Tuesday Tidbits - Dogs Days of December Edition

A brief update from the Wasatch Range, where warm, dry conditions seem to have settled in for the duration.  Winding down a four-day visit from my nephew and a college buddy, which has becomes a bit of a family tradition.

Utah has actually been favored with snow this year, as Little Cottonwood Canyon, home to Snowbird and Alta, shows some 135-145" thus far, very respectable in total.  The issue being that there hasn't been anything fresh in more than ten days.  No matter how deep the base, the absence of fresh snow is always fatal, especially with warm conditions creating a thaw and freeze cycle each day.

Because of the dearth of white stuff, I've passed on a family gathering in Sun Valley and will head home a few days early, Thursday to be specific.  So, let's try to quickly catch up on stuff, then we'll pick up the thread from home next week.

We'll just dive into the LIV/PGA mess without straining myself over clever subtitles, then hit other bits as time permits.  A bit of a shotgun approach, leading with yesterdays Tour Confidential panel's opening Q&A, a sort of where the hell are we query:

1. As the Dec. 31 deadline for the PGA Tour/PIF/DP World Tour merger looms, there’s still much uncertainty on what the future of the PGA Tour, and pro golf, will look like. And,

after LIV Golf snagged Jon Rahm from the PGA Tour, the PIF seems to be in the driver’s seat. Look into your crystal ball and predict what might be the most likely outcome from this potential merger.

Jessica Marksbury: With a big name like Rahm now playing for the other team, LIV seems here to stay — at least for the time being! One thing I expect to see from the merger is a defined pathway back for Tour defectors. I also think there have to be some joint tournaments in the future, right?

Say what?  I had been reliably informed that it was Jay alone who would decide the future of LIV, so Jess seems to be looking at some other deal. 

Alan Bastable: I think some kind of deal will be inked by the stated deadline or soon thereafter. LIV, as the Rahm signing reminded us, has too much juice/capital for the Tour not to agree to some kind of truce. Also, no one — the Tour, the players and most of all the fans — want to see things continuing on their current trajectory, with men’s pro golf essentially cannibalizing itself. It’s time to find some middle ground and let the best players in the world compete against one another more than four times a year. Ultimately, I think we land in a place where LIV players get world ranking points (with LIV agreeing to a format change), and as Jess said, with at least some degree of fluidity between the two tours. That feels like the only way forward.

Marksbury: Yes, Alan. Definitely feel like world-ranking points have to be a priority for LIV.

Yanno, the first answer wasn't sufficiently profound that we want to start with the follow-up bit, but talk about your swing-and-misses.  World ranking points have been a priority for LIV for some time, although amusingly not during their planning process.  The question, jess, might be what they're prepared to change to make that happen... 

Sean Zak: Best guesstimate is a Definitive Agreement of investment is finalized in January. LIV Golf launches the same week as a Signature Event at Pebble. Everyone will be happy, knowing that Jon Rahm could be back competing against them in 2025. LIV Golf runs through 2024 and after that serves as part of a team golf series, embedded within the greater Tour schedule moving forward.

That's at least a possible scenario, although back by '25 seems a stretch at this point.

But it gets a little more interesting with their second Q&A:

2. ESPN reported on Friday that a multibillion-dollar deal between the PGA Tour and the Strategic Sports Group, which consists of well-known billionaire team owners, is imminent, which would infuse more than $3 billion into the Tour. Let’s get to the nuts and bolts of this: If this deal or a similar one goes through with an entity not named the Saudi PIF, what does that mean exactly for the Tour and its future?

That ESPN report is worthy of a digression, containing few deals but bits of interest as well.  It's basic news content is as follows:

A multibillion-dollar deal between a group of well-known U.S. sports team owners and the PGA Tour is imminent, as the tour still hopes to reach a similar agreement with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, sources told ESPN on Friday.

The agreement with Strategic Sports Group, a consortium of billionaire team owners that includes Tom Werner and John Henry (Boston Red Sox), Arthur Blank (Atlanta Falcons) and Wyc Grousbeck (Boston Celtics), would infuse more than $3 billion into a new for-profit entity, PGA Tour Enterprises, the sources said.

