It's All Good, Bro

Callaway Golf Got Wrecked By YouTube Doofuses Because Everyone’s Out Of Ideas

Try this, maybe: Think of the internet as an ocean vast enough to contain a near-infinite constellation of distinct watery biomes, each populated by creatures that have evolved to suit the one in which they live—a bunch of weird creatures traveling in schools, chasing each other around, eating each other, and, in the most inhospitable depths, eating shit in the inky dark. Even to get your feet wet in this ocean is to know that it is bigger and colder than you could grasp. I don't know how to properly describe the uncanny feeling of becoming aware of how many online realities are unfolding, often in ways that draw big audiences and throw off real profits, in browser tabs I will never open, just as that hideous translucent deep-sea crapfish could not describe the experience of living in water. It would in some ways be a cruel thing to drag it up from the depths to show it a bunch of cavorting dolphins, but mostly it would be pointless. It would be too bright for it to see anything at all.

This is how I feel when confronted with the story of Good Good, which started as a golf YouTube channel and swiftly grew into a sprawling brand that sponsored PGA Tour players and a PGA event; they partnered with the brand Callaway Golf and raised $45 million from a group including the Manning brothers' Omaha Productions. This company was growing fast and lucratively, in a number of different directions, in a part of the ocean that I do not visit or really even know how to look at. Golfweek described the company's vision as "blending creator-driven entertainment, professional-caliber competition, and fan engagement into a format designed for golf's next generation of consumers." This is legible enough, but also there's a lot going on in that sentence, little pockets of vibe and affinity that are related enough to exist within the same space, but otherwise not notably in conversation. A lot of companies and a lot of YouTube are also like this.

The events that have led to the unraveling of Good Good over the past few weeks, by contrast, are easy enough to understand. As part of their partnership with Callaway, Good Good made a strange, bad ad that begins with Good Good creator and co-founder Garrett Clark violently pushing a woman, golfer and fellow Good Good creator Alexis Miestowski, to the ground when she tries to touch his Callaway driver. Clark then stands over her and says in a menacing tone, "Do not touch my new driver."

The ad, which was ostensibly a riff on the movie Obsession but otherwise too bad to parse, went over poorly. Major retailers pulled Good Good merchandise from their shelves, and Golf Galaxy took its name off a Golf Channel show it had sponsored alongside Good Good, which led the network to table the show. PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp described the ad as "concerning." In a statement in which he admitted that his company had approved the ad, which Good Good produced, Callaway CEO Chip Brewer said "that approval should never have happened. Mistakes were made and we are taking the matter very seriously."

Callaway subsequently pulled the ad, made one fulsome apology and then a second, donated $1 million to charities dedicated to preventing domestic violence, and cut ties with the brand. Good Good, for its part, duffed not one but two attempts at an apology. Co-founder and CEO Matt Kendrick posted, at 3:38 a.m. ET, a tweet which read: "Interesting that Callaway Golf asks us to make an ad then approves it then asks us to take the fall then drops us in a coordinated media blitz and covers it up by giving a million dollars away thinking everyone will be ok with it. 30 for 39 will be legendary." Last Wednesday, Kendrick and Good Good president Joe Flannery, who had started just days before the ad was released, both stepped down.

There are some extremely obvious lessons to take from this, regarding how to not market your pioneering new golf club as well as the risks of aligning your big global brand with YouTube dunces, and it seems both redundant and rude to remind Callaway of those at this moment. The other brands that have taken long positions on partnering with social media creators and influencers have surely made note of all that, too.

None of this is especially difficult to understand in the abstract. Creators like Good Good have an audience that companies like Callaway want to reach and mostly do not understand. "There's probably a stigma from like the older golf fan that 'only 12-year-olds watch that,'" Kendrick told Golfweek back in 2025. "Well, if you actually knew our demographic, you would know that it's 24-to-35 is our main demographic." In giving Good Good the benefit of the doubt, on things like this bafflingly and obviously bad ad but also in general, Callaway entrusted the brand's reputation to an outside partner that they trust to speak to that audience in a way they'll understand. That Good Good duffed it is inarguable at this point, but there is also that classic showing-dolphins-to-a-crapfish aspect inherent in this sort of thing even when it works. Ben Goren, a writer and marketer, summed those risks up well in his newsletter in late August:

For as ubiquitous as social media is, it has become almost unfathomably segmented. You can earn millions of views and millions of followers without Joe McAverage American having any clue who you are. Joe McAverage American is probably upset that you think he should know who that random TikToker is. And when someone doesn’t know who you are, they are extremely unlikely to have even a moment of hesitation before throwing you into the garbage can when you bore them, confuse them, or, in the case of Good Good, upset them.

In a second post, Goren does a good job illustrating the broader state of play in the golf influencer space, and how the big brands have approached and should approach partnerships with them. There are lessons there, too, both for brands trying to figure out how to use influencers to their advantage and a sport trying to figure out where its next generation of players will come from. As someone who is less interested in marketing or golf than Goren, what I find interesting about this story has less to do with its YouTube-damaged or golfy particulars and more to do with how likely it is to repeat itself elsewhere in the culture.

But also the golfy particulars seem instructive. The sport is in the middle of an authentic surge in popularity, and confronting the happy challenge of having to figure out how to get all those interested new golfers, many of them kids, onto actual golf courses. The brands and institutions that stand to profit from this interest—companies like Callaway, which will sell them clubs and bags for as long as they are playing golf—know where those golfers are, but not really who they are or quite what they want; this is mostly because they are brands and institutions, and as such would naturally struggle with this kind of thing.

And so they have to delegate, or just defer to what YouTube's viewer stats tell them about what those people like and want. This is how cycling's Vuelta a España winds up bringing aboard a member of the Vertical Video Community to chaotic effect, or how the previously bottomless resources of Saudi Arabia's Private Investment Fund created a new and ostentatiously "louder" golf tour that went bankrupt before it figured out what else it might have been. The institutions are guessing, and sorting rude metrics from high to low. The size of the ocean humbles even the biggest fish in it. [...]

But if the Good Good story illustrates the peril inherent in big brands trusting feral web goofs to tell their stories, the cringe and carnage of those big brands trying to tell that story themselves demonstrates why they still need to rely on influencers and creators.

It seems reasonable enough to assume that Callaway approved Good Good's awful, stupid, brand-wrecking ad because they assumed that there was something in it they didn't get; that assumption, and that sense of what they didn't understand, is why they got into business with them in the first place. Callaway's size and status meant that they could survive being wrong in a way that Good Good couldn't, but the problem that brands like Callaway bring in creators like Good Good to solve is a stubborn one, and one those companies are uniquely ill-suited to address. They know enough to know that they don't know how to find or talk to the people they need to reach, and they're right about that; they're astute enough to identify the creators that do know that, and rich enough to pay them. But that's not enough.

If these brands knew what they wanted to say—if they actually had anything in particular to say, or any real sense for the people they want to say it to—it might be easier. Goren, for instance, makes a case for selling golf not as just another backdrop for Good Good-style bits and goofs, but as a worthwhile craft and pursuit in itself. In the absence of any such commitment, institutional players—and businesses, politicians, and others with an interest in shaping and steering those people's opinions—are mostly just casting baited lines out there to see what they can catch in the places where they think they might catch them. But the ocean is the ocean, and having a map of it is very different than having a useful understanding of it. All that money and all that reach and all that work, and they still can't think of what's down there as anything but food.

by David Roth, Defector |  Read more:

Image: Kenneth Richmond/Getty Images

Youth Football is Growing Again

After declining for a decade, participation in tackle football has started to tick back up, thanks to safety changes. But a landmark study raises fresh concerns.

