I was just asking where you see that he does? Seems to me he quite likes luxury that comes with megamillions. He isn't the millionaire next door.
This is not a matter of "taking control of your spending". No one is asking him to make it rain at a Vegas club. This is understanding frugality does not include stiffing other people and being a cheapskate. Many many people involved in the world of golf agree what he did is NOT convention Tor a winner. And as people here have pointed out, he may have saved pennies to lose pounds...his name has a negative association now which may cost him sponsors. And since this will was rare, sponsors are pretty big deal for him.
-
You are completely missing the point. I'll try one last time.
A regular, professional caddie will get paid a small salary (that barely, if at all, covers expenses) and a share of earnings. That share will vary, both by player and by result. It will probably be in the range of 5-10%.
BUT to earn that money a regular, professional caddie will do some or all of the following - carry the bag, keep the clubs clean, keep the grips and player dry in the rain, learn the players game inside out so that they can provide advice on club and shot selection, discuss course strategy, help with yardages, read putts, know when the player needs to focus or relax (and know how to help them do that), overrule a player on shot selection, live out of a suitcase and follow the player around on tour... and probably a bunch of other things that I've either forgotten or don't know about.
Ortiz, who reportedly doesn't speak much English, would have been expected to do a fraction of what Kuchar's regular caddie does - basically carry the bag and not much more. That is why a regular caddie gets paid what they get paid, and why a random replacement does not.
So, if you are basing your view that Kuchar underpaid him on 'custom', I don't think you understand golf.
If you are basing it on the fact that Kuchar is already rich and doesn't need another $1.3m (less taxes, agents fees, etc), then that's a completely different argument. I disagree with it, but it's not a totally unreasonable conclusion.
And I don't think Kuchar is sorry at all. He gave his honest view when this first blew up. I'm also sure that plenty of players ageee with him, but none are going to risk the backlash from the media or uninformed 'fans'.
Another point is that I don't think this guy normally wins $1.3 million every tournament. So your normal caddie is with you in lean times and boom times, and they share in your fortune when you hit it big.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect a sub would get the same windfall. Now, I think the golfer was being really cheap with the $5k even for a sub. If he had offered more to begin with, this mess wouldn't have happened.
-
I don't think it's reasonable to expect a sub would get the same windfall. Now, I think the golfer was being really cheap with the $5k even for a sub. If he had offered more to begin with, this mess wouldn't have happened.
He wasn't asking for the "same windfall". He was asking for 3.8%. Blowing him off at that level was a big mistake.
-
I don't think it's reasonable to expect a sub would get the same windfall. Now, I think the golfer was being really cheap with the $5k even for a sub. If he had offered more to begin with, this mess wouldn't have happened.
He wasn't asking for the "same windfall". He was asking for 3.8%. Blowing him off at that level was a big mistake.
I agree. I think you read into my post more than I was trying to say.
-
What kind of bonus did his regular caddy who couldn't make it get?
If a regular caddy does all the things that have been discussed here, it sounds like they're a part of the "team" and they should be the one getting a bonus, not the guy who filled in and didn't do all those other things.
I think everyone arguing that he hurt his image isn't thinking this all the way through. Why is his image tarnished? Because of the people like you who are judging him, not because of what's truly right or wrong.
As for the proper etiquette, it may be normal to pay a fill in the full tip but if that's the case, well that's pretty dumb in my opinion. Saying that it's standard doesn't make it right.
-
What kind of bonus did his regular caddy who couldn't make it get?
If a regular caddy does all the things that have been discussed here, it sounds like they're a part of the "team" and they should be the one getting a bonus, not the guy who filled in and didn't do all those other things.
I think everyone arguing that he hurt his image isn't thinking this all the way through. Why is his image tarnished? Because of the people like you who are judging him, not because of what's truly right or wrong.
As for the proper etiquette, it may be normal to pay a fill in the full tip but if that's the case, well that's pretty dumb in my opinion. Saying that it's standard doesn't make it right.
"What is truly right or wrong" is ONLY determined by how people make judgements.
There are no moral absolutes in the world.
-
What kind of bonus did his regular caddy who couldn't make it get?
If a regular caddy does all the things that have been discussed here, it sounds like they're a part of the "team" and they should be the one getting a bonus, not the guy who filled in and didn't do all those other things.
I think everyone arguing that he hurt his image isn't thinking this all the way through. Why is his image tarnished? Because of the people like you who are judging him, not because of what's truly right or wrong.
As for the proper etiquette, it may be normal to pay a fill in the full tip but if that's the case, well that's pretty dumb in my opinion. Saying that it's standard doesn't make it right.
