Point Systems Historically, professional golf tours relied on a player's ranking on the money list from the previous season to determine their eligibility for official tour events. However, about 16 years ago, major tours began adopting point systems alongside tracking players' tournament earnings and rankings. The PGA Tour was the first to introduce the point system with the inception of FedExCup points in 2007. These points are awarded based on players' finishing positions in each tournament, as specified in the point distribution tables. The FedExCup points standings aim to reflect a player's performance throughout the season, and those ranked in the top 125 will be eligible to participate in the following regular season. Additionally, players finishing in the top 70 of the FedEx Cup points will qualify to play in the FedExCup Playoffs at the conclusion of the regular season.
(Table 1 about here.)
Table 1
Points Distribution by Finish Position in Tournaments of JLPGA, LPGA, and PGA Tour
| JLPGA Tour | LPGA Tour | PGA Tour |
Rank | 3 R Tourna | 4 R Tourna | Japan Majors | US/UK Majors | Official Events | Majors | PGA Tour Event | WGC & Genesis | API Sentry & Memorial | Majors & Players |
1 | 200 | 300 | 400 | 800 | 500 | 650 | 500 | 550 | 550 | 600 |
2 | 120 | 180 | 240 | 480 | 320 | 416 | 300 | 315 | 315 | 330 |
3 | 90 | 135 | 180 | 360 | 230 | 299 | 190 | 200 | 200 | 210 |
4 | 70 | 105 | 140 | 280 | 180 | 234 | 135 | 140 | 140 | 150 |
5 | 60 | 90 | 120 | 240 | 145 | 188.5 | 110 | 115 | 115 | 120 |
10 | 41 | 61 | 82 | 164 | 75 | 97.5 | 75 | 75 | 78 | 82 |
15 | 30 | 45 | 60 | 120 | 55 | 71.5 | 55 | 59 | 59 | 61 |
20 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 80 | 45 | 58.5 | 45 | 51 | 51 | 51 |
30 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 40 | 25 | 32.5 | 28 | 31.7 | 31.7 | 31.7 |
40 | 5 | 7.5 | 10 | 20 | 15 | 19.5 | 16 | 18.1 | 18.1 | 18.1 |
50 | 3 | 4.5 | 6 | 12 | 7.5 | 9.8 | 8.5 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 |
60 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 5.2 | 5 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 |
70 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2.6 | 3 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.4 |
75 | | | | | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
80 | | | | | 1 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
90 | | | | | | | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
95 | | | | | | | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
99 | | | | | | | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Sources: https://www.lpga.or.jp/stats/2023/mercedes https://www.pgatour.com/fedexcup/overview https://www.lpga.com/race-to-cme-globe/explanation-and-points-structure |
The FedExCup is a competition that spans the entire season and offers a total of $75 million in bonus money. It reaches its climax with the FedExCup Playoffs in August. Throughout the season, TOUR members accumulate FedExCup points based on their performance in each tournament, with a strong emphasis on victories and top finishes. These points are assigned according to specific tables that determine the distribution based on finishing positions. The FedExCup standings recognize players for their performance during the Regular Season and the first two FedExCup Playoffs events. To secure their card for the next season, players must finish among the top 125 in the FedExCup points list during the regular season. Examining the data in Table 1 reveals that the FedExCup point distribution system closely resembles the formula used to determine tournament payouts on the PGA Tour. In fact, the ratios of points awarded to the winner compared to those given to players finishing in 2nd through 10th place are very similar to the distribution of payout percentages.
There was a noticeable difference between two sets of ratios. The FedExCup point system appeared to be more advantageous for players finishing between 20th and 50th, compared to the corresponding finish position players in the payout percentage formula scheme. Conversely, players with finish positions of 60th and lower had a more favorable outcome in the payout percentage formula scheme. Shmanski [42] pointed out that both the FedExCup points system and the payout percentage formula disproportionately reward the winners and top finishers in PGA Tour tournaments. The ratio of FedExCup points between the winner and the 5th place finisher is 4.54 to 1. A tournament winner receives 500 FedExCup points, while a player finishing 50th only receives five points. This means that the winner earns 100 times more points than the player in 50th place.
