Monday Rap: Answering Your Questions About Rahm, LIV, The PGA Tour, And The Future Of Men's Professional Golf
Where do we even begin? Probably with the $500 million man, though even that figure's uncertain.
Yes, Jon Rahm's decision to sign with LIV Golf has thrown men's professional golf into a state of chaos. With less than three weeks left until the PGA Tour and the Saudi Public Investment Fund's agreed-upon Dec. 31 deadline to turn their framework agreement into a concrete agreement, no one has much of a clue as to what the sport will look like in one year, let alone five.
We got a semi-update late on Sunday evening when the PGA Tour's policy board—comprised of six players and five "independent directors," though sources tell us multiple independent directors have been excluded from the process—announced it had agreed to advance negotiations with Strategic Sports Group, a consortium (very fancy word) of investors led by Fenway Sports Group, and to continue negotiations with the PIF. There are so, so many questions left to answer. So let's field some from you all.
Has the likelihood of the merger (on any timeframe) gone up, gone down, or not changed in light of the most recent events and reports? —@Recruit96
Let's start with the word "merger." That's what the June 6 agreement was publicized as but that was a misnomer from the beginning. That deal, hammered out by Jimmy Dunne and Ed Herlihy on the PGA Tour side and Yasir al-Rumayyan on the PIF side, only had one concrete impact: to stop the lawsuits. Everything else was merely an agreement to keep on talking.
The PGA Tour's leadership structure has undergone significant upheaval in the six months since. The players were irate that Dunne and Herlihy, two independent directors, had acted without the players' knowledge in making such a massive decision. So the tour added a sixth player spot on the policy board, which shifted the balance of power to the players, and the seat was taken by Tiger Woods, which shifted the balance of power even more. The people representing the PGA Tour in negotiations at present are largely different from the people who al-Rumayyan made the framework agreement with, as Dunne and Herlihy have not been part of any negotiations since that June 6 agreement. In addition, the new leadership has been considering investment from American private equity (like Strategic Sports Group). The PIF doesn't want to be squeezed out of having its say in this new company, so they're probably not loving all these talks they're not a part of.
Which brings us to this Rahm move. What better way to send a message at the eleventh hour than to take one of the Tour's biggest assets? It puts the PIF in a position of strength; they've clearly shown they're not done picking off players, and the public narrative right now is that the PGA Tour doesn't have much leverage in negotiations. So the Saudis enter the final weeks of talks with momentum on their side—and, if talks fall through, they've acquired one of the best players in the world, in the prime of his career, to help bolster their league and weaken their main competitor.
With that context now laid out, let's answer your question directly. I sure hope the PGA Tour and PIF come to a deal that puts an end to all this infighting and division. The evidence is anecdotal, but I've heard from so many people and read so many more online who share the same feeling: they're tired of all these millionaires bickering with each other, they don't love the LIV Golf product and they're less interested in the men's professional game than they were in years past. That's not good for the sport, at all. There was a sense of optimism after June 6. Shock, and anger from some players. But from a fan's perspective, optimism. The two sides were coming together, armed with more cash than ever, with a blank slate to create essentially a new worldwide tour. We could take it international! There could be team events! Let's get more national opens in the mix! All that optimism has morphed, from the fan's perspective, into almost desperation: make a deal, please. Even Brandel Chamblee, perhaps the face of the anti-LIV crowd, begrudgingly told Sports Illustrated that the best thing for the PGA Tour and for men's professional golf as a whole is for those two sides to come together, even if it will mean the Saudis have "won."
The Rahm move was the strongest-possible signal from the PIF that without a deal, we will continue to lure away your talent and diminish your product. A deal has to get done with the Saudis involved. For the PGA Tour, and for golf fans everywhere.
Does the Tour really think initial investment from people who will be focused on a profit return is going to set them up to compete with the Saudi’s financially while also still dishing out bigger purses to keep their top talent? —@_adamhess
The "rank-and-file" players on the PGA Tour are concerned about what the future might look like. Rightfully so. LIV Golf, the best example we have of the PIF's vision for golf, has 48 players. Logic would suggest that any investment from American private equity companies—which covet profit first, second and third—would include significant structural changes to the PGA Tour and how it operates. They'd likely hit the Tour with a dose of cold, unforgiving capitalism. That could well include a decrease in the number of players who hold PGA Tour cards; a shrinking of the schedule to double-down on big money events and perhaps push out some of the smaller, more regional ones; and a long, hard look at money-losing tours like the Korn Ferry Tour and the PGA Tour Americas, which the PGA Tour subsidizes.