"What is truly right or wrong" is ONLY determined by how people make judgements.
There are no moral absolutes in the world.
That's a deeper discussion but I think I can rephrase what I said in a way that doesn't require us to get into it.
I think everyone arguing that he is in the wrong because he hurt his image isn't thinking this all the way through. You're participating in a positive feedback loop in which the more people think he was wrong, the more wrong he was. Instead, you should be making a decision based on your own opinion and not letting the opinion of others influence you. So the "true" right or wrong I was referring to should be based on one's own morals.
Saying he should have given the tip to save his public image despite his own moral compass is saying he should have sold out. In the end he did and I don't blame him. The speed and power of viral hate has become a terrifying beast in today's world of instant media.
-
I think everyone arguing that he is in the wrong because he hurt his image isn't thinking this all the way through. You're participating in a positive feedback loop in which the more people think he was wrong, the more wrong he was. Instead, you should be making a decision based on your own opinion and not letting the opinion of others influence you. So the "true" right or wrong I was referring to should be based on one's own morals.
Saying he should have given the tip to save his public image despite his own moral compass is saying he should have sold out. In the end he did and I don't blame him. The speed and power of viral hate has become a terrifying beast in today's world of instant media.
Thank you. I'm glad someone was able to more succinctly express this than me.
-
Why is it a cheapskate move?
He's simply followed the tenets of FIRE:
- Separate your expenses from your income
- Try to use LCOL areas to reduce expenses
- Treat each expense on its merits and try to find a good deal
- Pay what something is worth, not what others expect you to pay
- Be brave and buck societal conventions if it doesn't fit with your analysis
Being cheap is not part of FIRE. If you go to a restaurant and tip 5% because it doesn't fit your analysis, you're a jerk.
Also, could you please use any examples from this guy's life (his home, cars, vacation style, etc) to show he is in anyway planning his finances using "tenants of FIRE". He's an extraordinary rich guy who was trying to get away with being cheap.
Cheap and frugal are not the same thing.
I agree with you here.
-
I think a lot of you guys are missing the the $5000 payout vs the agreed $4000.
Someone mentioned this earlier. Kucher did paid his caddie $5000 initially.
He then realized he needs to offer more money to the caddie so he offered him an additional $15,000.
The caddie rejected the $15K and asked for $50K. I think the caddie realized that hey "the usual payout is 10%" so I should be able to ask for 4%.
I think Kuchar got annoyed by the caddie rejecting the extra $15K and said screwed you.
Kuchar is not dumb. He's giving in because of all this bad publicity and no one is willing to stand on his side.
He knows he has more to lose than the $50K.
Listen, if it was me and I offered somebody $16K more than the agreed amount and they rejected it. I'd be a little pissed too. Also this is Mexico. $15K there is a whole lot more than $15K here.
I don't care what people say about Kuchar earning $1.3 milliion. He earned that by playing well.
I think he was generous to offer the extra $16K. The bad publicity got him to remorse.
-
Also this is Mexico. $15K there is a whole lot more than $15K here.
See I really hoped I'd not have to go here in this discussion, that people would be reasonable and see that Kuchar tried to get away with paying less than the customary fee.
But this comment touches on the core issue that can't be danced around. There are definite elements of racism, imperialism and exploitation at play here. I had hoped not to have to point this out as it will probably lead to another rabbit hole but it's the crux of why this is such a compelling story.
As a thought experiment, it turns out that Kuchar's wife acted as an emergency fill-in caddy for Dustin Johnson for 9 holes at the same tournament. Granted the scenarios are different, but suppose she caddied all 4 rounds and DJ won. Do you think she and her husband would be happy with the payout Matt provided thinking it was generous?? I seriously doubt it.
-
Also this is Mexico. $15K there is a whole lot more than $15K here.
Didn't he win the millions in Mexico though? It that "a whole lot more there than here?"
It's an international tour. Do they take into account your nationality whenever you win a tournament and adjust? Or should they only do that to pay caddies?
If a Mexican player had won, should he have taken a lower payout, since it's more in his home country than an American?
-
Also this is Mexico. $15K there is a whole lot more than $15K here.
Didn't he win the millions in Mexico though? It that "a whole lot more there than here?"
It's an international tour. Do they take into account your nationality whenever you win a tournament and adjust? Or should they only do that to pay caddies?
If a Mexican player had won, should he have taken a lower payout, since it's more in his home country than an American?
Glad to see someone else gets it. Thanks.
-
Yes I understand golf.