The PGA Tour is also continuing talks with officials from the PIF, which is financing the rival LIV Golf League. If a deal is reached with both Strategic Sports Group and the PIF, more than $7 billion might be infused into PGA Tour Enterprises, which would combine the commercial assets of the PGA Tour, PIF and DP World Tour.

A deal with Strategic Sports Group might be announced before the end of the year. The PGA Tour, DP World Tour and PIF signed a framework agreement to form a partnership on June 6. The agreement is set to expire Dec. 31, although sources have told ESPN it would likely be extended if progress is being made.

Above and beyond a properly-sized hat for Patrick Cantlay, it remains opaque what assets will be in the new for-profit entity and the return available to these investors.  But where it does get interesting is this spicy quote from an unnamed source:

There is an increased urgency to get the deals done, after the LIV Golf League signed another PGA Tour star, Spain's Jon Rahm, on Dec. 7. Sources told ESPN that Rahm, the reigning Masters champion, agreed to a multiyear contract worth more than $300 million to jump to the LIV Golf League.

"It was nothing more than a shot across the bow," said a source familiar with the negotiations. "It was a f--- you by PIF to the tour that they can grab anyone, even the guy who was adamant about not joining. Three hundred million dollars is a rounding error to the Saudis. Their message was: 'You want to keep fighting with us, really? You want to keep talking to everyone and box us out? Good luck with that.' That's their message."

Translated from Arabic into English, that equates to "Nice little tour you have there.  Sure would be a shame if anything happened to it."  Why it's almost like these guys are an organized crime family... has anyone ever noted what scary mofos these guys are?  Really, and yet he still took the money....

Bastable: As mentioned, I think the PIF deal will go forward and, who knows, maybe even a third investor also comes in, which means the Tour will be absolutely flush with cash. The surge of investment will mean the Tour and its new board-room partners will have big decisions to make about how to best spend and reinvest those dollars. Already swelling purses and bonuses and other revenue streams seem likely to further swell, though the Tour’s biggest challenge will be re-engaging fans. Over the past couple of years, the endless hand-wringing over players getting their financial due has been a huge turnoff. Moving forward, every decision the Tour and its new partners make should be made with fans top of mind.

Marksbury: It’s a good time to be a pro golfer, that’s for sure! More partners equals more billions, and as Alan mentioned, more eye-popping sums for the world’s best players. But in the event a deal goes through without the PIF, I think it makes things even more precarious. The Jon Rahm signing made it clear that even LIV’s staunchest opponents can still be bought, and waging a financial battle will not end well for the Tour. But with Tiger Woods’ involvement on the PGA Tour policy board, it’s also clear that the players will have more of a voice than they did previously, so whatever Tour decisions are made, they’ll at least be presented with a more unified front than what we’ve seen thus far.

Zak: If the PIF isn’t involved, then don’t expect team golf to exist much on the PGA Tour. That’s one of three things the PIF brings: team golf, billions of dollars, and some of the best golfers in the world. Without that, the Tour’s future looks worse. The sport’s future looks divided. The pathways to greater investment change for the women’s game. It is a major domino that would trickle down in ways we can’t even quite imagine. I’d guess the policy board realizes that.

Obviously golf writers can't be expected to be financial geniuses, but they don't seem to even acknowledge that these savvy financial players will be looking for a return on said investment.  

Dylan Dethier, in his last Monday Finish column of the year, does better but still comes up a bit short:

Sources tell the Monday Finish that there are some pretty clear benefits to the Saudi PIF being in business (and having direct access to) the high-powered investors involved with the SSG. And some portion of the SSG investors are intrigued by the possibility of having direct access to the PIF. There is a good chance that this would help some of the savviest (and wealthiest) investors in the world get more and better investments.

Okay, you probably didn’t need sources to tell you that. Power players like this value being connected with each other. And most weeks, it turns out, are good for billionaires. Consider this one of ’em.

Fair enough, and there's also the bit about hanging with celebrity professional golfers, but $3-7 billion is still a huge boatload of money....

This comments I hadn't seen, but we've got some spiciness from Viktor Hovland that fits nicely here as well:

3. In the aftermath of the Jon Rahm-to-LIV Golf news, Jordan Spieth told the Associated Press: “I don’t think for him it was the money. I believe he saw two places that neither one was in a great situation right now, and he said, ‘May as well have the money.’” Do you agree with Spieth?

Bastable: Uh, well, of course, the money was the tipping point, but I think what Spieth was driving at was that other factors were at work, and that Rahm didn’t go just for the money. Clearly, Rahm wasn’t thrilled with the state of the Tour and presumably also was still sour, as were so many of his peers, about the secrecy of the June 6 Tour-LIV pact. I think the toughest pill for Rahm to swallow will be LIV’s format, which he is on the record as saying is inadequate. But as mentioned above, I could see changes coming to LIV in that regard so Rahm’s quandary might be short-lived.

Marksbury: With the merger looming, I think Rahm saw a way to cash in in a massive way, while still feeling confident that he could likely eventually return to the Tour one day if he wanted. His major exemptions are secure for years to come, so he probably didn’t feel he had really anything to lose by jumping.

Zak: People might forget when you said something, but they don’t forget what you said. And more than anyone not named McIlroy, Woods, or maybe Horschel, Rahm was steadfast in his disinterest with LIV Golf. That he was so comfortable flipping on his recent opinions was a reminder on how opinions change. To me, it’s not about agreeing with Spieth or not. It’s about Rahm telling himself, It’s okay that I’ve done the opposite of what I’ve said. I don’t think people will forget that.

Jordan is now a Player Director, so needs to be judicious with his words.  But, when you're entire defense is based on the Saudi's depravity, then you suddenly find them not so depraved, folks are gonna notice.

Of course Jon Rahm made some of the best substantive arguments against LIV, now moot, but have you met Viktor Hovland?

In a professional golfing world defined by the PGA Tour vs. LIV, it’s somewhat refreshing to hear a golfer just go ahead and shred both of ’em. Last week, Viktor Hovland had once again found his name in the is-he-going-to-LIV rumor mill, and in the wake of World No. 3 Jon Rahm leaving, the potential departure of World No. 4 raised eyebrows. But Hovland confirmed to the FORE! podcast, hosted by Norway’s Espen Blaker, that he’s sticking with the superior competition on the PGA Tour — at least for now.

“I don’t think their product is that great,” he said of LIV. (The podcast was translated from Norwegian, so take specific word choice with a grain of salt.) “For example, I’m not such a fan of playing without a cut. You need the competition with 150 players and a cut and if you don’t play well enough, you’re out. There is something about it that makes your game a little sharper. If I had gone to LIV, I don’t think I would have become a better golfer.”

Does he read Unplayable Lies?  Because I've been playing that tune since Day One.  The best events should have the best fields for competitive reasons, but Patrick doesn't want the riffraff diluting his winnings.

Of course, it's a pox on both houses per the Norwegian:

That, Hovland said, was the “end of the discussion.” But it wasn’t, really. The reason he considered LIV in the first place, Hovland said, is because of what he considered PGA Tour mismanagement’s “damn bad job.”

“To be clear: I’m not complaining about the position I’m in, and I’m very grateful for everything. But the management has not done a good job,” Hovland said. “They almost see the players as labor, and not as part of the membership. After all, we are the PGA Tour. Without the players, there is nothing.

“When you get to see what happens behind closed doors, how the management actually makes decisions, which are not in the players’ best interest, but best for themselves and what they think is best … they are businessmen who say that, ‘No, it should look like this and that.’ There is a great deal of arrogance behind it all.”

The Tour is hardly the first large organization to lose its mandate, so it's nothing we haven't seen before.  But, while I have no affection for Jay Monahan, Viktor is painting with quite the broad brush.

If there's one insight that I'd urge upon folks, it's that we should never speak of "The Players" as some sort of coherent voting bloc, because the last two years can be viewed as an attack on the rabbit class by the top 20-30 players.  So, when Viktor speaks of wanting the Tour to treat the players as members, I'm inclined to ask which players?

Already on the clock, so let's hit some udder stuff:

They Had Quite The Run - No doubt you've heard the rumors that Tiger might be swooshless soon.  Dylan Dethier had this typically Tigeresque bit from his presser:

Word on the Orlando streets seemed to be that this could be Tiger Woods‘ final week as a Nike Golf athlete. How strange is that?! Woods used to wear Nike shoes and head-to-toe clothes while playing Nike clubs and Nike balls. Even now, after the discontinuation of their hard goods line, we’ve gotten so used to the swoosh on his shirt that it’s hard to picture Woods wearing anything else.

Asked about the chatter surrounding Woods’ Nike deal, he offered a terse reply.

There’s been a lot of chatter the last month or so on your relationship with Nike, and where that’s going. Can you give any clarity to that?

Woods: “I’m still wearing their product.”

Is this the end of it, coming up?

Woods: “I’m still wearing their product.”

So, there’s that.

Readers know that I've never been the biggest fan of Tiger as an individual, and this certainly isn't the worst of his obfuscations over the years.  That said, aren't there better ways to duck the question?  

Of course, while Tiger was repeating this mantra, Charlie was ricking Greyson apparel, so don't we kind of know where this going?  Especially since BFF Justin Thomas is a Greyson staffer....

That said, I'd love to know how much money Phil Knight lost on Tiger and golf over the years.  Because it's expensive to run a golf equipment company just for the one player....  I'll always remember that, when Nike announced they were exiting the equipment business, one of their staff players said that he had never had a Pro-Am partner show up playing Nike gear.  Kind of reminds one of the LIV business model, no?

Screenshots - The usual newsmakers of the year features are rolling out, but Golf Digest has a clever alternative year-in-review piece:

The best (and most outrageous) screenshots from the year in golf

This one could be a caption contest for sure:

 

It all felt better in that moment than it does now...

Not sure I ever saw this from Phoenix at the time, but it's not like you can't see the same thing in a Senate Hearing Room:

Yanno, sir, you can leave the pin in these days....

You won't be shocked that this is my fave:

Doing the job that Tour rules officials won't do.....

This one is pretty good as well, although the video captures it better:

That's two minutes for cross-checking, dude!

We certainly didn't want the dude to go, but now I'm eagerly awaiting his first LIV meltdown:

That'll be it for today.  I'll wish everyone a Merry Christmas and we'll catch up next week.  Thanks, as always, for reading.

Thursday Themes - Dry Wasatch Edition

My ski season morphed into Groundhog Day so quickly that I barely noticed.  There was some snow, past tense being the key bit, but not even a hint a fresh in the long-term forecast, so we're skiing the same three groomers ad nauseum.  Wouldn't be an issue if we weren't bored with them from the prior days....

Everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it.

LIV Hijinks - It's quite the mess, but your funny bone may come into play as we amuse ourselves with a few LIV-infused bits.  First, we've been reliably (not to mention insufferably) informed that this is all about growing the game, and nothing brings new participants to our ancient game quite like radio silence:

Jon Rahm rocked the world of professional golf with last week's decision to leave the PGA Tour for LIV Golf. But after making a few initial media appearances around the announcement, golf fans shouldn't expect to see the Spanish star for a couple months.

The reigning Masters champ was in Spain on Wednesday to accept an award for his career from a private club in his native Basque Country. But he was surprised to see any cameras there and made it very clear he would not be doing any media, according to a Reuters report.

"I am under very strict instructions not to do public events, which I have imposed on myself a little bit for myself, and for the change I have given to the world of golf in the last week," Rahm said.

When asked if he planned on giving an interview, the 29-year-old added, "No!"

I encourage the reader to reread that penultimate 'graph and appreciate the nature-nurture moment in presents.  Is that level of disingenuousness endemic, or has it been developed as a result of his longstanding friendship with a certain southpaw?  

The writer, however, seems awful credulous:

It's unclear where these instructions are coming from, but it has been reported that previous LIV contracts include restrictions about interviews needing to be pre-approved. Regardless, it sounds like the normally outgoing Rahm won't be talking until the start of the 2024 LIV season.