Coach John Hart’s high school football practices look a lot different than they did 15 years ago. They contain no tackling to the ground and rarely last longer than 90 minutes. If John Hart from 15 years ago saw John Hart’s practices today, “I’d probably kick my own butt,” Hart, head coach at defending Indiana state champion Brownsburg High School, said this week.

Hart, who’s 64, played and coached for decades under a trusted set of principles that, in recent years, suddenly threatened to doom the sport, as scientific evidence and shocking tragedies revealed the costs of football’s violence. Leagues, from Pop Warner to the NFL, have changed rules to eliminate the most violent collisions. Coaches take concussions more seriously. Players train to avoid helmet-to-helmet hits. Local governments in some states have passed laws limiting full-contact practice time. The sport’s survival may hinge on better protecting players, and anyone resistant to the changes now risks falling behind.

“The old school in you thinks you need more tackling, then you start finding out there’s a lot better ways of teaching it without full contact,” Hart said. “Most injuries happen in practice, and we’ve cut that way down.”

The urgent need to reform the game came under yet another harsh spotlight this week when a new scientific study, considered one of the most authoritative ever conducted, revealed that at least a quarter, and probably many more, of former NFL players to die in recent years suffered from CTE, the degenerative brain disease linked to repeated head impacts. The study, which points to the cumulative small hits rather than major injuries, instantly renewed the debate over whether and when children (or adults) should play tackle football, threatening to dull the sport’s recent rebound.

After a decade of decline, national tackle football participation has begun to tick back up in recent years. The percentage of kids ages 6 and up who play tackle football rose from 2021 to 2024 to match 2014 levels, according to data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association. Surveys from the National Federation of State High School Associations show the total number of high school players has rebounded from a 2018 low point to meet numbers from a decade ago.

Coaches cite a number of possible reasons. For a generation of children cooped up in pandemic lockdown, the sport offers a chance to bond with new friends before the school year starts. At a time of loneliness and fragmentation, football promises community, even tribalism. Deals for young athletes’ name, image and likeness, or NIL, can be paltry or life-changing secure income streams for a growing number of young athletes. And no sport offers more cultural cachet.

But above all, players, parents and coaches trust that the changes in football have reduced football’s risks.

“The way the game is taught is just safer,” said Justin Alumbaugh, head coach at perennial powerhouse De La Salle High School in Northern California. “As a parent, that alleviates a lot of the fear.”

Medical experts are still trying to fully understand the scale of football’s harms. This week’s landmark study, published in the British Medical Journal, included 878 former players who died between 2016 and 2021. It was anchored by posthumous brain examinations of 338 football players, more than 90 percent of which showed signs of CTE. [...]

But coaches and players and parents have reason to be optimistic. How could the game not be safer when it feels so dramatically different? [...]

Compared with a decade ago, the percentage of children who play any organized sport has dipped across the board, according to one analysis of youth sports data. Tackle football shrunk more than basketball and soccer but less than baseball and volleyball. The two fastest-growing games are individual sports, tennis and golf.

Flag football is the only team sport with a growing participation rate over the past five years. The number of girls playing high school flag football has risen from around 11,000 to 68,000 over the past decade, almost exactly matching the loss of boys tackle football players, according to data collected by the National Federation of State High School Associations. Combining flag and tackle, more children are playing high school football than at any point since 2009.

“People thought flag was going to take people away from tackle,” Ehrlich said, “but it has brought more people into the sport in general.”

The best boys’ flag football players, he noted, usually go on to play tackle football. And even in aftermath of this week’s study, he expects that to continue.

by Albert Samaha, Washington Post | Read more:
Image: William Glasheen/USA Today Network/Reuters

[ed. I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Gen Z doesn't strike me as a full contact loving generation. Maybe future teams will be like the military, more motivated by economic or cultural incentives. Glad to see flag football is getting more popular (and sophisticated) these days.]

Higher Education? Inside Alabama's $47,000,000 Golf Facility

In 2024, the University of Alabama opened the Crimson Reserve golf facility. Built on 164 acres, at a cost of over $47,000,000, it could be the best practice area in golf. With design input from Justin Thomas as well as Davis Love III, the Crimson Reserve features a 400-yard long driving range, a custom-designed 9-hole course and a 24,000 square foot clubhouse, complete with a gym, putting studio, hitting bays and locker rooms.

~ Golf Digest via YouTube

[ed. Priorities. I'm not even going to try looking up what this school spends on football. For a better look inside, see this video.]

NFL Pro Bowl: Good Bye and Good Riddance

He was a salty old dog, the wrinkled skin on his bare torso stained and worn like a faded leather wallet. For the price of a Longboard Lager or three, this sketchy surf bum had a story to tell.

“Have you heard of the Beach Boys?” he asked, hoping to lure us in like a fisherman stalking an Ono offshore of Waikiki Beach, which happened to be the majestic setting in our field of vision. Duh, the looks on our faces said, but our uninvited table guest wasn’t waiting for the answer. His long, disjointed tale ended with him revealing that he was, in fact, the hidden “sixth — or actually seventh” member of the storied band.

And then, with a flourish, he burped so loudly that it almost spoiled a perfect sunset.

While understandably dubious of the claim’s legitimacy, John Elway took it all in with a bemused smile — and ordered up another round of sashimi and beers. The legendary quarterback was in the best mood ever as the sun disappeared under the Pacific Ocean on that late-January evening in 1998, about 72 hours removed from finally winning the Super Bowl on his fourth try.

It had been a whirlwind: Hoisting the Lombardi Trophy after leading the Denver Broncos to an upset of the Green Bay Packers in San Diego; going up the coast to Disneyland as part of the obligatory promotional campaign; returning to Denver for a parade; hopping on a flight to paradise. Upon landing in Honolulu, Elway and his head coach, Mike Shanahan, had come straight here, to the Barefoot Bar at Duke’s Waikiki, where the celebration would continue long past golden hour.

“I Get Around” might as well have blared from the beachfront speakers. Come to think of it, that probably happened, too.

When I think about the heyday of the Pro Bowl, which was officially eliminated Wednesday after a long, dubious decline, I marvel at the multitude of casual, unguarded moments that football’s biggest names routinely experienced upon leaving the continent. Getting swept up in poolside chess drama between the late, great San Diego Chargers linebacker Junior Seau and future Los Angeles Chargers coach Jim Harbaugh is one of many examples near and dear to my heart.

Though Elway didn’t play for the AFC in that 1998 Pro Bowl — he withdrew with an ankle “injury” and was replaced by another future first-ballot Hall of Famer, Warren Moon — there was a reason he bothered to show up. In Hawaii, even on Oahu’s most storied and crowded beach, a superstar could blend in while being chatted up by the Seventh Beach Boy. And for one week each year, even a culture as regimented and hyper-serious as the NFL’s could channel some fun in the sun.

From 1980 to 2009, the Pro Bowl enjoyed an uninterrupted, three-decade run at rickety Aloha Stadium as the soothing capstone of the NFL season. Players acclimated to island time, cherished the collective exhale and staged a stripped-down showcase of their sport. Coaches wore flower-print shirts and leis and unfashionable shades. Viewers saw a low-stress spectacle that typically ramped up in the fourth quarter, when players started caring about the difference in checks (sometimes as little as a few thousand dollars) doled out to participants on the winning and losing teams.

For the league’s standout performers and their families, the week in Hawaii that immediately followed the Super Bowl was a reward for a job well done. And as word spread of Pro Bowl week’s breezy vibe, plenty of non-stars started paying their own way to join the party, too.

The late Russ Francis, a native Hawaiian who became an All-Pro tight end and Super Bowl champion during a standout career with the New England Patriots and San Francisco 49ers in the 1970s and ’80s, put it this way when I interviewed him for a “Sports Illustrated” feature in 1996: “The Pro Bowl is a celebration of football. It’s the one time when players can let down their guard, enjoy their status and revel in the joys of their profession. It’s camaraderie and adventure — the way football used to be.”

Even when those adventures bordered on the farcical, nobody seemed to mind all that much. [...]

On the field, the action was typically far from idyllic, but the games got reasonably good ratings and served as a gentle bedtime tuck-in for the sport after a long, draining season. The league started messing with the Pro Bowl, however — beginning in 2010, when the powers that be moved it over to the mainland (Miami) and shifted it into the Sunday slot between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl — and the vibe quickly degenerated.

Though the game returned to Hawaii in 2011 and stayed there through 2016 (aside from a 2015 interlude in Arizona), the Pro Bowl quickly lost its luster and any sense of legitimacy. It essentially jumped the shark in 2012, when the action looked so bogus that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell publicly threatened to cancel the event if players didn’t start trying.

Two years later the league scrapped the AFC vs. NFC format in favor of a silly draft between Hall of Fame honorary captains (beginning with Rice and Sanders), creating a sense of confusion among consumers. In 2019, former Cowboys tight end Jason Witten, as part of ESPN’s broadcast crew, unwittingly broke the trophy in half while congratulating AFC stars Patrick Mahomes and Jamal Adams, providing a fitting metaphor for the state of the event.

By 2023 the NFL gave up any pretense of staging an actual game, replacing the Pro Bowl with a skills competition that culminated with a flag football. On Wednesday, the league officially pulled the plug, and few (if any) tears were shed.

I’m not shedding any, either. Change is part of life. The Pro Bowl had its blessed run in the island sun but was not destined to last forever.

by Michael Silver, The Athletic | Read more:
Image: Al Messerschmidt/Getty Images
[ed. Glad this debacle has finally been killed off. Still, there were moments. Teams would sometimes practice at my old high school football field (McKinley HS) in Honolulu. Got to see big Jim Plunkett throwing bullets, and Lynn Swann running routes and making catches. After one game I almost got OJ Simpson's chin strap but at the last moment he gave it to the kid next to me, saying he'd promised it to him. Chris Collinsworth was there one year and had a good game. But it was always just a play show, an embarassment with coaches wearing outrageous Aloha shirts, bedecked in leis, and more often than not just joking around between plays, barely paying attention. So yeah, don't think anyone will miss it. See also: The NFL finally put the Pro Bowl out of its misery. It was time (Athletic):]

***

The National Football League finally cried uncle on the Pro Bowl, and, of all things, the petrified remains of LIV Golf quickly came to mind.

Just more evidence that no matter how much money and power are behind it, you cannot sell a meaningless, watered-down product to consumers even as insatiable as sports fans. The mighty NFL proved over the years it can sell just about anything to just about anyone, except the Pro Bowl, which should have been eulogized a long time ago. [...]

It’s stunning the Pro Bowl actually survived for more than 70 years in a sport defined by violence, the long-term toll taken on players’ bodies and brains, and this unassailable fact:

You can play worthwhile football at only one speed — full. [...]

And in the dead of winter, it used to be pretty cool to absorb those televised scenes from Hawaii and to see Bill Belichick huddling with his strange AFC bedfellow, Peyton Manning.

But whatever redeeming qualities remained were sacrificed when the Pro Bowl became the Pro Bowl Games, and when the main event became a flag football contest that ultimately included a sixth alternate at quarterback.

Inside the Modern Sports Media Ecosystem

Up until just the past decade or so, sports media felt relatively straightforward. Journalists covered games, broadcasters delivered live action, and fans consumed content through a handful of established channels. That world still exists, but it is no longer the full picture.

Today’s sports media ecosystem is layered, interconnected, and constantly evolving. Traditional media brands now coexist with club media teams, independent creators, analytics specialists, and commercial partners, all competing for the same audience attention.

The result is an industry that offers more entry points than ever before, yet demands a deeper understanding of how the system truly works.

To build a career in sports media today, it is no longer enough to ask, “How do I become a journalist?” The better question is: “Where do I fit within the ecosystem?”

A multi-trillion-dollar industry that runs on attention

Understanding sports media starts with recognising its scale. The broader entertainment and media sector continues to expand globally, reaching roughly $2.9 trillion in revenue in 2024 and projected to grow steadily toward $3.5 trillion by the end of the decade.

Sport sits at the heart of that growth. Media rights, advertising, sponsorships, and digital engagement are now primary revenue drivers, meaning storytelling is no longer just editorial work; it is economic infrastructure. Brands, leagues, broadcasters, and platforms are all fighting to capture and monetize fan attention in an increasingly fragmented landscape.

The global sports market itself continues to grow rapidly, with projections suggesting steady expansion driven by investment, infrastructure, and digital innovation.

For newcomers, this is the first major insight: sports media is no longer a single profession. It is an ecosystem of roles shaped by business models, technology, and audience behaviour.

The rise of the distributed media model

One of the most significant shifts of the past five years has been the breakdown of traditional media boundaries. Streaming platforms, social video, and direct-to-consumer channels are redefining how stories reach fans. Streaming now dominates a majority of viewing time in many markets, reflecting a massive behavioural shift away from linear television.

At the same time, legacy broadcasters are reinventing themselves. ESPN’s move toward a direct-to-consumer streaming model, for example, illustrates how even the biggest brands must adapt to cord-cutting and changing fan expectations.

This transformation has reshaped the media ecosystem into a network rather than a hierarchy. Instead of a single editorial gatekeeper deciding which stories matter, content now flows across multiple platforms simultaneously, from live broadcasts and newsletters to TikTok clips and podcast interviews.

For those entering the industry, this means career paths are no longer linear. A sports media professional might write articles, produce short-form video, manage athlete content, and collaborate with commercial teams, often within the same role.

Who actually tells sports stories today?

Look behind any major sports narrative in 2026 and you will find a diverse mix of contributors.

Journalists and editors still play a vital role, shaping narratives and maintaining editorial standards. But they now operate alongside club media departments producing documentary-style content, communications teams managing messaging, analysts turning data into storytelling assets, and independent creators building niche audiences.

Technology has accelerated this diversification. Generative AI tools, analytics platforms, and social media dashboards allow smaller teams to produce content at scale, creating new opportunities but also raising the bar for skills and adaptability.

The ecosystem is therefore less about job titles and more about functions. Someone entering sports media might begin as a writer but gradually evolve into a hybrid role that combines reporting, content strategy, and audience engagement.

Why the ecosystem feels more competitive (and more open) than ever

There is a paradox at the heart of modern sports media.

On one hand, the industry is expanding, with new platforms and monetisation models opening doors. On the other, traditional newsroom jobs have become less stable due to restructuring, consolidation, and the rise of automation.

This tension is shaping how careers are built. Rather than relying solely on a single employer or traditional pathway, many professionals now develop their own personal platforms while collaborating with organisations on specific projects.

The competition for fan attention has intensified as well. Deloitte’s outlook highlights how sports organisations must innovate constantly, using data, digital experiences, and storytelling to remain relevant.

For newcomers, this means opportunity exists, but only for those willing to understand the full ecosystem rather than focusing on one narrow entry point.

Technology isn’t replacing storytelling

Artificial intelligence, analytics, and automation are changing how content is created and distributed, but they are not removing the need for human storytellers. Instead, technology is redefining what storytelling looks like.