Here is another article you won’t read that says you’re wrong. If you did read it, I’d advise you pay particular attention to the statements of the former PGA pro who occasionally one-off caddies on the LPGA.
http://www.realclearlife.com/sports/was-matt-kuchars-5k-caddie-payout-after-winning-1-3m-actually-wrong/
(http://www.realclearlife.com/sports/was-matt-kuchars-5k-caddie-payout-after-winning-1-3m-actually-wrong/)
Of course I will read it - I'm a huge golf fan. I play and watch (when I can), I listen to golf podcasts on my way to/from work, and I read a bunch of articles on all sorts of golf-related topics.
I will admit that 'realclearlife' is not a website I visit for golf-related info, and this article is the first one I've seen that suggests that this is somehow standard for fill-in caddies. Have you actually listened to the podcast they are quoting? It's nowhere near as definitive as the article suggests, and even Hawley says that there is discretion for fill-in caddies (he just thinks $5k is too low). His opinion is largely based on the fact that Kuchar won a large amount and paid the caddie a small amount, when he had the opportunity to do something life-changing.
And if you've just gone searching for stuff that supports your view that 10% is the accepted standard for fill-in caddies, you've probably ignored the overwhelming number of people - including Ortiz himself - saying that he doesn't think he deserves the 10% that a regular caddie would get paid.
Here's a few examples:
https://golfweek.com/2019/02/17/golf-19th-hole-what-a-caddie-work-worth-matt-kuchar-debacle-leaves-us-plenty-to-ponder/ (https://golfweek.com/2019/02/17/golf-19th-hole-what-a-caddie-work-worth-matt-kuchar-debacle-leaves-us-plenty-to-ponder/)
"Not many guys on Tour are eager to talk about the issue since Kuchar issued a statement saying that he will finally pay Ortiz what he asked for (which was $50,000). Ask around and you won’t find many who believe Ortiz deserved the standard 10 percent a professional Tour caddie would expect, but even fewer who think five grand was acceptable."
https://www.golf.com/news/2019/02/12/they-can-keep-their-money-kuchars-fill-in-caddie-breaks-silence-over-pay-dispute/ (https://www.golf.com/news/2019/02/12/they-can-keep-their-money-kuchars-fill-in-caddie-breaks-silence-over-pay-dispute/)
"Ortiz said he did not expect to be paid what a Tour caddie would have made, but said he believed his work and contribution toward the win was worth $50,000."
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/matt-kuchar-caddie-cheap-tip-el-tucan-2019-2?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com.au/matt-kuchar-caddie-cheap-tip-el-tucan-2019-2?r=US&IR=T)
Per Michael Collins (former PGA caddie): "A couple of players told me if right after the tournament he writes the guy a check for $US35,000 – which is still less than 5% of a commission – he would have been seen as a hero,” Collins said. “Now most of the caddies and players that I talked to have said $US50,000 is the number, and one player said even if he pays the guy $US50,000, he’s never going to live this down"
Bob Harig, the senior golf writer for ESPN, and one of Kuchar's biggest critics on this issue gave this reply to a question on Twitter asking why he wasn't paying the 10% - "Because nobody believes that is a necessary payment for a fill in caddie. It is understood that is part of a deal for a regular who travels and pays his own expenses, etc"
And finally, if 10% were the 'custom' for fill-in caddies - which it's clearly not - why is everyone now giving Kuchar a pass for paying less than 5%? The reason is pretty clear, even if you refuse to admit it...
-
I think a lot of you guys are missing the the $5000 payout vs the agreed $4000.
Someone mentioned this earlier. Kucher did paid his caddie $5000 initially.
He then realized he needs to offer more money to the caddie so he offered him an additional $15,000.
The caddie rejected the $15K and asked for $50K. I think the caddie realized that hey "the usual payout is 10%" so I should be able to ask for 4%.
I think Kuchar got annoyed by the caddie rejecting the extra $15K and said screwed you.
Kuchar is not dumb. He's giving in because of all this bad publicity and no one is willing to stand on his side.
He knows he has more to lose than the $50K.
Listen, if it was me and I offered somebody $16K more than the agreed amount and they rejected it. I'd be a little pissed too. Also this is Mexico. $15K there is a whole lot more than $15K here.
I don't care what people say about Kuchar earning $1.3 milliion. He earned that by playing well.
I think he was generous to offer the extra $16K. The bad publicity got him to remorse.
Amen, brother.
The new caddie wasn't a regular caddy so the 5-10% presumption doesn't apply. And even if it did, the caddy didn't have the bargaining power to get terms agreed to that value. MMM tenet #1: use the law of contract to your advantage.