Since its establishment in 2014, the CME Globe points system has been utilized by the LPGA Tour to determine players' eligibility for the upcoming season and to decide who qualifies for the season-ending CME Group Tour Championship. To be included in the priority list for the next season, LPGA Tour members must be among the top 80 (including ties) on the previous season's points list. The top 60 players on the points list earn qualification to participate in the CME Group Tour Championship, where the entire field competes for a $7 million purse and the winner's check of $2 million, the largest single prize in the history of women's golf.
As shown in Table 1, the point distribution system for the LPGA Tour's CME Globe is similar to that of the PGA Tour's FedExCup. When a player wins an official event on the LPGA Tour, they receive 500 CME Globe points, which is the same as the 500 FedExCup points earned by a winner on the PGA Tour. The champions of each of the five major championships in the LPGA Tour receive 650 points, while the winners of the four major championships and the Players Championship on the PGA Tour earn 600 FedExCup points.
To assess the level of inequality in point distribution based on finish position, a comparison was made between the LPGA and PGA Tour. The analysis focused on the ratios of points awarded to winners versus those given to specific finish positions. The findings indicate that winners in the PGA Tour enjoy greater advantages compared to players who finish in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th place, as compared to winners in the LPGA Tour. Conversely, players beyond the 30th position in the point distribution of the PGA Tour exhibit a lesser degree of inequality relative to the PGA Tour winners, when compared to players in the corresponding finish positions of the LPGA Tour. In general, similar to the PGA Tour's FedExCup points system, the points structure of the CME Globe on the LPGA Tour is unbalanced. It awards a substantial number of points to tournament winners while offering very few points to players who finish 30th or lower. As a result, both the PGA Tour and the LPGA Tour's points distributions reinforce the disparity in career opportunities and access to crucial resources for players outside the top tier.
In 2014, the JLPGA Tour adopted the Mercedes-Benz points system. The JLPGA Tour’s tournaments are consisted of four types of tournaments: "3 days-tournaments" (54 holes), "4 days-tournaments" (72 holes), "domestic majors," and "US Majors." Table 1 illustrates that the winners of each tournament category receive different amounts of Mercedes-Benz points: 200 for 3 days-tournaments, 300 for 4 days-tournaments, 400 for domestic majors, and 800 for US majors. However, the distribution of points within each category remains consistent. This means that the ratio of points awarded to the winner in relation to specific finishing positions remains the same across all four tournament categories.
The winners of the four major tournaments in the JLPGA receive 33 percent more points compared to the winners of non-major four-day tournaments. Similarly, the winners of the five LPGA majors receive a 30 percent increase in points. Notably, the JLPGA awards 800 points to the winners of "U.S. Majors," which is double the points allocated for the "domestic majors." In any case, the top 50 players ranked on the Mercedes-Bez points at the conclusion of the JLPGA tournament in the 46th week are granted an exemption (seed) for the following year's JLPGA tour.
In contrast to the point systems used by the JLPGA, LPGA, and PGA Tour, the JGTO maintains its reliance on the player's ranking on the money list from the previous season to determine their eligibility for the following season's tour. The top 70 players on the money list will retain their tour card. In 2002, the JGTO introduced the "Mercedes-Benz Total Point" system, which utilizes data from various performance indicators of the players in tournaments (ParGolf 2022). The JGTO's point system takes into consideration a player's ranking in nine different performance indicators: "average stroke," "average putt," "par keep rate," "par-on rate," "birdie rate," "eagle rate," "driving distance," "fairway keep rate," and "sand save rate." Each of the 9 performance categories carries equal weight in determining the player's Mercedes-Benz Total Point. The player's rankings in these categories are added together to calculate their total point. The player's total point is then used to determine their ranking in the Mercedes-Benz Total Point system. The player with the lowest total point is ranked at the top in the JGTO's point system, while the player with the highest total point is ranked at the bottom. At the end of each season, the JGTO awards cash prizes to the top-ranked player in the "Mercedes-Benz Total Point Rankings," as well as the top-ranked player in each of the 9 performance categories.
Analyzing the distribution patterns of tournament earnings in each of the four tours, the percentage shares of total prize money were calculated based on player rankings in a specific season. In the 2019 season, the top-ranked player on the JGTO Tour received 5.62% of the total purse, while the top-ranked player on the JLPGA Tour had a share of 4.43%. As a group, the top 10 ranked players accounted for 33.3% and 30.54% of the total earnings on the JGTO and JLPGA Tour, respectively, in 2019. Combining the top 20 ranked players, they collectively claimed almost half of the tournament purses, with 51.89% for the JGTO Tour and 48.80% for the JLPGA Tour in 2019.
(Table 2 about here)
Table 2
Mean, Median, Standard Deviation, and Percent Share of Tournament Earnings by Players on the JGTO and JLPGA Tour, 2000–2019
Category/Tour | Year |
| 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2019 |
Tournament Earnings: Mean | | | | | |
JGTO | 22,619,176 | 21,933,788 | 21,291,751 | 21,292,652 | 19,940,203 |
JLPGA | 11,488,009 | 13,538,509 | 19,504,968 | 20,142,125 | 24,093,889 |
Tournament Earnings: Median | | | | | |
JGTO | 11,806,400 | 11,477,396 | 9,350,538 | 10,208,211 | 10,094,138 |
JLPGA | 5,336,667 | 5,497,033 | 12,925,435 | 7,963,018 | 12,391,658 |
Tournament Earnings: SD | | | | | |
JGTO | 29,887,286 | 23,487,188 | 30,079,174 | 26,325,285 | 27,775,919 |
JLPGA | 16,905,553 | 19,841,744 | 23,348,029 | 31,152,866 | 30,556,066 |
%Share of Earnings by Top 1 | | | | | |
JGTO | 5.22% | 3.66% | 5.56% | 5.20% | 5.62% |
JLPGA | 4.27% | 6.03% | 4.96% | 7.63% | 4.43% |
%Share of Earnings by Top 5 | | | | | |
JGTO | 21.45% | 14.82% | 22.68% | 17.49% | 21.62% |
JLPGA | 22.50% | 22.54% | 17.49% | 23.12% | 19.05% |
%Share of Earnings by Top 10 | | | | | |
JGTO | 33.80% | 24.76% | 35.38% | 29.56% | 33.32% |
JLPGA | 36.42% | 35.81% | 29.38% | 37.21% | 30.54% |
%Share of Earnings by Top 20 | | | | | |
JGTO | 48.64% | 41.73% | 51.89% | 47.50% | 51.89% |
JLPGA | 53.8% | 52.64% | 46.85% | 54.64% | 48.80% |
Sources:https://www.jgto.org/pc/TourStats.do |
https://www.lpga.or.jp/stats/2019-2020/lpga/money |
Between 2000 and 2019, the percentage shares of tournament purses for players in different ranking groups on both the JGTO and JLPGA Tour experienced some fluctuations. In the JGTO, the top-ranked player's share ranged from 3.66% in 2005 to 5.62% in 2019, while on the JLPGA Tour, it varied from 4.27% in 2000 to 7.63% in 2015. The degree of fluctuations in the percentage shares of tournament earnings among ranking groups on both tours appears to decrease as we move from the top-ranked player to the top 20 players, as observed in the years 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019.
In the years 2000, 2005, and 2015, the JLPGA demonstrated a higher level of concentration across all four ranking groups compared to the JGTO. However, in the seasons of 2010 and 2019, this trend was reversed, with the JGTO exhibiting a greater degree of concentration. In general, when comparing the distribution patterns of tournament earnings between the two tours, an important finding is that the top 10 players collectively accounted for approximately one third of the total tournament purses in both the JGTO and JLPGA Tour. Furthermore, the top 20 players as a group consistently earned nearly one half of the total purse amounts for both tours throughout the period from 2000 to 2019.
(Table 3 about here)
Table 3
Mean, Median, Standard Deviation, and Percent Share of Tournament Earnings by Players on the PGA and LPGA Tour, 2010–2019 https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.109.y2019.html https://www.lpga.com/statistics/money/official-money
Category/Tour | Year |
| 2010 | 2015 | 2019 |
Tournament Earnings: Mean | | | |
PGA | $1,573,370 | $1,873,092 | $2,000,511 |
LPGA | $255,588 | $340,961 | $411,918 |
Tournament Earnings: Median | | | |
PGA | $1,174,441 | $1,261,493 | $1,511,108 |
LPGA | $95,202 | $166,936 | $208,320 |
Tournament Earnings: SD | | | |
PGA | $1,001,584 | $1,618,859 | $1,489,766 |
LPGA | $378,425 | $460,366 | $491,802 |
%Share of Earnings by Top 1 | | | |
PGA | 2.08% | 4.28% | 3.22% |
LPGA | 5.40% | 5.48% | 4.49% |
%Share of Earnings by Top 5 | | | |
PGA | 9.72% | 14.09% | 11.86% |
LPGA | 22.94% | 21.33% | 17.70% |
%Share of Earnings by Top 10 | | | |
PGA | 17.46% | 22.78% | 20.47% |
LPGA | 38.39% | 33.23% | 29.67% |
%Share of Earnings by Top 20 | | | |
PGA | 30.83% | 36.27% | 33.62% |
LPGA | 57.10% | 49.50% | 45.80% |
To analyze the degree of concentration in the earnings distribution among the highest-ranked players, we calculated the ratios of their earnings to the median earnings for each tour at five different time points. Table 4 presents these findings. In 2019, the top-ranked player on the money list of the JGTO had tournament earnings 35 times higher than the median earnings. For the years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015, the corresponding ratios were 56.4, 33.8, and 82.5, respectively. Regarding the JLPGA Tour, the ratios ranged from 36.9 in 2000 to 14.6 in 2019. Notably, the JGTO consistently exhibited significantly higher ratios compared to the JLPGA Tour at each time point.
Table 4
Ratios of Top Ranked Player’s Earnings to Median Value of Earnings by Tour and Year
| Japan | U.S. |
Year | JGTO | JLPGA | PGA | LPGA |
2000 | 56.4 | 36.9 | 23.7 | 25.3 |
2005 | 44.8 | 31.6 | 19.0 | 31.6 |
2010 | 45.1 | 27.7 | 6.2 | 23.2 |
2015 | 82.5 | 36.6 | 12.6 | 25.5 |
2019 | 35.3 | 14.6 | 11.7 | 19.1 |
Source: https://www.jgto.org/pc/TourStats.do |
https://www.lpga.or.jp/stats/2019-2020/lpga/money |
(Table 4 is presented here)
In terms of tournament earnings on the PGA Tour, the highest-ranked player in 2019 had 11.7 times more earnings compared to the median earnings value. However, the ratio was remarkably low in 2010, standing at 6.2. Upon closer examination of the 2010 money list, it was discovered that the top-ranked player earned $4.9 million, which was only about half of what the top-ranked players earned in the preceding and subsequent years. The players ranked in the top five of the money list in 2010 had earnings of $4.2 million or higher. Consequently, the significantly lower earnings of the top-ranked player in 2010 resulted in an unusually low ratio between the top-ranked player’s earnings and the median earnings value for that year.
At each of the five time points, the ratio between the earnings of the highest-ranked player and the median earnings of the LPGA Tour consistently surpassed that of the PGA Tour. Notably, in Japan, the men's tour displayed a higher level of concentration of tournament earnings in the top-ranked player compared to the women's tour. Conversely, in the United States, the women's tour exhibited a greater concentration of earnings in the top-ranked player than the men's tour did.