AI tools can now generate highlights, automate commentary, and personalise content for millions of fans at once. Yet the demand for authentic voices, original reporting, and compelling narratives remains strong because connection (not just information) drives engagement.

At the same time, social platforms and streaming ecosystems allow creators to reach audiences directly. Digital distribution and data-driven advertising are enabling more personalised experiences, which in turn increases the need for media professionals who understand audience behaviour and narrative strategy.

The modern ecosystem therefore rewards those who can combine storytelling instincts with digital awareness.

What this means for people entering the industry

The biggest shift in 2026 is not technological, it is structural. The sports media ecosystem is no longer defined by a single career path. Instead, it resembles a network of interconnected roles that blend journalism, production, marketing, and communication.

by Sports Media Huddle |  Read more:

Image: uncredited/Keith Allison

[ed. See also: The Role of a Sports Producer in Live Broadcast Production (SVG);  Understanding the Key Players in Audiovisual Production (JN); and, Sports commentator (Wikipedia).]

The Reconstructionist: How PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp is Putting Golf Back Together

Brian Rolapp left the NFL to become CEO of the PGA Tour in the summer of 2025, walking away from two decades at a league he didn’t just rise inside of but helped build. The last several years of his career there he effectively ran the NFL business—the deals, the platforms and the broadcasts that turned an already dominant sport into the last appointment viewing left in American culture. He was the commissioner-in-waiting, the heir apparent to a job that pays more, commands more attention and carries far less daily uncertainty than the one he chose instead.

He left anyway, to lead a sport in the middle of an existential crisis it had largely caused itself. At age 54, he is a year into the job now, and his home office in Darien, Conn., has not caught up to the change. There is no golf memorabilia save for a family trophy, “The Rolapp Cup.” The football stuff has been left out of habit rather than sentiment, the residue of someone who has spent his career being told how good he is at what he does and has decided not to believe it. [...]

Ages 19 through 27 set the entire trajectory of his life, he says. He came home from his mission an almost-21-year-old college sophomore. Shortly after, his father died at 52. Rolapp met his wife, Cindy, not long after, married her, had his first child, and somewhere in that compressed timeframe became, in his own estimation, a person who knew what he wanted out of life at an age when most people don’t. “I think that’s kind of a rare thing,” he says, quietly enough that the sentence nearly disappears into the room.

The story of how he met Cindy is the one spot in hours of conversation where Rolapp’s voice picks up, faster, lighter, a story told at enough dinner parties to have worn itself smooth. He asked her out three times. The first go-around she said no; she had to watch her nieces. The second she had to do something for her grandmother. Rolapp assumed he was being gently but obviously turned down. A mutual friend assured him otherwise; that’s just who she is, she means it all literally. The third time, he asked if she wanted to get something to eat. Cindy said no; the Cowboys were playing the Cardinals on Monday Night Football, and she wanted to watch. She came over in sweatpants and a sweatshirt, having apparently spent zero time getting ready. His roommate told him after the game that if he didn’t ask her out again, he was an idiot.

Cindy has never cared, in the years since, what Brian does for a living, not out of indifference but by a deliberate boundary. “The only thing I care about,” he says, quoting her, “is that it doesn’t consume you, that it makes you a fuller human.” They do not talk about work at home. “Around the neighborhood, I was the NFL guy,” he says. “Now I’m probably the PGA Tour guy. Everyone else tries to define you by your job. I’m lucky to have a family that doesn’t.” For a while, that boundary lived in a small, deliberate joke—for years, Rolapp’s social media bio read simply “husband of one,” a wink at both the marriage and the faith it’s built on, a devout Mormon’s version of a punchline. It is, colleagues say, entirely on brand. Sincere enough to be meant, funny enough that nobody would mistake it for preaching. [...]

Rolapp’s title at the NFL was chief media and business officer. Officially, he ran league business operations; unofficially, he ran nearly everything at the NFL that wasn’t the games themselves. Media rights deals worth tens of billions of dollars went through his office along with the league’s digital strategy, built from basically nothing. When he started in 2003 the league was doing somewhere around $5 billion in revenue. This year, it will do roughly $23 billion. “I’m not saying I’m responsible for that,” he says, “but I was part of a hyper-growth stretch for a long time.”

Steve Bornstein, the former ESPN and NFL Network chief who recruited Rolapp from NBC to work at the NFL in 2003, says that’s underselling it. Bornstein says that Rolapp saw where the business was shifting—toward entertainment and media consumption onto phones and into digital spaces—years before that was conventional wisdom inside a league long organized around Sunday afternoons and cable carriage fees. What made him really effective, Bornstein says, had less to do with vision than with a habit most executives eventually lose. “It’s a person that listens and doesn’t just talk,” he says. “That’s his superpower. He listens, he synthesizes it, and then he asks intelligent, informed questions.”

Joe Siclare, the NFL’s longtime chief financial officer of 33 years, has never revised his first impression of Rolapp—smart, fluent in the media business in a way that never had to be re-earned. What Siclare remembers most isn’t the scope of Rolapp’s job so much as how he carried it. Rolapp rarely walked into a room already convinced he had the answer; he’d arrive with a position and let the facts move it, which Siclare came to see less as indecision than as a kind of discipline. “I think people felt like they worked with him, not for him.” [...]

Rolapp’s last stretch at the league is the clearest evidence of what all that listening and synthesizing produced. In March 2021, he oversaw the long-term media agreements that locked in Amazon, CBS, ESPN/ABC, Fox and NBC as the NFL’s broadcast partners for the next decade. He helped devise and implement the move of Sunday Ticket to YouTube, ending a more than 25-year run on satellite and transferring the league’s most devoted, highest-paying fans to a platform that didn’t exist when the package was created. He also led 32 Equity, the vehicle through which the league and its owners now make outside investments—one more example of building infrastructure for a business a decade before the rest of the industry admitted it needed one. 

“You’re only as good as your team,” Rolapp says, the closest thing to a mission statement in an otherwise unsentimental accounting of his own record.

That is precisely what makes his career change worth examining. Men who spend two decades succeeding inside one system rarely walk away from it at the moment of maximum leverage, and usually not for an organization in worse shape. “He was so valuable at what he did,” Lurie says, “that a lot of us, while genuinely happy for him, knew it was a devastating loss for the league.”

“I loved my job. I loved the NFL,” he says. “I probably could have done it forever.” He pauses on the word forever the way people do when they catch themselves nearly committing to something they no longer want. “To be honest, I was bored,” Rolapp says.

It’s a strange thing to admit about two decades that included a streaming buildout from scratch, a media-rights overhaul, and the slow migration of football from broadcast television to whatever comes after it—a stretch defined by constant change. That, Rolapp says, was also the problem. The change had become routine, the crises predictable, the same kinds of meetings producing the same kinds of decisions. There was less left to be curious about. He wasn’t looking for an exit, he says, but knew one was likely coming.

There was no obvious playbook for Rolapp’s new task. By the time he was named PGA Tour commissioner, the tour’s leadership had spent nearly two years locked in negotiations with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and fans had grown exhausted by a schism that seemed indifferent to what they wanted.

What Rolapp did first was talk, in mostly informal sometimes hour-long conversations with players. The format, built around three questions, was almost naively simple for a man about to reorganize a multibillion-dollar sport: What do we do well? What don’t we do well? What would you change? What he found surprised him—a locker room that turned out to be smarter and more self-aware than its reputation suggested. He met players who loved the game without reservation but were more than ready to admit the tour itself had grown stale with too many events with too little imagination. As the months passed and the tour’s Future Competition Committee—the nine-person group led by Tiger Woods charged with reimagining the schedule—began to crystallize a direction, the conversations changed. “It became more of a validation of where we were going,” Rolapp says. “Still good. But different.”

