Opinion & Analysis
Rory wipes iPhones, creates more legal questions
Rory’s plan to return to golf at the Master’s with a clear mind is very unlikely.
His legal battle against his former management company Horizon Sports Management is going to take a while with yet another setback in the discovery process. According to an IrishTimes report, Horizon’s attorneys are alleging that Rory McIlroy and his father Gerry violated a court order when they intentionally wiped the memory of a reported eight or more cell phones and electronic devices that may have contained relevant information concerning the case. Believing that they can still access the information, Horizon’s legal team is seeking the court’s permission to “forensically inspect” the phones used by both Rory and his father going back three years.
This case is reportedly scheduled to begin in January, since months of pre-trial negotiations have failed. If it does go to court, a resolution by April before the Masters allowing Rory to sleep easy while he attempts to complete the Grand Slam is just not going to happen. The amount of money at stake is enormous and regardless of what decision is initially made, it will be argued to death in appeals court. Any trial lawyer can tell you that the appeals process takes longer than Kevin Na’s pre-shot routine.
The facts of the case are light but here is what we know so far. Rory was unhappy with the advice he was receiving from his then manager Andrew “Chubby” Chander in 2011. Rory, needing to make a change, reached out to Horizon Sports Management for new representation, since his good friend Graeme McDowell was also represented by them. According to the allegations stated by Rory’s team, Horizon’s founder Conor Ridge apparently told Rory that his deal with Horizon would be the same as their deal with McDowell. Rory signed with Horizon in December of 2011 when he was 22 years old. Horizon and Rory entered into another deal two years later right around the time he signed a $100+ million deal with Nike. Horizon is undoubtedly entitled to a piece of that.
Apparently in 2013, Rory somehow learned that his Horizon deal was not the same as McDowell’s and that Rory had paid Horizon close to $7 million more in fees than what McDowell’s contract required. Rory then split with Horizon and almost immediately started his own company, Rory McIlory Inc., before filing this lawsuit.
The purpose of this court battle is to get Rory out of the remainder of his two contracts, claiming that because he was 22, “inexperienced” and did not consult his own lawyer, the contracts with “markedly inferior terms” should be void due to Horizon’s undue influence over Rory.
According to the Irish Times, Horizon’s legal team stated that Rory’s claims are baseless and that Rory was never told that he would get “the same deal” as McDowell. Horizon is countersuing Rory for millions in unpaid fees for off-course endorsements, as well as damages for the continued breach of the two contracts.
Lets take a look at both side’s argument based on what we know. Keep in mind that I have not been able to read the complaints filed in the Dublin court.
Rory’s attempt to get out of his contract with Horizon is based on the legal doctrine of undue influence in contract law. Unfortunately, there is no statutory basis giving us a clear-cut definition of what amounts to undue influence. Also, Rory’s case was filed in a Dublin court, which may have a slightly different process than a U.S. court. However, Ireland follows many of the same legal doctrines as the U.S. and their contract laws appear to be pretty similar.
Undue influence basically states that a contract is voidable because one party took advantage of another party in order to convince that party to sign an unfair contract. Unlike certain circumstances where a contract is automatically deemed void regardless if brought to court (i.e. one party is under the age of 18), a voidable contract means that a contract CAN BE deemed void only where the circumstances require.
There are two types of undue influence. Actual undue influence, or duress, where an agreement is made only after one party actually uses some sort of influence over the other party to make he/she agree against their will. This is typically done by force or threat of force or some type of bullying like badgering the person to sign. It’s pretty unlikely that Rory could be taunted or threatened into signing, and there are no facts leaning to anything of the sort so far, so we can probably rule that out.
The second type is the strongest argument Rory can make because it puts almost all of the burden of proof on the defense. Wrongdoing is assumed based on the relationship between the parties. These relationships are those where one party is in a position of power and is being trusted to act in the other’s best interest, i.e.: parent/child, doctor/patient, attorney/client.
Rory will most likely argued that he believed that Horizon would be representing him the same way they are representing McDowell and because he was only 22 and did not think to get himself a lawyer because he was “inexperienced,” and that Horizon knew that Rory was trusting Horizon to act in his best interest.
The court will first look to see if the relationship creates the presumption that undue influence occurred. It is hard to determine if a judge is likely to find this. Those relationships typically involve a pre-existing relationship where trust has already been established through a long-time, working relationship. Rory never worked with Horizon before, thus had no history of a trusting relationship to point to. This may lead the court against the presumption, and Rory will be required to show evidence that Horizon acted in bad faith.
If the court does find that such relationship existed, however, Rory’s job is done and it will be presumed that Horizon did use their position over Rory to get him to sign a much more expensive contract. The burden of proof will switch to Horizon to rebut the presumption and show that that it did not use any position over Rory to make him agree to something without his knowledge. Horizon will most likely argue that that it did not pressure him to sign anything, did not lie or mislead him about the terms of the contract and did not prevent Rory from allowing a lawyer to review the terms of the contract. This can be difficult to show, especially if correspondences between the Horizon and Rory were deleted.
It will essentially be a he said/they said — which will most likely cause issues in determining the credibility of witnesses and cause a judge/jury confusion in making a decision.
Regardless of the law and how a Dublin court decides, a few things do not sit well. Unless more facts come out that show behavior in bad faith by Horizon, Rory is basically saying that he shouldn’t have to pay his management company, who helped him land Nike, because he thought he was only going to have to pay what McDowell was going to have to pay. And he should not have to pay Horizon only because he thought Ridge told him he would get the same contract as McDowell, but did not exercise any type of due diligence to assure that it would be reflected in the contract because he was an inexperienced 22-year-old.
My opinion would change, of course, if facts surface that Rory was actually shown a copy of McDowell’s contract and promised the same thing, if McDowell (a Horizon shareholder) personally played any part in getting Rory to agree to a different arrangement, or if Horizon did deplorable things to try to take advantage of an inexperienced kid. The truth remains to be seen, but with the facts available today it looks as though Rory didn’t do his homework.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
marcel
Dec 16, 2014 at 12:25 am
Horizon has any money coming from other sources apart of milking Rory since GMac is shareholder. pity they leach on young guy.
Rod
Dec 13, 2014 at 6:28 pm
It goes to show that Horizon are all about the $ and you would hope that if they wanted to stay in the golf industry, they would want this to get sorted sooner rather than later.
They might get their pay day from Rory, but I think they will damage their reputation. You should be able to have an honest relationship with your management team.
It was interesting to see how Oakley were very verbal about getting compensation from Rory due to him ending the contract but they seemed to calm down. Perhaps they have more to loose re product sales.
If Horizon just quote the small print, it bypasses what they are all about which is managing relationships.
I hope Rory can get it sorted out and it’s only money. Rory needs to keep focused on his main skill which is winning golf tournaments and perhaps delegate all the commercial and legal issue to someone he can trust.
Regis
Dec 12, 2014 at 7:45 pm
My guess is this is a case in Equity. Kind of like an annulment. Rory is basically asking the court to declare the contract void ab initio, meaning asking the court to declare the contract never was entered into because of the “over reaching”. Tough sell. As to the phones. Keep in mind that Rory bolted Horizon for a management group that he formed with friends and family. Those phones could contain records of non-horizon people, like his dad pertaining to setting up the new group. When did he start the concept of forming his own group and with whom? What were the conversations? Goes to his argument that he was unsophisticated. Finally there is a principle in most US courts called spoliation. Means if you delete or destroy records, the trier of fact may consider it a presumption that those deleted records were detrimental to your position
Steve
Dec 12, 2014 at 4:33 pm
Is Rory serious? I was 22 and didn’t know any better, really. 22 old enough to vote, old enough to drink, old enough to die in war, but to dumb to know. Arrogance is no excuse, this why there are contracts. If they pulled the wool over his eyes that is to bad on him for signing. It is common place in the music industry to screw over young talent on the first contract. Talk to Springsteen, billy Joel, or any young and dumb musician that signed on the hood of a car. He is going to have eat it and buy himself out of the contract. Write it off to being stupid
luke
Dec 12, 2014 at 8:31 pm
too* calling someone stupid and using incorrect grammar
Knobbywood
Dec 14, 2014 at 5:12 am
Incorrect sir
bradford
Dec 15, 2014 at 7:14 am
“too* calling someone stupid and using incorrect grammar”
…um wut?
Justin
Dec 12, 2014 at 2:00 pm
Any legal binding document would have been an sent via email and probably still have been available if the phone was wiped. I would bet my next check that Rory wipes his phones like we all do when we get rid of them for a number of reasons, delete personal info, phone numbers, texts, most importantly inappropriate Pictures and Video’s since celebrities and athletes tend to end up on the web nude lately. He is 22yrs old, Rich, Famous and dates models I can only imagine the digital media on his phones and how much people would pay to get it. The question of how many phones he had is irrelevant, if you have that type of money it would be easier to have the provider send you a new phone & # then cancel the old one. Can you see Rory in the parking lot at Augusta talking to AT&T trying to change his number, me either…
tom
Dec 11, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Can’t see the “only 22 and did not think to get himself a lawyer because he was inexperienced” stance holding up. He was still an adult. He should have known better.
Ben
Dec 12, 2014 at 9:56 am
Totally agree. Sounds like a costly mistake… Learn from it and move on.
golfing
Dec 11, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Horizon means it will suck you till you can see!
This company already did destroy 2 years of the kid majors years.
What a bunch of money sucking people.
From the signing of the contract at a party, to the Oakley and Nike mess
and so on, this is not a player needs in is head, good job destroying
a star!
Mat
Dec 11, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Just out of curiosity… can’t he argue that a verbal agreement of equity is as enforceable as the construct of the later written contract? I think this misses the point; you have “undue influence” if you were lied to, correct?
If someone says, “you’re getting the same deal”, and then you find out it’s not at all the same deal, can’t you then argue that the subsequent signed contract was in fact misleading? One party was “in power”, and it was the one who knew both Rory’s and Graeme’s contract terms. That “power” led them to make a deal that they knew was inequitable.
Dressing this stuff up through “he was young” or “inexperienced” doesn’t mean that the same conclusion would have come about. They could have held said “power” even if RoryCo had retained counsel. In the end, it’ll be interesting to see how this comes out. But if the narratives have a modicum of truth in that the verbal deal was “the same terms”, and the paper says otherwise, I think RoryCo will end up prevailing. The verbal contract from the agent/agency is going to be enforceable unless something else comes up.
Thomas
Dec 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Disclaimer: this is not legal advice. It will depend on what the law in their jurisdiction says. Here in the US, though, a court will typically look first to the written contract. Contracts often have clauses that say any negotiations or representations leading up this contract are not admissible. In other words, if a term did not make it into the writing, it is neither admissible nor enforceable. That rule is in place to prevent exactly this situation: “they told me something different than what I actually signed.” If that rule does not exist, contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. Everyone could simply make that type of claim to get out of every contract they disliked. (So it is his burden to make sure every term is in there BEFORE he signs.) As far as undue influence, lying does not really enter that picture. (Lying plays more of a role in defrauding someone to enter into a contract, which is a different issue.) Undue influence, by contrast, looks more into the relationship between the parties: in other words, was the person signing of limited capacity to understand, and then the other side “unduly” exerted its position of trust or authority over the other to get them to sign. This to me seems to be the least likely to win: here, it was two knowledgeable business entities (or adults) negotiating or entering into a contract. They appear to have been on equal footing, and would be treated that way.
real talk
Dec 11, 2014 at 11:35 am
So much hate for Rory on here. I’m willing to bet that all the vitriol comes from Tiger fans who can’t stand the fact that Rory absolutely owns Tiger and has been humiliating on the course for years.
scott
Dec 11, 2014 at 1:07 pm
last time I checked tiger had 14 and rory had 4 I wouldn’t say that 4 is beating 14 and that rory might still have some work to do in order to catch tiger
Barack
Dec 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm
After Rory won a bunch in 2012, Tiger won 5 times in 2013. He’s hardly humiliated the guy. Rory couldn’t win 5 this year, so until Rory wins a a faster clip than 3 year old Tiger, I’m not buying it.
I know, I know Tiger didn’t win a major. He won the Players though. That’s a tough win. Let’s just agree that both men healthy is good for golf.
And these sharks who got rich off Rorys back, give em hell kid. If it feels wrong to you, fight em bruh.
Am I the only golf fan that likes Tiger and Rory?
Teaj
Dec 12, 2014 at 10:02 am
Nope I to am a Tiger and Rory fan because I am a fan of golf, the other stuff I can care less about. People like to make assumptions on both, like Tiger does not relate to fans because he does not share much in interviews and then when Rory shares to much they flog him too. Both are just humans and have a different way of expressing their views but non of this has anything to do with the way they can dominate the game of golf. I hope both can be healthy at the same time and at the top of their game so we don’t have to guess who would beat who like when Tiger was coming up and people pondered the question who would win Jack or Tiger.
Daniel
Dec 11, 2014 at 8:24 am
The guilty party is always the one who runs, or hides things, or in this case wipes their phones clean. And wouldn’t Horizon have all of their communications with Rory saved anyway. Why do they need what’s on the phones. If it’s Rory taking to Nike behind their back, the court can just get all that from Nike right?
I agree with everyone else on here, just pay the money and move on. Instead of Rory having enough money for 100 lifetimes, he’ll now only have enough for 90.
Jack
Dec 15, 2014 at 3:36 am
Why would he talk to Nike when they have and are paid to do the work for him? I don’t agree with what he’s claiming, since he should have had a lawyer present, unless he can prove that Horizon persuaded him to not have one in order to have him sign a contract that he did not intend to sign out of total trust.
I wonder if he’s still friends with McDowell.
Pat
Dec 11, 2014 at 8:23 am
Mo money, mo problems. Seriously though, filthy rich people are driver by one thing and that’s greed. Rory is no different. I do agree with you however. He should settle this out of court and move on. I don’t see how he’s going to win his suit based on the stories and the premise on which he is defending his position. Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to sign the contract. He did it willingly. He needs to man up and take care of his issues or else it will affect his game negatively for the the 2015 season.