(Figs. 1 and 2 about here)
Pareto Distribution Curve Figs. 1 and 2 depict the utilization of the baseline models "Pareto Distributions" and Zipf's "Rank-size Rule" to represent the data on tournament earnings in 2019 for each player across the four tours, based on their ranking in earnings. The logarithmic values of the earnings were plotted on the vertical axis, while the rankings in tournament earnings were displayed on the horizontal axis using an arithmetic scale. Figure 1 reveals that the JGTO and JLPGA displayed remarkably similar regression line slopes. In fact, these two lines closely aligned or intersected at certain ranks. This discovery aligns with the earlier observations made regarding the percentage distribution of tournament earnings according to earning ranking in the preceding section.
However, Fig. 2 illustrates that the PGA Tour and LPGA Tour exhibit distinct regression lines, highlighting a notable contrast in slopes. The regression line for the LPGA Tour displays a steeper slope compared to that of the PGA Tour. This discrepancy implies that the difference in tournament earnings between various rankings is more pronounced in the LPGA Tour than in the PGA Tour. To further investigate this phenomenon, the subsequent section will employ the Gini coefficient as a comprehensive measure of inequality.
(Table 5 about here)
Table 5
Gini Coefficients of Tournament Earnings by Players on the JGTO and JLPGA Tour, 2000–2019
Category/Tour | Year |
| 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2019 |
Gini Coefficient of Earnings | | | | | |
JGTO | 0.5645 | 0.5431 | 0.6107 | 0.5837 | 0.6158 |
JLPGA | 0.6354 | 0.6155 | 0.5654 | 0.6532 | 0.5970 |
Source :https://www.jgto.org/pc/TourStats.do |
https://www.lpga.or.jp/stats/2019-2020/lpga/money |
Gini Coefficients The Gini coefficient is a statistical measure used to gauge the level of economic inequality within a population. It quantifies the extent of income disparity or wealth distribution among individuals in a given population. The coefficient ranges between 0 and 1, where a value of zero signifies a completely equal distribution of income. Conversely, a coefficient of one indicates a scenario of perfect inequality, where a single person possesses all the income while others earn nothing. Importantly, the coefficient is independent of population size. This aspect is particularly significant considering that the JGTO, JLPGA, PGA, and LPGA Tour, the four tours mentioned, employ differing criteria to determine the "fields" (number of players) eligible for tournament participation. Additionally, the number of players who have recorded tournament earnings at the end of a season varies among the tours. This suggests that the Gini coefficient could serve as a suitable measure to analyze and compare the level of inequality in tournament earnings across the four tours.
The Gini coefficients of earnings distribution of JGTO and JLPGA are presented in Table 5 for five different years: 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019. According to the data, the Gini coefficient for the JGTO ranged from .543 in 2005 to .616 in 2019. For the JLPGA, the coefficient varied from .565 in 2010 to .653 in 2015. It is worth noting that there were only modest fluctuations in the Gini coefficients between 2000 and 2019 for both the JGTO and JLPGA Tour. This discovery suggests that despite significant changes in the total amount of tournament purses during the same period, the inequality in earnings among players on both tours remained fairly stable.
The JLPGA Tour has experienced substantial growth in terms of both the overall prize money and the number of official events approved by the tour (Both 2017; Shin 2021). In contrast, the JGTO Tour has seen a decline in both the total amount of prize money and the number of official events it has organized (Beall 2022; Golfweek 2004; Guttmann and Thompson 2001; Shin 2021). However, there were no consistent trends in the Gini coefficients for both the JGTO Tour and JLPGA Tour between 2000 and 2019. Consequently, it appears that changes in prize money and the number of official events have not had significant impacts on the distribution patterns of tournament earnings.