The bloke is from a poor third world country. If you travelled to Bali would you pay the taxi drivers $20 or $3? Obviously you'd pay the local rate even if you could easily afford a $20 taxi (which would be normal in a first world country). MMM tenet #2: pay what someone's willing to accept, not a cent more.
And the bloke earned his money - not the caddy. Even if you have $1m, doesn't mean you should give in to extortionate pricing. MMM tenet #3: live within your means.
The only rational reason for caving is the bad publicity. And the bad publicity is based on something that is quite contrary to MMM tenets: it's based on envy and wanting more than you're worth.
-
Also this is Mexico. $15K there is a whole lot more than $15K here.
See I really hoped I'd not have to go here in this discussion, that people would be reasonable and see that Kuchar tried to get away with paying less than the customary fee.
But this comment touches on the core issue that can't be danced around. There are definite elements of racism, imperialism and exploitation at play here. I had hoped not to have to point this out as it will probably lead to another rabbit hole but it's the crux of why this is such a compelling story.
As a thought experiment, it turns out that Kuchar's wife acted as an emergency fill-in caddy for Dustin Johnson for 9 holes at the same tournament. Granted the scenarios are different, but suppose she caddied all 4 rounds and DJ won. Do you think she and her husband would be happy with the payout Matt provided thinking it was generous?? I seriously doubt it.
Er, what does Kuchar's wife have to do with anything? What she gets paid is between her and her principal. It's just the law of contract at work. Presumably she (or a more skilled, 'regular' caddy) has enough bargaining power to be worth the 'customary fee'.
I don't think there's anything wrong with taking advantage of the fact that some countries are dirt poor. Unless you scrupulously buy only clothing made in America and avoid most electronic gadgets, you're in the same boat, comrade.
"Reasonableness" has nothing to do with it. You pay the fee that is agreed. Otherwise you're really just arguing for charity.
-
Also this is Mexico. $15K there is a whole lot more than $15K here.
Didn't he win the millions in Mexico though? It that "a whole lot more there than here?"
It's an international tour. Do they take into account your nationality whenever you win a tournament and adjust? Or should they only do that to pay caddies?
If a Mexican player had won, should he have taken a lower payout, since it's more in his home country than an American?
They only do that to pay caddies. Which is why in life, you'd much rather be a golfer, than a caddy. It's that simple.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with taking advantage of the fact that some countries are dirt poor. Unless you scrupulously buy only clothing made in America and avoid most electronic gadgets, you're in the same boat, comrade.
Oh my god, wow wow.
I guess there's just a fundamental difference in values here.
There's a big difference between trying to do your best to buy things that are ethically made, within your ability and fully admitting that one believes there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of someone else's circimstance.
-
I know nothing about golf and what usual caddies versus fill-in caddies get. But it seems that the people who know more about the subject than I (i.e. pro golfers, other caddies) felt that Kuchar underpaid the last minute caddie by paying significantly less than what is the norm (5-10% of the purse). The golfer paid 5K. I mean there are definitely disagreement about what the appropriate amount was. However it is telling that NO ONE took Kuchar's side in saying giving the caddy 5K for his work was fair or reasonable. Apparently 50K is closer to being reasonable.
Normally it would have ended there. The only unusual thing, is that we have the internet and people heard about it, and he (or his agents etc) caved to avoid further bad press.
I'm sure things like this happened before the internet, just that us Joe schmoes wouldn't have heard about it.
-
Funny that it is OK for the golfer to expect over a million for a weekend's work, but ridiculous for the caddy to expect $50k.
Pretty sure he 'expected' what the market is willing to pay for his services. If he pays below market for his caddy, I wouldn't expect he'll get the best the market has to offer.
Or is it not OK to expect to make what the market will bear in 2019?
-
This kind of reminds me of that guy Scott Foster who got to step in for a goalie in the NHL.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/30/598263399/36-year-old-accountant-called-in-as-emergency-nhl-goalie-and-he-crushed-it
It was kind of the same situation, the regular guys were out and someone was needed on super short notice. He actually ended up playing in the game and doing pretty well. He did not however get paid anything.
The regular goalie was getting something like 6 million a year or about 70k a game. I don't think he was entitled to 70k paid to the regular full time goalie. Nor does he train with the team year round and work on his craft every day (like regular full time caddies do).
IMO in a pure business sense yeah the caddy got what he deserved. He signed the contract, and got paid that amount. If he wanted to hold out for more I am sure the second best caddy at the club would have jumped at the chance to make 5k. So he would have ended up with nothing. I mean he basically was able to blackmail/shame Kutcher into paying him for being a cheapass.