Slimeone
Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 am
Why did he have eight iPhones?
Marshall Brown
Dec 11, 2014 at 11:25 am
Media kept getting his number, so he had to change phoned constantly.
Rich
Dec 11, 2014 at 5:15 pm
Doesn’t mean he needed a new phone each time. He’d just switch the number if that was the reason
Marshall Brown
Dec 11, 2014 at 6:45 pm
You are right, I didn’t think about that. I just read that somewhere yesterday and assumed it was the reason.
Bobsyouruncle
Dec 11, 2014 at 1:19 am
No matter the outcome, this has to hurt Horizon’s reputation and bottom line. What other athlete and especially a hot upcoming talent is going to want to sign a contract with them now?
In the meantime, all the lawyers on both sides are getting paid handsomely for battling this out in the courts. Life is good for someone.
Pingback: Rory McIlroy Wipes iPhones, Creates More Legal Questions | Golf Gear Select
sam
Dec 10, 2014 at 9:56 pm
i don’t think this will effect him mental much at all.
its just money he can cover it..
real talk
Dec 11, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Take this for what it’s worth…
One of my best friend’s dad is very well connected in the golf world and a close friend with Rory. He thinks the world of Rory BTW. Rory doesn’t care about the money. This is all about respect and principle for him. Rory treats everyone with class but when you cross him he will unleash h***.
Fsubaseball21
Dec 10, 2014 at 9:38 pm
I’m sure Rory has been told numerous times that this mess should have been settled long before papers were filed. When you open yourself up to discovery you had better be sure all of your bases are covered. Just my opinion but Horizon wins this case easily. Shame on both of them for not getting into a room and working something out like normal human beings. Horizon was shady but at the end of the day 22 years old makes you an adult.
golfpros1
Dec 10, 2014 at 9:14 pm
He dropped his guard because he was use to dealing with Chubby, a person that is unique in this business by not messing over his clients and believing a handshake means as much as a contract. Rory made a mistake leaving chubby and this is what he got for his decision.
Stan
Dec 10, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Couldn’t have picked a better picture of Rory for this article. Mr. Shifty Eyes.
mark m
Dec 10, 2014 at 7:16 pm
Its a difficult case for Rory to make and its would set a bad precedent. So would every 22 year old that applies for a credit card, loan, mortgage, etc and enters in to a legal financial arrangement argue that they were too stupid to read what they were signing and therefore the contract is void? I think not.
This and Rory is hard pressed to prove that he was harmed by this deal seeing as they landed him Nike and at the end of the day if he pays what he owes he won’t exactly be broke, only slightly less rich.
dave
Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 pm
why doesnt he take some of the $200+ M from Nike and call it a day? im sure Nike can’t be happy about the timing of all of this. Cut a check and move on! (easier said than done iknow) but why fight this hard !!
Law
Dec 10, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Good bye Rory. It was nice seeing you at the top of the game for a while.
David
Dec 11, 2014 at 4:08 am
Oh God…the morons are out.
Joke
Dec 13, 2014 at 4:11 pm
God can’t take a joke
Donnie
Dec 10, 2014 at 6:18 pm
First, how could he have not consulted with a contract attorney, given what (even a stupid 22 year-old would have to known was millions of dollars) was at stake. He needs to “fire” his dad. Here’s a 100k a month allowance pop, I love you!… Second, if Graeme really is a “shareholder” in the company and he was promised “the same deal as Graeme” then he probably does have some legal ground to stand on, albeit shaky. A smart guy would say, “how many shares does Graeme own?” Oh really? I want three times that number, and boy what a good deal you are getting… If the relationship were successful how many other golfers would he have attracted to this management company??
Dear Rory, I would like to introduce you to a term called a “flat fee” when you have 100’s of millions coming your way, you should get familiar with the concept.
luke keefner
Dec 10, 2014 at 5:27 pm
Make a deal, settle out of court,slap each other on the back, shake hands and move on. Its not like any of these people need the money…
Mike honcho
Dec 10, 2014 at 4:52 pm
He probably wiped it to get rid of the pics of Caroline
Golfraven
Dec 10, 2014 at 4:44 pm
Of course he was paying more because he was earning far more the GMAC that time. Still a rip off from this management group and hope they loose the case. the claim with the iphone devices is a joke.
Rich
Dec 11, 2014 at 12:12 am
Ok, based on what? How do you know it’s a joke?
Golfraven
Dec 12, 2014 at 3:04 pm
Fair question. I think that his personal devices don’t hold an evidence for this particular case. Doubt his contractual conversation went over whatsapp. Nobodies business what he has stored on his iphone. The facts are clear in this case, he signed an agreement which he later didn’t agree with and he is free to cancel it with some additional fees – as for any contact in real life. Although I agree he was rather naive not get legal advise.