Can 'Growing The Game' Happen Without Appearance Fees?

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, it's all about how money and 'growing the game' are linked.

Kevin Kisner last week made headlines when he critiqued Rory McIlroy's comments on growing the global game.

McIlroy has been playing more internationally over recent years, and Kisner said the main reason he was taking his talents to places like India was due to money, and perhaps he hadn't been very clear about that.

"That is such a dog s*** comment," Kisner said on the Fore Play podcast on McIlroy's past words about playing more globally.

"But I guess for the right price we could all say that.

"He doesn't want to globally expand in India, he wants to get his $10m and go play in India."

When asked about Kisner's comments, McIlroy didn't deny he was in India on an appearance fee but said he wasn't solely there for monetary reasons.

“Two things can be true at the same time," he said.

“People can get paid to come and play at a tournament but at the same time do it from a place of, you know, a genuine interest of trying to bring the sport to another country, a developing country, a country where the middle class in India is larger than the whole population of the United States. It’s a huge market for golf.”

This specific back-and-forth made us consider the topic of appearance fees in golf and whether McIlroy, or any other huge names, would truly consider 'growing the game' and playing in special, international events if it wasn't for the money.

Here's what we think - and let us know your views in the comments section below.

Matt Cradock

It's not as if appearance fees are anything new in sports, let alone just golf.

Let's be honest, money talks and, no matter how rich you are, of course someone is going to take a six, seven or eight figure sum to play golf if they feel it's right for their image and brand.

Personally, I wonder why that appearance fee money can't be put into the tournament prize purse instead? However, if you are wanting the big players at the event, they need to be guaranteed the paycheck and that's the whole point of the appearance fee. It's guaranteed money in their pocket.

Unfortunately, I don't see how 'growing the game' doesn't occur unless an appearance fee is involved.

Do you think Tiger Woods would want to travel halfway around the world without his time being paid for? Do you think most of the American players would play non-PGA Tour events that are a 12-hour flight away for free? Of course not.

The message about 'growing the game' is the excuse for most. I think some genuinely do want to leave a mark on the golfing landscape before they retire but, at the end of the day, it is their job, so without their time being paid for, how else can they promote the game through tournament golf?

It would be great for the world's best to play in tournaments in lesser-known locations out of the goodness of their hearts and not their bank accounts. Heading to new territories for free, though, isn't going to cut it for many.

This may sound like me calling out the world's best but, one last thing I'll say, is that some of them are 'growing the game' in other ways, such as setting up coaching academies and staging junior events. To me, that's what we call 'growing the game'...

Conor Keenan

Money makes the world go round, unfortunately. Without sounding like Karl Marx, it is a consequence of the capitalist systems the majority of us live in.

It is often the biggest motivator, and sometimes the only motivator, for the actions of some of the most well-known people in the world, be that sports stars, pop stars or movie stars.

When you see one of your favorite sports stars opening his or her charitable foundation, part of the motivation of doing so is to raise awareness and funds for something they care about, of course. However, the flip side of this is they will likely get a lovely tax break. They'll also get positive PR, making them more appealing to brands further down the line, thus enhancing their wealth.

I found Kisner's criticism of McIlroy strange because of course appearance fees and 'growing the game' can go together.

If anything, appearance fees might motivate the likes of Scottie Scheffler and Nelly Korda to get off their butts and play around the world rather than nearly exclusively playing in North America.

The term 'growing the game' often makes my eyes roll because it is obvious what holds the growth of the game back - corporate greed. Commercial loads, particularly on American broadcasts makes them borderline unwatchable, even for me as a die-hard fan.

Closed off Country Club culture and sky-high membership prices/joining fees, again mostly in the US, don't make the game accessible.

Nor does charging £190 for a single ticket to the final day of the Open Championship in 2027.

These shifts are only going one direction, too, and not in the direction that will help grow our sport around the world.

Elliott Heath

How very cynical, Conor!

I think Kisner had a point in bringing up the appearance fee money, and McIlroy was fair in his response that two things can be true at once. It's certainly an interesting debate (and I'd be interested to read your views below).

My simple answer is 'no', growing the game - or the top stars playing internationally - will not happen without appearance fees.

We've seen the likes of Bryson DeChambeau and Jon Rahm travel all around the world with LIV, and McIlroy more recently in Australia and India. Would any of them have played these tournaments without guaranteed appearance fee money or huge contracts? Of course not.

Is that a bad thing? The romantic in me says yes but ultimately I don't necessarily think so.

I have seen McIlroy up close many times and Tiger Woods on a few occasions, and it never ceases to amaze me just how popular they are on-site.

Recently at the BMW PGA Championship I was queuing for the 18th grandstand, on Sunday afternoon may I add, and it almost emptied out after McIlroy had been through - and this was with just five or six groups left and the tournament on the line.

People were happy to go home after watching McIlroy instead of staying around to watch a thrilling conclusion from the best seat in the house.

The fact is, he sells tickets and increases viewership so he is more than worth any appearance fee money he gets from sponsors. The DP World India Championship would still be a great event without him, but with him committed it takes the tournament to the next level.

I would love to see more events try to tempt him over. He is not going to do it out of the kindness of his heart, and I think that is fair enough as a true global star and one of the greatest golfers of all time.

Like Conor, I would also like to see Scheffler, Korda and other big US stars play more internationally. There's nothing wrong with appearance fees in my view, as I'm sure they genuinely do an important job in 'growing the game.'

There will have been thousands of Indian children who witnessed McIlroy and some other stars up close last week and will have gone away inspired to pick up a golf club or improve their games because of it.

That has got to be a great thing, so appearance fees are a win-win.

Jonny Leighfield

My first instinct was to say 'no, it isn't possible to grow the game without appearance fees.'

I considered the LIV Golf principle, so to speak, which effectively offered a kind of appearance fee in that there were semi-guaranteed earnings if you like.

So your base fee was $50,000 with a max payout of $4 million (and maybe more). But even then, some of those events were a rip-roaring success (Australia, South Africa), some were pretty good (UK, Spain) while others just did not move the needle (Saudi Arabia, Singapore).

Of course there are nuances to each of those examples, but even having a pretty strong field didn't count for much at times.

On the flip side, would the DP World India Championship have made such a promising start to life if not for the big names who attended over the first two years?

I think there's an argument to be made that it wouldn't have, and also that events become prestigious once big-name players have won them.

From there, fans emerge, young golfers become inspired and the game grows. Appearance fees are just a reality of the business side of golf.

Speaking as a fan, I don't see anything wrong with an event inviting a big name to boost its profile. The wider issue here is the extraordinary amount of money that is floating around the absolute top of the game while players who I've spoken to in the second or third tier of golf are effectively accepting they will make a loss until/unless they reach a certain level.

I would love to see some of these stupid prize-purse levels be spread out and pushed down the pyramid so players can have some of the pressure taken off.

In turn, the attraction of attempting to become a pro golfer then becomes greater and the ability level at the top only increases.

That's how you really grow the game.

What do you think? Join the conversation below.