No ifs, ands or putts, we might all pay if Tiger-Phil match works
I'm not planning on paying $19.99 to watch the Phil Mickelson-Tiger Woods pay-per-view golf match, though because I write about this stuff for a living I probably could get the Tribune to pick up the tab.
Unless the microphones pick up Mickelson giving out an insider stock tip, it's hard to see what would make it worth the time, let alone the money.
It is, however, foolish to suggest no one will sign up for “The Match: Tiger vs. Phil” at 2 p.m. Friday. There is an audience for everything in this day and age.
In Norway, for example, prime-time coverage of the world chess championship has proved to be a big fat hit.
Viewers there are hooked on the best-of-12 games series in which U.S. challenger Fabiano Caruana is staring down Norwegian Magnus Carlsen, out for his fourth successive title, their enthusiasm undimmed by what elsewhere might be considered a lack of action.
Then again, some Norwegians consider lutefisk — a gelatinous whitefish prepared with lye (yes, lye) — to be a delicacy of sorts.
So, you know, different strokes.
If pressed by a visitor from abroad, could you explain Skip Bayless' appeal and why he's on television?
Would you say that, like lutefisk, he may be palatable when the caustic substance has been flushed away, albeit just barely?
Anyway, back to this Mickelson-Woods Turner Sports production at Las Vegas' Shadow Creek.
There's a $9 million prize on the line, with side bets the two golfers make on the course earmarked for charity.
Mickelson proposed an initial wager to Woods for the first hole during Tuesday's news conference hyping the event.
"I feel like the first hole is a great hole for me," Phil said. "I'm willing to risk $100,000 that says I birdie the first hole."
Woods raised him because, why not? “Double it,” Tiger said. "Did you see how I baited him like that?" Mickelson said with a smile.
Some people apparently treat $200,000 like it's $19.99.
Not that $19.99 is necessarily a deal breaker for Joe Gin and Tonic, but consumers willing to wrestle their fellow bargain-hunters at Black Friday sales obviously are determined to make each penny count.
They might want to consider the ramifications of putting a couple of sawbucks down on this spectacle.
If lots of people spring for “The Match: Tiger vs. Phil,” we all may pay in the end.
That's the real side bet here.
“Tiger vs. Phil” is testing the waters. If it's a hit, you can be sure there will be other pay-per-view challenges. Basketball one-onone. Challenge races. Skills competitions.
It's not a huge leap from there to paying to see the Masters, and the price may be a lot higher than $19.99. Maybe not next year or next, but down the road.
Advertising revenue today still makes it more lucrative to keep some events on over-the-air TV and cable, but for how long if it's established viewers will pay for what they want?
Fail to nip this in the bud and someday you may find yourself fondly recalling the days when you ignored the world chess championship because you didn't care and not because it was too expensive.