In this virtue signaling culture that we live in, yeah some sort of bonus would have probably been fair.
TLDR
Somewhere between 5k and 10% would be legit. But lets no be too generous with someone else's money!
-
Funny that it is OK for the golfer to expect over a million for a weekend's work, but ridiculous for the caddy to expect $50k.
Pretty sure he 'expected' what the market is willing to pay for his services. If he pays below market for his caddy, I wouldn't expect he'll get the best the market has to offer.
Or is it not OK to expect to make what the market will bear in 2019?
Part of the problem is sounded like the agreement didn't cover the situation. It wasn't discussed.
"Kuchar says it was a layered structure beginning with $1,000 for a missed cut, $2,000 for a made cut, $3,000 for a top 20 and $4,000 for a top 10. What the caddie would receive for a win was not discussed."
"The extra $1,000 was, 'Thank you — it was a great week.' lol- for at least one of them.
So, he pays him the 4K for making the top 10. Wins the entire tourney, and gives him a 1K tip. Which apparently everyone considered ridiculous. Another thing missing, even Ortiz did not think he should be paid what a long-term caddie would make which was 10%. He requested 4% which he thought was reasonable.
So from a market perspective yes the caddy should get more. You may think it's ridiculous, but the whole pay structure for professional sports is ridiculous.
-
Why is this a debate and people are acting like the golpher is some type of victim? He admitted he was WRONG. He’s not debating it. He fucked up. He tried to take advantage of someone from a lower socioeconomic environment and was busted. Good. Like slumlords or anyone else trying to game the system so they can get over on someone, just because they can, they need to be called out and do the right thing.
Oddly, I would’ve thought the take would be how much this guy saved. Had his regular caddie showed up he would’ve paid $130k (plus I’d imagine covering expenses for the caddie), but he only ended up paying $50k! That’s a sweet extra $80k in his pocket! Talk about a double win.
Be frugal and financially responsible folks, don’t be a greedy prick.
-
Also this is Mexico. $15K there is a whole lot more than $15K here.
Didn't he win the millions in Mexico though? It that "a whole lot more there than here?"
It's an international tour. Do they take into account your nationality whenever you win a tournament and adjust? Or should they only do that to pay caddies?
If a Mexican player had won, should he have taken a lower payout, since it's more in his home country than an American?
Glad to see someone else gets it. Thanks.
So did the player get paid in Mexican Pesos or American Dollars?
ETA: the golfers net worth is 20-25 million. He's a cheap bastard, and now everybody knows he's a cheap bastard.
-
Why is this a debate and people are acting like the golpher is some type of victim? He admitted he was WRONG. He’s not debating it. He fucked up. He tried to take advantage of someone from a lower socioeconomic environment and was busted. Good. Like slumlords or anyone else trying to game the system so they can get over on someone, just because they can, they need to be called out and do the right thing.
Oddly, I would’ve thought the take would be how much this guy saved. Had his regular caddie showed up he would’ve paid $130k (plus I’d imagine covering expenses for the caddie), but he only ended up paying $50k! That’s a sweet extra $80k in his pocket! Talk about a double win.
Be frugal and financially responsible folks, don’t be a greedy prick.
OK yeah he might totally be a greedy prick I wont argue that.
How did he take advantage of him? Did he stiff him on the agreed on amount? Did he violate Mexican work rules? Did he break the law? Like come on he stiffed a guy on a tip. Hardly a crime for the "internet death penalty"
Yes he went in with a stronger bargaining position, but that is hardly unjust. He violated some social norms, but nothing about this was illegal or unjust.
-
Legality and fairness are two different things. What he did was entirely legal. Was it fair or "just". Probably not.
And again just because someone can get away with it, doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out on it. Just common decency.
-
Offering a different take (from someone who does not follow or play golf)...if Kuchar was in a drought for fours years and then finally had a win with this stand-in caddy- is there any chance this caddy DID play a role in his great performance?
Speaking from my perspective only (meaning I don't assume how I react to things is how others react to things), I would have tipped him really well simply because I would have been elated to win again.
-
Chiming in with some real facts because, as a group, you guys are butchering them.
- A PGA regular caddie generally gets a base of a couple thousand to cover travel, plus a percentage, usually increasing an usually 10% of a win as a max. The caddie here was local and had none of these expenses and none of the upside of a big payday.
- I understand the caddie carried the bag of another player who qualified for the tournament via a qualifying tournament that week. The qualifying "golpher" didn't hire him for the real tournament for some reason.