But the PGA Tour needs money. Badly. They spent an extra $150 million over the last few years to keep their top talent and weren't even that successful in doing so. Here's a list of the 10 winners of the inaugural Player Impact Program, the glorified popularity contest that hands out money to players who bring the most attention to golf. This was widely seen as a reaction to LIV Golf, a financial incentive to keep guys on the Tour.
1. Tiger Woods
2. Phil Mickelson - LIV
3. Rory McIlroy
4. Jordan Spieth
5. Bryson DeChambeau - LIV
6. Justin Thomas
7. Dustin Johnson - LIV
8. Brooks Koepka - LIV
9. Jon Rahm - LIV
10. Bubba Watson - LIV
Six of the 10 have jumped. The Tour has also jacked up prize money in an effort to placate the stars, and now that there's an expectation to be playing for $20 million in signature events, good luck trying to shrink that number.
Advertisement
I don't doubt that the policy board is doing its best to do right by all PGA Tour players, but they don't have much leverage toward that end. They need the private equity money, and that private equity money is going to come with stipulations. Because unlike the Saudis, who can afford to spend and spend and spend to disrupt and operate with a long-term vision, any private equity company is going to want money back, fast. And there are parts of the PGA Tour ecosystem that don't have profit has their guiding light.
Long term, isn’t having one of the 4 players on a LIV team also being an owner going to be a problem? Pretty much every other sport there is a clear delineation between labor and ownership. —@miller_justin7
Good question. I wouldn't have had the answer this time yesterday, but we recorded a really interesting how-the-sausage-gets-made podcast with Range Goats captain Bubba Watson for Tuesday's episode of Fore Play. He said that equity-holding captains (of which he is one) have two separate contracts with LIV Golf—one as a player and one as an owner of the franchise. Watson suggested he would like to be involved with the Range Goats even after he's a player, and compared what his role might look like to that of a Ryder Cup captain.
What are the assets of the PGA tour other than brand name that are being negotiated? Is there actual land? Also, the teams have been around for more than a year and all have less that 5k follower accounts. No needle moving. Seems like both sides need each other. —@SourceCode2010
The PGA Tour has something money can't buy: status as a classic American institution. That's a huge, huge piece, particularly for a Saudi investment fund that has all the money in the world but doesn't enjoy that reputational standing. Getting involved with the PGA Tour means rubbing shoulders with the members at Augusta National, with executives at American Express and BMW and FedEx, with Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy. They want that legitimacy, that access.
In addition…the PGA Tour has most of the best players in the world. They do own land, yes, for their 30+ courses in the TPC network. They own archival highlight footage of most of the game's great players. But it's what they don't own that's led to this existential crisis. I can explain.
The PGA Tour does not own or operate the five biggest events in men's professional golf. They don't own the four majors, or the Ryder Cup. That left them uniquely vulnerable to the right challenger because they didn't have the ability to shut off access to those tournaments, which are the ones the best players really care about when it comes to legacy. Would Jon Rahm like to finish with more PGA Tour wins than Tom Watson? Sure, but how many tour wins does Tom Watson have? Unless you're a proper sicko you likely have no idea; players aren't measured by how many PGA Tour wins they have if they don't have 82. Legacies are built on major championships and the Ryder Cup. Of course guys take pride in winning the Memorial and the FedEx Cup and player of the year, but for the very best players in the world, those aren't dealbreakers when there's so much fucking money on the table. Each player weighs money differently and approaches their career differently, but even Rahm, who has said countless times how much the Ryder Cup means to him, said the LIV offer was worth jeopardizing his Ryder Cup future. Money goes a long way.
Still, if the PGA Tour owned the major championships, this wouldn't be happening. At least not on the same scale. There would still be players who take the money, which is of course a perfectly reasonable choice. But I can't imagine the Jon Rahms and Brooks Koepkas and Dustin Johnsons and Cameron Smiths of the world making the jump if they knew they'd never get to play in a major championship ever again.
Other than Tiger, who is the SINGLE golfer that the PGA cannot lose to LIV in order to have a shot at survival? —@eddydsays
There's a certain irony in your question, and in Tiger's front-and-center role on the PGA Tour policy board. He hardly plays PGA Tour events anymore. Maybe two or three a year, which is being generous. He's going to do his best to play the majors—because, well, see above—and try to tee it up in some of the tour's bigger events, but he's never going to be a week-in and week-out presence on the tour.
