By Joe Schackman
Phil Mickelson's history with sports gambling makes him a controversial future owner of the San Diego Padres
Major League Baseball found out over the last few years just how devastating an owner can be to their brand.
The fallout from Frank McCourt’s nasty divorce drove the Dodgers into the ground. The Wilpon family financially kneecapped the Mets through reckless with Bernie Madoff. Jeffrey Loria’s questionable business tactics have the Marlins mired in an SEC investigation. Perhaps more than at any other time, the MLB needs to be cautious about the men and women serving as the stewards of their franchises. Which is why it needs to take a long look at the possibility that Phil Mickelson could become one of the San Diego Padres’ new owners.
At first glance, it seems like a good fit. Mickelson has built a great public reputation. He’s charismatic, one of the most talented golfers of all time, and famously stood by his wife as she battled breast cancer. Just like Magic Johnson did with the Dodgers, Mickelson would instantly create buzz around a team that’s had its fair share of struggles in recent year.
However, there is one issue that might be a dealbreaker in the Mickelson-MLB relationship: He’s rumored to have been a serious gambler. Though the facts in many cases are fuzzy, there are enough reports out there to convince the league to do some investigating of its own.
Mickelson’s penchant for sports betting is not something that’s widely known. It first surfaced in a USA Today story, when Mickelson told the paper that he had won a huge bet on the Ravens winning the 2001 Super Bowl. His gambling habits resurfaced the following year in a Sports Illustrated profile. There, the magazine reiterated his passion for NFL betting, and then told a tale in which Mickelson bet with fellow golfer Mike Weir that Jim Furyk would hole a bunker shot in the midst of his playoff with Tiger Woods. Mickelson wasn’t on the course at the time, but the wager still qualified as a “technical violation” of the PGA Tour’s gambling policy. He was subsequently punished.
Those are the facts, which alone should spur a thorough vetting within a league so sensitive to sports betting. Now, here is the rumor, one that has never been confirmed yet floated around for years: Massive gambling debts forced Mickelson to switch sponsors in 2004.
That year, Mickelson was coming off a win at the 2004 Masters, the biggest victory of his career. At the time, he still had two years left on his contract with Titleist. But somehow, Mickelson got out of that deal and switched allegiances, signing with Callaway for $80 million.
The switch occurred shortly before the Ryder Cup, during which he played terribly. Mickelson followed that tournament with a string of poor performances to end the year. Soon, rumors emerged that the lucrative switch to Callaway wasn’t the result of a desire to switch clubs, but to help cover millions in gambling debts.
Even assuming that’s true, and no one has yet been able to prove it, the betting likely wasn’t illegal. But gambling is nevertheless a cardinal sin within Major League Baseball, an act that’s prompted more lifetime bans than any other reason.
Mickelson is entitled to bid on the Padres, and shouldn’t be automatically disqualified because he placed some bets over the years. But he should also expect to face some hard questions about those bets before this process is done. Major League Baseball has seen its owners do enough damage to the game’s image, and it won’t be willing to gamble with another franchise.
Joe Schackman is an editor and co-founder of Began in '96
1 comments:
They'll allow the closet gambling addict. What they won't allow is an owner like Mark Cuban who will call them on their refusal to bring the game into the 20th (much less the 21st) century.
Post a Comment