This was different than the relationship he knew at the NFL, where the players’ union is collectively bargained, formal and distant by design. Golf was, at best, a fragile and personal trust between commissioner and competitors. That trust had frayed by the time Rolapp arrived, exacerbated by the tour’s surprise framework agreement with PIF in June 2023 that blindsided players who’d spent months publicly defending an institution that had been secretly negotiating with the enemy. Rolapp understood that whatever faith remained was thin, and that he wasn’t going to charm his way in. He went to work.

“I think he’s a guy that just kind of gets things done,” Scottie Scheffler said earlier this year at Bay Hill. “I met him last year at one of the playoff events. We sat down, and it was just, like, just getting right into it. He started asking questions and we started talking. It was like no nonsense—like, we’ve got an hour, let’s make the most of this hour. I loved it.”

“I clearly didn’t know a lot of things: how the tour worked, how the sport was set up, what was on the players’ minds,” Rolapp says. “But it’s also part of my leadership style. I’ve always believed humility and self-awareness are underrated leadership attributes, because they let somebody know what they don’t know. When you lose sight of that, that’s when leaders get in trouble, or they surround themselves with people who tell them what they want to hear, the classic yes men.”

by Joel Beall, Golf Digest |  Read more:

Image: Eric Ogden

[ed. Exactly what the sport needs. Contrast this leadership style with...oh, anyone else you can think of...]

Surfing the Bore Tide

The Allure and Peril of Riding an Alaskan Wave for Six Miles (NYT)

Image: Kerry Tasker

[ed. Not new but apparently increasing in popularity.]

Chinese All-Terrain Robots

 

[ed. Holy crap. Unitree's "Super Athlete". It'll take your gear up or down a mountain with ease and do a little pirouette at the end.]

The Most Effective Attacking Run at this World Cup

And why it works so well.

Heading into its quarter-finals, the 2026 World Cup had seen more than 90,000 passes, with close to 1,800 of those leading to chances on goal, and 2,367 shots, 280 of which found the back of the net.

These are some of football’s most quantifiable actions, simple to both track and evaluate their effectiveness because they involve the most important piece of equipment in the sport. The ball.

Naturally, players who move the ball closer to goal or are involved in possession sequences that end up in opportunities to score can be seen as impacting the game, the value of their actions derived from tangible outcomes.

But football is not a static sport. And as players move, they interact; swapping positions, creating spaces for others and dragging opponents into other areas of the pitch.

So what about decisions and movements without the ball, those that indirectly affect possession plays by creating that extra second of time and space for team-mates?

Developments in the quality and the availability of tracking data mean that some of football’s key off-ball movements are well-integrated into public analysis. But there is still ground to break when it comes to evaluating the secondary effects of off-ball runs on a wider scale: which ones are the most quietly effective, and who performs them best?

Using in-house data, FIFA’s Football Performance Insights team have noticed a trend.

Compared to previous World Cups, they have spotted that possessions including an off-ball run which targets the inside channels and the space in behind the opposition defence are leading to successful actions more frequently. In other words, attacking the gap between the widest defender and the centre-back nearest to them with a forward run is increasingly valuable.

Compared to the previous World Cup four years ago, possession sequences that include such a movement in the 2026 tournament are leading to around 2.7 shots on goal per 30 minutes of ball-in-play time — an increase of around 34 per cent.

Those runs are effective because they cause tension in the opponents’ defence. Most often, that full-back will have their eye on a winger, while the centre-back on that side will be tracking the striker.

A run from deep through that gap means one or the other has to leave their current player to follow it — and in the time it takes for the defenders to decide which of them should do that, the attacking player, with their forward momentum, has already stolen a march.

Here is an example from the round of 32, as England seek to break down a compact DR Congo defence, who are sitting a little deeper to try to get to extra time...

by Thom Harris, The Athletic |  Read more:

Images: uncredited/The Athletic

They’re the Best-Dressed Golfers in the World, and They’re Just Getting Started

The year is 2026, and the driving range at Riviera Country Club is packed with the best female golfers in the world for the United States’ national open. They’re wearing pleated pants, sweater vests and knitted polo shirts. Some are in ruffled skirts, others Bermuda shorts; a few are sporting long sleeves, others tank tops.

The No. 1 player in the world, Nelly Korda, is wearing a U.S. Men’s National Team soccer jersey, and Ina Kim-Schaad, the Mid-Amateur champion, has already gone viral for her wide-leg, high-waisted trousers, argyle cardigan and matching neck scarf.

What we’re seeing at events such as the U.S. Women’s Open and this week’s Evian Championship is only the beginning, and the women’s golf fashion space still has a long way to go in terms of variety, function and style. But those within the industry agree there is a window of opportunity, as companies are finally gathering the resources and utilizing the avenues needed to take off.

“It was just amazing to get the outpouring of support that I did,” Kim-Schaad, a former Wall Street trader turned sports psychologist, says. “And I do think that does signal, to some degree, that there is that craving for something different.”

There comes a time in every woman’s experience in golf when her attire is called into question. Whether it is the length of her skirt or the amount of her shoulders that is showing, country clubs and golf organizations have been policing women’s clothing since the moment they deigned to let women enter.

Professional players are increasingly buying into fashion choices that take full advantage of the freedom Michelle Wie West led the charge for during her LPGA playing days, from a creative and comfort standpoint. Now, the questions are shifting from “Is that allowed?” to “Where’d she buy that?”

You’d think it was the other way around. But the PGA Tour has more stringent attire policies than the LPGA Tour. Male touring professionals on the PGA Tour are required to wear long pants during competition and may wear shorts during practice rounds only if they are “knee-length, tailored and neat in appearance.” There is a 3-by-5-inch limit on logo size. The women on the LPGA are not subject to the same restrictions regarding their apparel or sponsorship logos.

The LPGA’s dress code is exactly one sentence: “Players are expected to dress in a professional manner and reflect a positive image to the public.”

Stephen and Erica Malbon, the couple behind the streetwear-inspired golf clothing company Malbon Golf, are never surprised when one of Jason Day’s splashy outfits gets flagged by the governing bodies in men’s golf. At the 2024 Masters, Augusta National famously asked Day to remove his sweater vest. So Malbon has naturally gravitated more heavily toward women’s golf fashion in recent years. Those same rules do not apply, and Malbon Women, with popular Englishwoman Charley Hull as its lead athlete, has been growing faster in popularity than they ever expected.

“The PGA (Tour) is like the no-fun police,” Stephen Malbon says. “The LPGA is like, be who you are, have fun, play and just get out here. I love that about women’s golf. The men look like sh– compared to the women, and it’s because the men can’t look good. What are you going to do with a polo and pants?”

As the women’s game has grown recreationally, so, too, has its fashion ecosystem. According to the National Golf Foundation, women account for 60 percent of the growth in on-course participation in the U.S. since 2019, aided by the sport’s boom during the pandemic. There are a record number of female golfers in the country, 7.9 million, topping the previous record of 7.1 million set in 2006, before participation dipped from 2007 to 2011 due to the recession.

“I think there’s been a trickle-down effect of OK, it’s not just old white guys playing golf anymore,” Erica Malbon says. “From our perspective in the industry, we want to make clothes that show people’s personalities, make a better offering for them to play golf and also feel fashionable and like themselves.” [...]

...]

Mastering women’s golf attire goes beyond keeping up with current styles or trends. It can be successful only if it prioritizes function while also providing options for differing preferences.

The sporting goods powerhouse considered new details, from certain silhouettes creating unwanted tan lines to the way a skirt drapes when a woman bends over to pick up her tee.

Any female golfer will tell you that women’s apparel has been plagued by one particular issue, which Nike has also addressed: pockets. The game is still figuring out how to incorporate pockets that are deep enough for yardage books, balls and tees. One tiny coin pocket placed on the very back side of a skirt or pair of pants just isn’t going to cut it.

Female golfers are especially in tune with the way clothing feels and looks on the body, too. Korda says she’s hyperaware of movement in her apparel — does it flow in the wind or stay stationary? Wie West says she isn’t fond of clothing that creates noise, so she avoids certain fabrics that cause her to hear herself while swinging. [...]

“The more diversity of design we have, the more women will feel like, wow, they’re really speaking to me, this feels authentic.”

Kim-Schaad says the majority of her golf wardrobe is not purchased from golf brands. She’d rather dress in styles that make her feel comfortable and confident than blend in with the rest.

“I think that’s the biggest thing. Guys have no problem all wearing the same polo. But for women, it’s actually very different,” Kim-Schaad says. “It’s how we show our own personal flair.

“The more diversity of design we have, the more women will feel like, wow, they’re really speaking to me, this feels authentic.”

by Gabby Herzig, The Athletic | Read more:
Images:Kelsea Petersen / The Athletic; Photos: Ryan Sirus, Dylan Buell, Brenton Tse / Getty Images; Warren Little / Getty Images; Sean Haffey / Getty;Scott Halleran / Getty Images
[ed. Watching the Evian this week I thought the same thing... women's golf attire sure has gotten stylish and cutting edge these days. Very modern and flattering. Other segments of the 'athleisure' industry (and beyond) should take note.]

Cape Verde Blue Sharks
Chandan Khanna/AFP/Getty Images
via: Where is Cape Verde? Meet the tiny African island nation upsetting World Cup giants (Guardian)

[ed. Love this photo - pure joy.]

My Horrible, No Good Weekend at the UFC White House Fight

[ed. I didn't waste ten brain cells thinking about this 'celebration' - before or after. I guess it happened.]

If January 6th was violent projectile vomit then the Ultimate Fighting Championship's Freedom 250 event on the south White House lawn this weekend was the miserable subsequent spew of diarrhea from our sick electoral body. [ed. Yow.]

I spent the weekend ambling around the grounds that sit in the shadow of the Washington Monument, watching as it was transmogrified into a grotesque mishmash of a NASCAR rally and the Gathering of the Juggalos. America's vast, sunburnt underbelly of sunglassed men with names that end in -ayden and their vacant-eyed girlfriends descended on DC to, at least in theory, celebrate President Donald Trump's birthday and watch dudes beat the shit out of each other in a ring sponsored by crypto casinos, the now-unwoke Bud Light, and Saudi real estate, soundtracked by Godsmack and Diddy. The winning fighters received a special red, white, and blue raspberry "liberty juice" from Monster Energy to drink on camera and $425,000 worth of Trump's crypto tokens for their trouble.

I went into this weekend with a fairly open mind. There is something actually endearing about opening up the White House grounds to the public for a fun event that families can go to. But after 48 hours throwing back some of the most disgusting $30 margaritas I've ever had the misfortune of suffering through, my conclusion is that UFC's Freedom 250 could have only been dreamed up by a president and a fighting league that fucking loathes their own supporters.

I haven't experienced this level of profound pity for the average person attending an event since I used to report on crypto conventions. Which is appropriate, seeing as how Crypto.com was one of the high-level sponsors this weekend. At events like Ethereum Denver and Bitcoin Miami I met the same nice, normal-ish people looking for a good time, dropped seemingly unaware into a system designed to drain every last dollar out of them. If you are a UFC fan and you are reading this, please listen to me. I have now seen the machine up close. UFC CEO Dana White hates you. He doesn't even think you're a human being. [...]

On Saturday, we showed up early and still waited in line for nearly an hour in the blistering sun before we could get into the park. It got so bad that organizers started half-heartedly throwing water bottles at us. I joked that maybe the delays were because the TSA was running the security, only for my jaw to drop when we reached the gate and discover that, in fact, yes, the TSA was manning the metal detectors. Every guest also had to be searched by a Secret Service agent.

UFC reportedly paid $60 million to hold the fight at the White House. White, in a press conference on Sunday, said they would never do it again because of how expensive it was (they made about half the cost back in sponsorships). But it's unclear if they also paid for all the different law enforcement agencies to work the event. Aside from TSA and Secret Service, I spotted Homeland Security officers, US Park Police, DEA officers, the National Guard, and a whole bunch of local law enforcement. I am the last person to whine about the sanctity of law enforcement, but even I found it monstrous and depressing that our various law enforcement agencies were reduced to festival security.

Once we got into the Ellipse, there was shockingly little to do. You could take a photo in front of a WWE championship belt (both the UFC and the WWE are owned by the TKO Group), drink the aforementioned expensive alcohol, eat at a handful of food stands, take a photo with Monster Energy Drink booth babes, watch a guy rev a car in place at the RAM pop up, visit Meta AI's VR exhibit, and mindlessly stand in the field and watch Turning Point USA commercials play on a loop all day — complete with a Charlie Kirk voiceover. On the second day, they at least added a mechanical bull.

Beyond the TPUSA ads on the big screens, there was very little in the way of actual programming. On Saturday, there were some brief interviews with UFC fighters no one watched, the official weigh-in, which was bungled in ways we'll discuss in a sec, and a performance by the Zac Brown Band, where I watched what was quite possibly the worst guitar solo I've ever heard in my entire life. The night ended with, I'm not kidding, one single firework.

On Sunday, before the fight, there was a live taping of Logan Paul's Impaulsive podcast, which featured the Kick streamer Ninadrama, real name Nina Marie Daniele. The men in the crowd around me all started asking each other who she was. I'm not a prude and I am very aware that the entire weekend was based around a sport where men beat each other to a bloody pulp, but I, again, felt a bottomless pit of despair in my stomach looking around at all the families watching Paul and Daniele talk about how she should sell feet pics and why her Instagram followers keep making jokes about fingering her. Is this the best we can do? Is what we are? If Logan Paul's podcast is the result of 250 years of the American experiment then it was a failed experiment. [...]

Though I'm not sure the complete lack of amenities — and places to sit (I guess chairs are woke) — mattered to the UFC diehards that traveled from all over the world to watch the fight on Sunday night. I spoke to fans from across the US, Canada, and even further, none of whom seemed to be thinking particularly deeply about any of this. For what it's worth, they were all fairly nice. And the majority of them didn't even realize the event was connected to Trump's birthday until I reminded them. The big focus, instead, was gambling. Based on my own personal survey of attendees, it was split fairly evenly between FanDuel and DraftKings. And it seems like even the Trumps were trying to get in on the action. [...]

It wasn't just the question of "what is America" that loomed over the whole weekend for me, though. I also wondered whether this was all even worth it. Not just White's $60 million investment, but, also, Trump's continued endorsement of hypermasculine gutter culture. Can you feed a political movement with jalapeño vodka slams, Monster Energy Drinks, and potato chip skewers? The modern Republican Party has always been a coalition of vampiric aristocrats and a roving tailgate of redneck dopes, but at least the party of Reagan and Bush was smart enough to LARP as some mythic cowboy archetype. Do the JD Vance's and Marco Rubio's of the world think there is a path forward after Trump if they can capture the "guy who wears an Affliction T-shirt in the pool" vote?

As annoying as this weekend was, however, I actually think it's made me more optimistic about American politics than I've felt in a decade. I have seen what the combined power of Trump's oligarch cronies and their money can do. How weak and lazy it all is. How little impact and support $60 million buys them. A barren field, a sporting event that you had to buy Paramount+ to even watch, a bunch of "celebrities" no one's ever heard of, an undersold free event full of people who literally forgot it was Trump's birthday party!

by Ryan Broderick, Garbage Day |  Read more:

Image: uncredited

[ed. See also: Oiled-Up, Half-Naked Men Entertain President On 80th Birthday (Wonkette):]

***

Something around $30 million dollars was spent to turn the South Lawn of the White House into a giant cage fighting ring called “The Claw.” Behind it, on The Ellipse, was a small UFC festival. There was a large stage; scantily clad ring-girls; dumpy MAGA dudes in America-themed sleeveless T-shirts; bars shilling $12 Budweiser, $20 whiskey or tequila cocktails, $4 12 oz. cups of water; $25 burgers and kielbasas called “Giant Western Sausages”; portable chemical toilets; and two “free water” stations. There were two or three large stores offering a seemingly endless supply of UFC and Freedom 250 merchandise, like trading cards, T-shirts, hats, fingerless gloves and novelty championship belts. [...]

It should be noted that general admission tickets to the Fan Experience on the Ellipse were free, and seemingly given out at random to anyone who signed up on the UFC site. There were also some special VIP packages for deep-pocketed investors that ranged up to $1.5 million. [...]

But why not? It’s a goddamn UFC fight on the South Lawn! It’s like a grisly highway crash that backs up traffic for miles. Eventually, you creep close enough to submit to your lesser human instincts and gawk like a shaved ape when you finally pass the smoldering wreckage.

You Can Make Free Money on Polymarket. If You Know Math.

Betting is fundamentally about risk: You might win or you might lose. But what if you could always win?

Enter prediction markets, sites that let users bet on pretty much anything. Most of those users lose. But a savvy few have made a fortune using basic math.

Prediction sites like Polymarket and Kalshi offer many of the same markets. And usually, they post the same odds.

But sometimes the odds diverge — like in these markets about the 2028 Democratic presidential primary race.

In March, Kalshi had Gavin Newsom’s odds of winning at 29 percent, but Polymarket had them at 24 percent. These disparities are good news, if you’re gambling.

Taking both sides of the same bet is usually a wash. But not when there’s a price disparity.

In the example with Mr. Newsom, imagine you bought “Yes” on Polymarket, for 24 cents, and also “No” on Kalshi, for 71 cents.

If Mr. Newsom wins, then Polymarket owes you a dollar.

If he loses, then Kalshi owes you a dollar.

One of these bets must be a winner — so you’re guaranteed to make a dollar. But because of the disparity, you’ll only have spent 95 cents on the bets.

If this sounds like printing money, that’s because it basically is. It’s called “arbitrage,” long a favorite strategy of quantitative traders trying to juice profits from the stock market with minimal risk. You buy something at a cheap price, and simultaneously sell it at a more expensive price. It’s a win-win.

Some bettors are now using the same strategy to rake in thousands of dollars from online prediction sites. Moving quickly, they can take advantage of price gaps between exchanges like Polymarket and Kalshi, or even between the prediction sites and sports-betting sites like DraftKings and FanDuel. The wider the spread, the bigger the potential profit.

Ryan Noel, 25, has built a career arbitrage-betting (or “arbing,” as he calls it) during sports games. He regularly makes more than 1,000 arbitrage bets per week on prediction sites like Polymarket, Kalshi, Novig and ProphetX, in addition to online sportsbooks, he said.

“Software shows me the price of every sort of market at the same time,” said Mr. Noel, who started arbing in late 2023, while working as an actuary, before quitting his job last year. So far, the strategy has netted him more than $1 million, he said. “I don’t care about sports at all. I think watching sports is the most boring thing you can do with your time. I’m a mathematician.”

Math skills are essential — but so are the right tools, said Aidan Gawlowski, a Chicago-based college student who started arbing last year before coding his own software to hunt down prediction-market price discrepancies. Mr. Noel buys software from OddsJam, Pick the Odds and Bookie Beats that tracks price changes across thousands of markets, flagging the possible arbitrage.

“I figured out that there was this opportunity,” said Mr. Gawlowski, 21, who said he started betting when he was 14. “You’re mathematically guaranteed to make money.”

Some moneymaking opportunities last longer than others. The arbitrage with Mr. Newsom? It existed, unexploited, for weeks. During that period, you could’ve bought “Yes” on Polymarket and “No” on Kalshi, for a roughly 3 percent profit. (The probability spread of around five percentage points, minus Kalshi’s transaction fee.)

But there are a couple of reasons that opportunity was an anomaly. For one, the market doesn’t resolve for two years. That’s a long time to tie up money you could invest elsewhere, said Abraham Wyner, a professor of statistics and data science at the Wharton School at Penn. There’s also additional risk that some bets carry more than others: What if the election gets weird, and the sites don’t agree on what defines a Newsom nomination? Then, you might lose both sides of your bet.

That was enough to deter Mr. Noel and Mr. Gawlowski, who spend most of their time arbing on sports. There are loads of sites that let users bet on sports, meaning more chances for price discrepancies. And during games, odds must constantly update to keep up with live developments. That process takes time, which can translate into arbitrage opportunities.

“You can make a significant amount of money on a big N.B.A. day,” Mr. Gawlowski said. During sports games, Mr. Noel’s price-tracking programs catch an arbitrage opportunity every minute or so, he said.

These discrepancies often emerge when casual users, betting based on vibes, move a market just a hair out of alignment. Then arb bettors pounce, and their actions end up evening the odds across the sites again.

Taking advantage of these short-lived opportunities is hard enough for you and me. But the window is closing even for bettors like Mr. Noel and Mr. Gawlowski, as big financial institutions get in on the action with automated bots that can trade faster than any human. [...]

“Back in 2022, these arbitrage opportunities would last 30 seconds,” said Alex Llewellyn, 36, a professional sports bettor. “These days I execute bets in two to five seconds. And instead of 8 percent arbs, you generally see 4 to 5 percent.” [...]

Prediction sites, awash in Wall Street money and bots, are heading toward the same fate as other major financial markets. One-tenth of the top one percent of accounts on Polymarket rake in more than two-thirds of the profits, a Wall Street Journal analysis found.

“You’re not betting against Joe Schmo anymore,” said Alex Monahan, the founder of OddsJam. “You’re betting against a quant firm with infinitely better technology than you.”

by Evan Gorelick and Katherine Chui, NY Times | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Forget the opioid crisis - so yesterday. These days everybody's got a gambling addiction. Here's a different form of arbitrage: Net Gain (NYT):]

***

For the first game of the N.B.A. finals, my friends and I went to a bar offering a deal that seemed too good to be true: If the Knicks won, the bar would cover every customer’s tab, up to $100.

As tipoff approached, young people variously clad in starched button-downs and Brunson jerseys galloped from nearby Midtown offices for a chance at free booze. The line snaked around the block, and the bouncer made a show of blocking the front entrance. People screeched at one another. My buddy, already inside, shooed me in through a side door. (I heard someone whine, “Why does he get to go in?”)