- Kuchar wasn't in a slump - he had six top tens the previous year. Not amazing, but solid form. Kuchar is a consistent guy, rarely spectacular but seldom awful.
- Here's how a PGA tournament works: everyone travels there and plays two rounds. Then the bottom 50% of the field is cut and goes home with $0. The remaining 70 or so play two more rounds. Kuchar won and got a bit less than $1.3M. 72nd place (last to get $) made $14,112 and probably lost money after travel costs. 73rd and below got nothing. Assuming everyone had an equal chance of winning and distribution of finish was left to chance, the average payout probability would be $50,000 a player.
-
In sports, it's bizarre to assume everyone has an equal chance of winning. Ruins the EV calculation, but that's just never true.
-
In sports, it's bizarre to assume everyone has an equal chance of winning. Ruins the EV calculation, but that's just never true.
A caddy is not a pro golfer. That's why one guy is raking in the millions whereas the other guy is packing up sticks for a living.
Nothing more than bargaining advantage in this thread.
Same reason I pay some dude $3 to deliver my food when I myself would never do that work for that money. Some people will. That's life.
-
I don't understand why everyone keep mentioning the extra $1000 and not the extra $15K that Kuchar offered the guy.
He offered the caddie the extra $15K but was turned down before all the negative press.
I'm sorry but the average income in Mexico is like ~$11k per year. The caddie basically earned more than a year's salary with $16K.
What Kuchar made for winning is irrelevant to what he should pay out because the guy was not his regular caddie. He makes what he makes because hes talent enough to be a PRO golfer.
The agreement was $4K and Kuchar offered 4x that amount.
I honestly think Kuchar was smart enough after all the negative press to say I was wrong and be done with. He gave in not because he thinks hes wrong but to silence the criticism.
-
Also this is Mexico. $15K there is a whole lot more than $15K here.
See I really hoped I'd not have to go here in this discussion, that people would be reasonable and see that Kuchar tried to get away with paying less than the customary fee.
But this comment touches on the core issue that can't be danced around. There are definite elements of racism, imperialism and exploitation at play here. I had hoped not to have to point this out as it will probably lead to another rabbit hole but it's the crux of why this is such a compelling story.
As a thought experiment, it turns out that Kuchar's wife acted as an emergency fill-in caddy for Dustin Johnson for 9 holes at the same tournament. Granted the scenarios are different, but suppose she caddied all 4 rounds and DJ won. Do you think she and her husband would be happy with the payout Matt provided thinking it was generous?? I seriously doubt it.
Hopefully mods lock this thread soon.
-
Why is this a debate and people are acting like the golpher is some type of victim? He admitted he was WRONG. He’s not debating it. He fucked up. He tried to take advantage of someone from a lower socioeconomic environment and was busted. Good. Like slumlords or anyone else trying to game the system so they can get over on someone, just because they can, they need to be called out and do the right thing.
Oddly, I would’ve thought the take would be how much this guy saved. Had his regular caddie showed up he would’ve paid $130k (plus I’d imagine covering expenses for the caddie), but he only ended up paying $50k! That’s a sweet extra $80k in his pocket! Talk about a double win.
Be frugal and financially responsible folks, don’t be a greedy prick.
OK yeah he might totally be a greedy prick I wont argue that.
How did he take advantage of him? Did he stiff him on the agreed on amount? Did he violate Mexican work rules? Did he break the law? Like come on he stiffed a guy on a tip. Hardly a crime for the "internet death penalty"
Yes he went in with a stronger bargaining position, but that is hardly unjust. He violated some social norms, but nothing about this was illegal or unjust.
No, just immoral. There was no death penalty, he didn’t even lose a sponsor. He came to his senses, saw the inequality for what it was, as well as his insensitivity and he apologized and fixed it. He ended up doing the right thing, even if he didn’t have to. That’s morality versus legality.
-
What's wrong with inequality, anyhow?
Like I said, how many of you, if you were taking a taxi in a third world country, would be happy to pay the cabbie a first world rate?
That's how life works.
FIRE necessitates some level of economic advantage. In my view, the more the merrier.
-
The internet however thought differently. Apparently, the 'going rate' for a tip is 5-10%, closer to the 10% if he finishes in the top 10. The caddy was expecting a minimum of $50k for his weekends work, if not well into 6 figures, and by not paying it he has been castigated by the media as a miserly scrooge.
If you are a millionaire and you don't tip your waiter the going rate, are you a miserly scrooge? Probably.
-
72nd place (last to get $) made $14,112 and probably lost money after travel costs.
Not to derail, and questioning honestly: how could you actually lose money with travel costs after a $14k payday?
