Let’s Break Up Tiger Woods

In the aftermath of Tiger Woods’ dominant victory in the recent American Express Championship golf tournament, a number of Wood’s competitors announced they will be asking the U.S. Department of Justice to file suit seeking the breakup of Woods for violating federal antitrust laws.

“He’s dominating the game,” said Adam Scott, who finished second, eight shots back of Woods. “It’s not the first time he’s done it, either. We need to take steps now to ensure that the game remains competitive.”

After finishing in fifth place, Ernie Els, one of golf’s top players, joined in with those who said something must be done.

“Tiger just doesn’t understand how abusive he is of his monopoly position,” said Els. “He unduly pressures and intimidates competitors and potential competitors.”

In defense of their concerns, the players were quick to point out Woods’ dominant market position. His victory at the AEC was his sixth in a row dating back to the British Open in July. He is the PGA Tour’s leading money winner at $9,941,563, more than 50 percent above his nearest competitor, Jim Furyk. And his Tour-leading eight wins laps the field—no one else has more than two.

Of course, Woods dominance is not confined to the golf course. He was the highest paid professional athlete in 2005, having earned an estimated $87 million, most of that coming from endorsement contracts and appearance fees.

“Tiger Woods is the perfect earner,” says Rick Burton, director of theWarsawSportsMarketingCenterat theUniversityofOregon. “Think of him as the offspring of Arnold Palmer and Michael Jordan.”

Because of this, other golfers claim they are unable to gain a significant share of the endorsement and appearance markets.

“This confirms what almost everybody in the world knows–Tiger Woods is a monopoly who acted illegally to harm other professional golfers,” said Furyk, who placed fourth in the AEC and received $345,000 in earnings.

While Justice Department officials would not comment on the situation, Joel Klein, the department’s former antitrust chief who prosecuted the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, said there were many similarities among the two situations.

“It is quite probable that Mr. Woods has used this monopoly position to engage in illegal marketing and exclusionary business practices, just as Microsoft did a number of years ago,” said Klein.

Supporting the players’ position, rival shoemaker Reebok announced today that it will take part in any lawsuit filed against Woods.

Paul Harrington, Reebok’s president and CEO, said in a press release, “Woods’ exclusive wearing of Nike apparel amounts to an illegal abuse of his monopoly position because it excludes our company from competing with Nike for new customers.”

The players have not decided the exact remedies they will seek in a lawsuit against Woods, but suggested one possibility was to break him up into two golfers – one specializing in woods and long irons, the other in wedges and putting. Other remedies might include requiring him to hit shots for competitors, turning over his coach Hank Haney to other golfers to reveal the mechanics of his swing, and forcing him to lease space on his body to various sportswear companies.

In related news, several competitors of Microsoft say they have now come to regret their participation in the antitrust lawsuit against the company.

“No one else at the time was doing business up to Microsoft’s level,” said James Barksdale, former chief executive of Netscape. “No one was scrambling the way they were. No one was designing, engineering and marketing the way they were. We couldn’t compete. We didn’t have anything left to do but file a lawsuit.”

Added Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun Microsystems, “If you were building the complete software company at the time, you’d have built Microsoft.”