Three hours later, when the Knicks overcame a 14-point deficit to take down the Spurs, strangers in the crowd were hugging and high-fiving. Outside, a passing garbage truck honked its horn in celebration. The entire city seemed to be shouting with joy. And at the Jeffrey, which bills itself as a neighborhood spot for “craft beer, cocktails and bites,” 726 beers, 385 cocktails and 175 smash burgers were on the house.

Over the hedge

When someone hands you a freebie, by all means: Take it. But you and I both know there ain’t no such thing as a truly free lunch. So while downing drinks, I kept asking myself whose money I was taking.

Turns out, it belonged to Kalshi users who’d bet on San Antonio — in other words, deadbeats and turncoats who had it coming. (Kidding! Kind of.) Before the game, the bar’s owner, a 50-year-old corporate lawyer, had used the prediction market to bet $5,000 on the Knicks. Since the Spurs were the favorites, that position netted him around $8,000 when New York prevailed — enough to cover nearly everything the crowd had consumed. If the Knicks had lost, the bar would’ve been out the $5,000, but it could have covered its losses with all those drinks and smashburgers. (Plus the free publicity — you’re welcome.)

Why Pro Golf is Full of Bad Marriages

Early in my career, a person I respected told me to find a woman who didn’t know who I was. On the surface, it made sense. Marry someone who isn’t chasing the lifestyle, isn’t measuring you by your World Ranking, loves you for reasons that have nothing to do with your sponsors.

The reasoning is airtight. What such a relationship does to your game is another matter.

I’m not talking about bad marriages. For most guys out here, the right partner is the only reason any of this is sustainable. She’s running the house, the kids, the calendar, the bills while you’re three time zones away missing a cut by one. She’s the voice on the phone Sunday night calming you down after a closing 74. The right person at home is the most underrated edge in professional golf, and it’s not close. Plenty of guys would have washed out years ago without the unglamorous, unphotographed work of a spouse holding their life together. That’s what makes the harder cases so confusing. Sometimes the genuinely supportive spouse or girlfriend, the person doing everything correctly by any normal standard, can wire backward into bad golf.

A lot of the best players out here have been with the same person since before they were famous. The high school sweetheart, the college girlfriend—she’s been there through the grind. She was there in the mini-tour years when you were sharing a rental car with your caddie and eating at McDonald’s. She watched you miss cuts and come home deflated and go right back out the following week. She knows what a Monday qualifier looks like. She understands why you’re on the range at 7 in the evening when the tournament ended at 4. She’s not asking why you’re binging course footage instead of Netflix. She’s been shown a thousand demonstrations of what this life actually requires, and somewhere along the way made peace with it. That’s no small thing. That’s years of negotiation that never have to be spoken aloud because the terms were established before anyone had anything to negotiate over. That dynamic works.

The woman who meets you when you’re already out here, who falls for the version of you that’s successful and sponsored and on television, she’s meeting a finished product. She didn’t sign up for the obsession because she never saw the ugly underbelly that often powers it. She saw the result, which can look from the outside like a man who plays golf for a living and has a lot of free time. Explaining the difference is harder than it sounds, and some guys never quite manage it.

Sometimes relationship dynamics shift. Some guys hit their mid-30s, their kids are getting older, and they want a change. They don’t want to wake up and find the children are off to college, that they missed ballgames and birthdays, that their kids barely recognize them. That’s a man getting his priorities straight. It’s often the same deal with a second marriage. Players who’ve been through a divorce are usually not making the same personal mistakes twice. The issues that ended the first marriage—usually just travel and time, not anything scandalous—are front of mind. That player has done the reflection. He’s had the hard conversations, probably with a therapist, definitely with himself at midnight in a hotel room on the back nine of a bad season. He knows where things went wrong, so he adjusts. He softens. He eases the schedule, comes home earlier, takes fewer optional practice rounds, skips a pre-tournament trip he would have previously considered non-negotiable. He texts back faster. He’s present in the ways he wasn’t before. By most human measures, he is better. But the game has no interest in what’s reasonable or mature. It only knows what you give it.

That’s the uncomfortable truth at the center of all this. Professional golf doesn’t reward balance. The guys at the top of the world rankings are not balanced people. They are obsessive, single-minded, occasionally impossible to be around and completely fine with all of that. When a player starts genuinely dividing his attention—not just his time, but his mental energy, his hunger—his golf notices before he does. His best is still very good. It just doesn’t happen as often, and out here, the real trick is getting the most out of yourself when your best isn’t available, so that’s exactly where you see the drop off.

The genuine disasters—the controlling spouses who create scenes, who make demands of agents and sponsors, who insert themselves into decisions that have nothing to do with them—are rarer than tour gossip might suggest. Most of the horror stories are exaggerated, or they’re about friction on the business side rather than anything that touches the actual golf. Even then, it’s not always a straight line to worse tournament results. I know one player whose wife was, by consensus among everyone who dealt with her, a complete nightmare. Managers, sponsors, tournament officials—everyone had a story. Yet, this guy played some of the best golf of his life when she was at her worst. (After the kids, she settled down.) The explanation I heard from a mutual friend made more sense than it should have: If she was going to cause that much trouble, he’d better make the whole thing worth it. Sometimes chaos focuses a man. It’s not a model I’d recommend, but I’ve seen stranger things produce birdies.

by The Undercover Pro w/Joel Beall, Golf Digest |  Read more:
Image: Madison Ketcham

[ed. Probably applicable to many other sports, as well. And there are so many 'distractions' out there.]

Bye, Bye SI

On Friday, several of Sports Illustrated’s best and brightest writers, or what remains of them, announced they’d been laid off.

Jeff Pearlman, who made his bones as a journalist for SI when it was one of the world’s most prominent sports magazines, had his heart broken all over again.

Among those who said on social media that they’d been laid off were Stephanie Apstein, Tyler Lauletta, Kyle Koster, and Mike McDaniel. Meanwhile, Front Office Sports reported that several longtime writers — including Greg Bishop and Michael Rosenberg — were laid off as part of the latest round of cuts at SI.

This is, of course, just the latest in a long series of cuts and reorganizations for the once-proud sports media brand that now trades on its reputation to create merchandise, resorts, and mostly mediocre editorial content, sometimes aided by AI.

“As a guy who wrote for Sports Illustrated for a long time and a guy who loves Sports Illustrated, like loves, loves, loves… this stuff carves me up,” Pearlman said in a TikTok video. “And it’s one thing that they get rid of writers, they lay people off. What I hate the most is that these corporate douchebags who have taken over the magazine view it just as a name now.

“That’s all Sports Illustrated is. It’s a name. It’s something to put on cruise ships. It’s something to put on clubs. It’s something to put on popcorn. Literally, there’s a Sports Illustrated popcorn. It’s something to put on whatever you can shove that thing on. That’s what it is now. Sports Illustrated has become nothing more than a way to attract people… It’s just so disturbing.”

Pearlman then ran down the who’s-who list of prominent sports writers who once graced the magazine’s pages. [...]

Pearlman, who left SI in 2002, says he could see the writing on the wall even back then.

“I started knowing SI was in trouble, I would say, for me, a couple of things,” Pearlman said. “Number one, when they f*cked up adjusting to the internet. Big time screw-up. Number two, when they laid off all of their photographers, considering it’s literally Sports Illustrated. Number three, when they just decided to destroy their library. Like, literally take the SI library, which was awesome, and just give it away.

“And now here we sit. The last of their name writers gone. Now, basically an empty vessel for selling sh*t to idiots and for getting people to gamble away their money on sports. It sucks. It’s a dark day in sports.”

by Sean Keeley, Awful Announcing|  Read more:

Image: Sports Illustrated Resorts, Jeff Pearlman

[ed. Rolling Stone business model.]