-
72nd place (last to get $) made $14,112 and probably lost money after travel costs.
Not to derail, and questioning honestly: how could you actually lose money with travel costs after a $14k payday?
Because you have to pay for flights to and from, accommodation for the duration of the event, and the imputed cost of your time as a professional.
I'm sure you could find budget airfares ($2k), budget accommodation ($1k) and that way still 'make a profit', but it's not much of a profit if you're one of the world's best pro golfers.
I think one has to remember that all these things are relative. What would be a break-even point for a person doing a side hustle is very different from a break-even point for someone who's an elite pro.
-
72nd place (last to get $) made $14,112 and probably lost money after travel costs.
Not to derail, and questioning honestly: how could you actually lose money with travel costs after a $14k payday?
Because you have to pay for flights to and from, accommodation for the duration of the event, and the imputed cost of your time as a professional.
I'm sure you could find budget airfares ($2k), budget accommodation ($1k) and that way still 'make a profit', but it's not much of a profit if you're one of the world's best pro golfers.
I think one has to remember that all these things are relative. What would be a break-even point for a person doing a side hustle is very different from a break-even point for someone who's an elite pro.
I guess I could see it that way. But on the other hand... let me find my tiny violin because these guys are getting payed to play golf. What a world!
-
A tournament is usually over 4 days, and there are practice rounds early in the week. So realistically you're looking at an entire week on the road. Then for the top guys there are commitments from sponsors, media appearances, and all sorts of stuff that comes with being a public figure.
And they're not being paid to "play golf". You and I play golf, these guys obsess over golf. They study every single competitive advantage they can find, hit thousands of balls in practice, study film of their own swing, all day, every day. All this to make sure they stay in the top 100 players or whatever in the world because there are literally tens of thousands of scratch amateurs a couple strokes behind. To do this, they pay coaches, physical trainers, their caddie, and a bunch of other people.
This is true for virtually every pro sport, by the way. Tom Brady doesn't get paid millions of dollars to play 4 hours for 16 Sundays per year, it's for everything else he does the rest of the year. We just get to see the tip of the iceberg on TV.
So yeah, 14k gross prize money for a week of all that is not the glorious payday you think it is.
-
And they're not being paid to "play golf". You and I play golf, these guys obsess over golf.
Not swaying my opinion. Sure, it's cool that these guys have followed their obsession, their dream and whatever. And I don't think that $14k is a glorious payday. Good for them for getting where they are and able to make money doing what they love. But don't ask me to give a shit because they only made 14k during this tournament. Where is that fucking tiny violin?
-
No one's asking you to weep for the golfers. The argument is that simply by virtue of their immense talent, they operate in a world of expenses (and also revenue) that is beyond the scope of most average punters. Which is why they command high price-points. A random caddy at a resort in Mexico doesn't command the same. Which is why there's an inequality in bargaining position.
This explains why an amount like $14,000 might seem puny to a pro golfer but it might be lots and lots of money for Joe Average who has no elite skills and no elite commitment. That might not garner any sympathy from you, but the point is to explain the difference between the mediocre and the elite, not to gain sympathy for the latter.
It also explains why the elite are entitled to bargain for more and command more: they've earned it.
-
72nd place (last to get $) made $14,112 and probably lost money after travel costs.
Not to derail, and questioning honestly: how could you actually lose money with travel costs after a $14k payday?
You probably don't, but it could be closer than you think.
Base pay to the caddie of $1-2k for the week, plus another $700 as a share of the prize money.
Probably a % cut to your agent - no idea how much.
Flights and accommodation for a week. Could include travel costs for your family if you don't want to be alone for 30 weeks of the year.
Standard household costs which you still need to cover even while you are away - mortgage/rent, utilities, insurance, etc.
Weekly cost of other annual expenses - coach, trainer, equipment not covered by a sponsor (e.g. Trackman)
I agree that you shouldn't break out the violin, but there are a lot of costs associated with being a professional sportsperson that probably aren't immediately apparent.
-
"A random caddy at a resort in Mexico doesn't command the same. Which is why there's an inequality in bargaining position."
Just to give the "random caddy" some humanity. He's actually the caddy coordinator for the Camelon golf course and the Mayoba tournament director is the one who recommended him to Kuchar. He has caddied for other professionals in tournaments before. I'm thinking he knows his job a little better than a "random caddy", especially for that particular course. Kuchar also said if he returned to defend the Mayoba title that Ortiz would carry his bag. Sounds like an endorsement to me.
https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/11/13/matt-kuchar-mayakoba-caddie-18-things-to-know-el-tucan/
-
That's fine. He's worth whatever he bargained for, which seems to me to have been $4,000 which isn't a terrible figure for a week's work in most people's language.