Advertisement
I would argue that Rahm was that player, and that his departure has shifted the dynamic. It's not that LIV getting a certain critical mass of top players will immediately turn all golf fans into LIV Golf fans; there are still plenty who don't like LIV either in principle or the actual product. His departure weakens the PGA Tour more than it strengthens LIV, making the tour a more eager and willing participant in negotiations. Your question also requires a definition for "survival." The PGA Tour will not cease to exist under any circumstance; there are more than 48 professional golfers in the world. But what I think you're getting at is whether the PGA Tour can continue to be the gold standard for men's professional golf, where the best compete on a weekly basis. I'd argue they need to get the LIV guys back in their tournaments soon for that to happen.
Since 2020, PGA Tour players have combined to win 8 majors. LIV Golfers have combined to win 7. LIV has two of the four reigning major champions. And as listed previously, a majority of the tour's most popular players in 2021 now play on LIV Golf. The longer the PGA Tour continues without such key characters, the more damage done to their standing on top of the professional golf totem pole.
Is there a scenario where, if LIV succeeds and the merger goes through, the Majors feel less relevant/important in the future? If players are able to truly move freely then will LIVs success/purses steal from the prestige of Majors? —@kevinisalright
I actually see it going the other way. The more the "tour" products get muddled, the more majors stand alone as the four times per year that all the best players tee it up. And the more people view the week-to-week tours as vehicles for becoming stinking rich, the more the majors stand alone as the true tests of golf, the tournaments more about prestige and legacy than dollars and cents. I'm worried about our sport going the way of tennis, where the vast majority of the sporting public only cares four times per year. That's not good for anyone.
What is the best case scenario pro golf landscape 5 years from now, from a fans perspective? I think it's full merger/1 Liv a month throughout PGA schedule. Hopefully it turns into a more match play focused competition. —@GoForBrokeAF
I'm picking up what you're putting down. The guiding light here has to be one circuit with the best players on it. Golf simply isn't big enough to healthily sustain two top-level leagues. As for what the league looks like…I'm still skeptical about the idea turning golf into a team sport. Tennis has tried it many times throughout the decades with little success. But if Yasir and the PIF truly believe in team golf and are insistent it remains part of the plan moving forward—and all signs point toward that being the case—and they're putting up money, team golf's going to be involved. So the question becomes how best to incorporate team golf into the larger plan?
I've been vocal about my issues with the LIV team format as is. The team competition happens simultaneously to the individual competition. It's almost like background noise. The guys are playing their own ball in stroke play and they add up the scores at the end. That's not team golf at its best. Team golf at its best is two guys in one uniform, playing against two guys in another uniform, in some match-play format. That's what makes the Ryder Cup so great—you get guys hyping each other up. You get pettiness. You don't get any of that with the current LIV setup.
I'd be into a tour that's still rooted in 72-hole, stroke-play tournaments, as that's how our sport has crowned champions for decades. Perhaps the top X finishers in the FedEx Cup qualify for LIV for the next year, with LIV being the PIF-branded team circuit that is team golf and team golf only. You still have teams, but you have "LIV weeks" that are all about the team competition. And by that I mean, no individual tournament happening at the same time. Those are the broad strokes.
Advertisement
Is Rory a hypocrite for saying the rules need to change to allow Rahm to play in the Ryder Cup but not for Stenson to be captain? —@zrieger2
I certainly wouldn't want past statements to be held over our heads like this. We've all said things about LIV Golf and the PGA Tour that are no longer true. Circumstances have changed, dramatically. More information has become available. And smart people change their minds with new information. Because everything said is documented on social media now there's this perverse idea that you shouldn't change your opinion on anything, and that if you do, you're a hypocrite and an idiot. Look at Rahm. He said, in very clear terms, that his heart was on the PGA Tour and that he hated the LIV format. Fast forward a year and he's on Fox News wearing a LIVGOLF letterman jacket. Things change, man.
Did you really stiff your wedding vendors or was that a troll? Stoolies are asking. —@SeanDavis32
Until next time,
Dan
*
Download the Barstool Golf Time app now. Book the best tee times at the best prices all in one place. Leave course reviews. Redeem rewards for free Barstool Golf merch. Follow Barstool Golf Time on Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook.