WHAT “THE MATCH” IS MISSING
FORTY-FOUR years ago the pay-perview fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman generated $100 million in revenue. Last year, “The Money Fight” between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor produced over half a billion dollars through six million buyers. Now, after 20 years of waiting, golf fans will be given the chance to watch the showdown between Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson.
“The Match” – as it has been dubbed – will take place on Thanksgiving weekend (November 23) at Shadow Creek in Las Vegas. Woods and Mickelson will compete over 18 holes of match play for nine million dollars of sponsors’ money; winner takes all.
But what’s the hook? Why would people pay to watch the two highest-earning players of all time battle it out for more cash?
There are two key reasons why the Ali/Foreman and Mayweather/McGregor duels attracted so many viewers. One: They involved athletes who were at the peak of their powers. Two: There appeared to be cold, hard hatred in play. Both of those are lacking in this case. Woods’ return to competitive golf has been nothing short of remarkable. But he is yet to win an event since 2013 (at the time of writing) and Mickelson himself has only lifted one trophy since capturing The Open of that year. What’s more, the perceived rivalry that exists between the pair is far from bitter these days. They’ve even been spotted playing practice rounds together.
There’s no doubt this clash would’ve been more successful 10-15 years ago when Woods and Mickelson were the two highest-ranked players on the planet. This, to me, feels far too artificial and a classic case of ‘better late than never’.
Perhaps that’s why AT&T/WarnerMedia is planning to distribute the match for a rumoured $24.99 (in comparison to the $89.95 fee for last year’s fight between Mayweather and McGregor).
Do yourselves a favour and watch The Duel at Doral from 2005 if you want something genuine (and free).
Will people still pay money to watch two fortysomethings go head-to-head in a meaningless battle for an absurd amount of someone else’s money? Of course they will. But jeez, wouldn’t it be nice if the winner gave at least some of the cash to charity?