-
That's fine. He's worth whatever he bargained for, which seems to me to have been $4,000 which isn't a terrible figure for a week's work in most people's language.
It also speaks to the caddie's expertise. If he's caddied for other professionals, then he wasn't some noob that didn't know about the fee arrangements. He negotiated from a position of knowledge. It was only after the internet media got a hold of it that he demanded more.
-
That's fine. He's worth whatever he bargained for, which seems to me to have been $4,000 which isn't a terrible figure for a week's work in most people's language.
It also speaks to the caddie's expertise. If he's caddied for other professionals, then he wasn't some noob that didn't know about the fee arrangements. He negotiated from a position of knowledge. It was only after the internet media got a hold of it that he demanded more.
I thought the order of the events was different: Didn't he demand more, and then send it to the media when denied?
-
The reports I read, is that they DID agree to a pay structure, that ended with 4K for a top ten win. The problem is that their agreement did not cover anything beyond a 10 ten win, which is where the bonuses/tips become substantial. It wasn't that Ortiz agreed to 4K max. He assumed that those customary bonuses would come into play. Kuchar did not. It was a mistake on BOTH their parts. And honestly if he told his caddie up front that all he was going to pay him is 4K max even if he won the tournament, that makes him a jerk in my book.
Kuchar felt 1K tip or bonus in addition to the 4K agreed price was sufficient. A pro golfer's regular caddie would be tipped 10%, or 130K. Ortiz felt the 1K tip was insulting.
Ortiz feels 50K is fair (3.8%) Kuchar offers 15K. Ortiz refuses.
Months later (under public pressure) he agrees to pay 50K.
-
Tipping is a disgusting practice that should be abolished.
-
Funny that it is OK for the golfer to expect over a million for a weekend's work, but ridiculous for the caddy to expect $50k.
Pretty sure he 'expected' what the market is willing to pay for his services. If he pays below market for his caddy, I wouldn't expect he'll get the best the market has to offer.
Or is it not OK to expect to make what the market will bear in 2019?
Part of the problem is sounded like the agreement didn't cover the situation. It wasn't discussed.
"Kuchar says it was a layered structure beginning with $1,000 for a missed cut, $2,000 for a made cut, $3,000 for a top 20 and $4,000 for a top 10. What the caddie would receive for a win was not discussed."
"The extra $1,000 was, 'Thank you — it was a great week.' lol- for at least one of them.
So, he pays him the 4K for making the top 10. Wins the entire tourney, and gives him a 1K tip. Which apparently everyone considered ridiculous. Another thing missing, even Ortiz did not think he should be paid what a long-term caddie would make which was 10%. He requested 4% which he thought was reasonable.
So from a market perspective yes the caddy should get more. You may think it's ridiculous, but the whole pay structure for professional sports is ridiculous.
A massive part of the worldwide population disagrees that it's ridiculous, or they wouldn't be buying the merchandise, tickets, and cable packages that support said pay structure.
It's the market rate for athletes. If it wasn't, then pay would go down. There's plenty of smaller leagues that pay regular wages, and most seem to go bankrupt as the market doesn't support that model.
-
I don't think the pay structure for pro athletes is ridiculous. It's just exponential, because it's entirely based on merit. You have a few superstars around the globe who command tremendous sums because they are a standard deviation above all the rest of humanity.
Frankly I'd like normal pay structures to be more like those in pro sports - more heavily merit-based, and more proportional to the rarity of one's talent.
-
The reports I read, is that they DID agree to a pay structure, that ended with 4K for a top ten win. The problem is that their agreement did not cover anything beyond a 10 ten win, which is where the bonuses/tips become substantial. It wasn't that Ortiz agreed to 4K max. He assumed that those customary bonuses would come into play. Kuchar did not. It was a mistake on BOTH their parts. And honestly if he told his caddie up front that all he was going to pay him is 4K max even if he won the tournament, that makes him a jerk in my book.
Kuchar felt 1K tip or bonus in addition to the 4K agreed price was sufficient. A pro golfer's regular caddie would be tipped 10%, or 130K. Ortiz felt the 1K tip was insulting.
Ortiz feels 50K is fair (3.8%) Kuchar offers 15K. Ortiz refuses.
Months later (under public pressure) he agrees to pay 50K.
From the article I've read it was Kuchar offered $15K when he felt Ortiz deserved more after the initial $5K
Ortiz then asked for $50K which was why Kuchar told him to shove it in the first place.