The PGA Tour is implementing a new "bonus" system for its top players, who will be paid out of a $40 million annual purse. Ten golfers will be ranked and paid based on several factors including search engine queries and tv ratings while they're playing. The system will likely be imperfect, but its main purpose is apparently to quell any talks about "splinter leagues" where a few top players form their own group. Golf apparently has a shortlist of top stars that drive the majority of interest at any point in time. By guaranteeing each of them a base payout, they are that much less likely to seek their own opportunities. I don't follow golf at all and couldn't pick most pros out of a lineup. I'm curious about what the golf fans here think about this idea, since the concept can be applied to other sports. Do the star golfers command your interest more than the tradition and skill on display? Are there metrics you would use to measure "star power" other than what's been suggested by the PGA? Here's an example of a possible pratfall: I remember Payne Stewart specifically for his bloomers-and-plaid-socks combos. He obviously had a storied career, but that's what I find most memorable. If I was a mid-tier or below golfer on the pro circuit, I'm incentivized to make myself stand out more. Maybe I'll dress outlandishly, maybe I'll celebrate my shots wildly, or maybe I'll adopt some brash persona in public. When you're paying athletes for something other than their scores, this is what you're asking for. Of course, a lot of "star power" is completely manufactured by the media, as well. I don't know many NASCAR drivers, but Bubba Wallace sure did dominate the airwaves last year. And we all lived through the Tiger Woods hysteria, which is still kicking strong today. Other thoughts?