(Table 6 appears in this section)
Table 6
Gini Coefficients of Tournament Earnings by Players on the PGA and LPGA Tours, 2010–2019
Category/Tour | Year |
| 2010 | 2015 | 2019 |
Gini Coefficients | | | |
PGA | 0.3271 | 0.3890 | 0.3626 |
LPGA | 0.6291 | 0.6009 | 0.5584 |
https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.109.y2019.html https://www.lpga.com/statistics/money/official-money |
According to the data presented in Table 6, the Gini coefficients for the PGA Tour were .327, .389, and .363 in 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively. For the LPGA Tour, the coefficients were .629, .601, and .554 in the same years. These figures indicate that the level of inequality in terms of tournament earnings distribution was relatively moderate and consistent throughout the period from 2010 to 2019 for the PGA Tour. However, at each of the three time points, the LPGA Tour consistently displayed higher inequality in the distribution of tournament earnings compared to the PGA Tour. The total amount of purses offered by the PGA Tour is nearly five times greater than that of the LPGA Tour. Moreover, the PGA Tour sanctions a larger number of official events than the LPGA Tour. Notably, the level of tournament earnings inequality in the PGA Tour has been significantly lower than that observed in the LPGA Tour.
Numerous cross-national studies have explored the correlation between income inequality and economic growth. However, the results of these studies have not yielded definitive conclusions. According to Kuznets (1955), sustained economic growth would ultimately lead to a decrease in inequality. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as international financial institutions, have reported findings that align with Kuznets' assertions. On the other hand, Rodrik (2007) proposed that the impact of economic growth on income inequality can be positive or negative depending on the existing level of inequality. Furthermore, Rodrik (2007) argued that economic growth alone might not be sufficient to address the challenge of reducing inequality and poverty. In high-income countries, several studies have shown a positive correlation between the two variables, whereas in low-income countries, the relationship has been observed to be negative. Piketty (2014) challenged Kuznets' perspective by highlighting that capitalism inherently fosters significant inequality, and as economies experience growth, income inequality may actually escalate.
The macroeconomic studies in question analyze the nation state as the primary unit of analysis and incorporate both labor income and capital income data. Due to these specific criteria, the conclusions drawn from cross-national studies on the relationship between income inequality and economic growth are not applicable to the current study. However, it is hypothesized that the fluctuations in the overall amount of tournament prizes in each tour can be likened to economic growth at the national level. The earnings received by players in tournaments are undoubtedly classified as labor income. Therefore, a meaningful approach would involve examining the changes in the Gini coefficients of the distribution of tournament earnings over time.
From 2010 to 2019, the LPGA Tour witnessed an increase in total purses from $41.1 million to $70.55 million, even though the number of official events decreased slightly from 36 to 33. On the other hand, the PGA Tour experienced an increase in total purses from $275.1 million to $343.6 million during the same period, while maintaining a consistent number of official events at 46. Surprisingly, despite the significant growth in tournament purses for the PGA Tour, the Gini coefficient measuring the distribution of earnings remained unchanged and stayed at a moderate level over the span of ten years.
In the case of the LPGA Tour, the Gini coefficient was consistently higher than that of the PGA Tour at all three time points. Over the years, the Gini coefficient of the LPGA Tour experienced only a slight decrease from .629 in 2010 to .558 in 2019. The patterns and fluctuations observed in the Gini coefficients of both tours suggest that the growth of tournament purses did not have a significant impact on the inequality of earnings among players. It appears that the size of tournament purses, which can be seen as a measure of the overall economy, actually had a negative influence on the earnings disparity among players.
Compared to the United States' PGA Tour and LPGA Tour, which have seen a significant increase in tournament prize money over time, the tours in Japan have followed different trajectories in the past twenty years. The total prize money and number of official events in the JGTO Tour have decreased, while the JLPGA Tour has witnessed growth in both prize money and the number of official events. Despite this contrasting financial trend between the two tours, there were only minor discrepancies in the Gini coefficients during the period of 2000–2019. The finding suggests that there was no significant correlation between the growth of tournaments purses and the earnings inequality. Overall, these findings indicate that the ongoing disparity in earnings among professional golfers in Japan and the United States may be influenced by the way tournament prizes are distributed and the distribution of talent among players on the tours.