Unclear?  I guess it's literally his first rodeo, because the pattern of inadvertent truth followed by modified, limited qualification seems familiar enough.  But, just to make it easy for the newbies at Golf Digest, these order come from Riyadh, yanno, the folks to whom Mr. Rahm has pledged, what's that word, fealty.

Ironically, there is one guy that should pull a Rahm and shut the F up, it would be the loveable Boom Boom Couples.  Cameron Young is still running to his mailbox every morning hoping to find that promised ticket to Rome, but I'm sure he's got more considered commentary for us:

Among past and present PGA Tour pros, few have offered more biting commentary on LIV Golf

than Fred Couples, the seemingly easy-going dude who didn’t let much faze him on the course.

In LIV, “Boom Boom” found a big target he couldn’t ignore, and he’s pulled no punches with some of the most notable players in the game. In one rant at a California PGA Tour Champions event in March, he called Sergio Garcia a “clown” and former Ryder Cup teammate Phil Mickelson a “nutbag,” though he admitted the latter is among the 10 best players of all time.

Hey, just like the proverbial stopped clock, I'll concede that he nailed those two data points.... But as for his latest rant, he really should be put under a gag order:

Couples acknowledged that players can choose to compete wherever they want, but doesn’t want to hear that money makes LIV great.

“One hundred million doesn’t get it; $200 million doesn’t get it; $300 million doesn’t get it, but for $400 million, it’s a great product, and it’s a great show?” Couples said. “My a--, OK. Tell me the next guy … ‘I’m going for free, boys. I love this [LIV] tour. I don’t like the PGA Tour anymore.’ No one’s gonna do that.

“I wanna see the next superstar say, ‘I’m going to LIV, you know why I’m going? Because it is unreal.’” [The PGA Tour plays] Riviera, and they play TPC Phoenix in front of 300,000 people. I want ’em to go for free. Then go on CNN, and every TV show, and say why they’re going is because it’s that good.”

It's not that he's wrong, but it's just one heck of a moment to try to differentiate the guys that stay because they're less money hungry... I don't know, all those LIV guys seem able to find hats that fit.

Appearing on Monday night on SiriusXM PGA Tour Radio, the 64-year-old, 11-time tour winner was again on a roll in the aftermath of the move of World No. 3 Jon Rahm to LIV. Last week, after he signed his deal reportedly worth at least $500 million, Rahm said, “Obviously the past two years there’s been a lot of evolving on the game of golf, things have changed a lot and so have I. Seeing the growth of LIV Golf, seeing the evolution of LIV Golf and innovation is something that has really captured my attention.”

That kind of talk makes Couples go off.

“Don’t sit there and then go on and say, ‘they’re changing the game,'” he said. “What are they changing? Actually, for 50 years, golf has been changed. Arnold Palmer changed it. Jack Nicklaus changed it. Tiger Woods changed it.

“The LIV Tour ain’t changing a thing.”

Their product certainly does suck, but again the timing is funny, because all of a sudden they're using the C-word, first with this trial balloon:

“(Rahm) has been vocal about some stuff he didn’t love but he wouldn’t have come to LIV if he thought he was going to win 10 tournaments a year and have no competition,” Talor Gooch told

Golf Digest. “He’s a true competitor. It’s beyond exciting [to have Rahm].”

“We haven’t had an open forum discussion with all the players,” said Gooch, LIV’s 2023 individual champion who was recently traded from Bubba Watson’s RangeGoats GC to Brooks Koepka’s Smash GC for Matthew Wolff. “But you get both sides … guys who would welcome (changing to 72 holes) and some guys who are opposed to it. Discussions will be had and it’ll be interesting to see what comes of it.

“I think LIV Golf was meant to be something different; I think it’s not supposed to be a carbon copy of the rest of professional golf. I lean towards keeping it at 54 holes. Part of it, too, from my experience on the PGA Tour, was Thursdays are just irrelevant from a fan perspective (except for) only a couple times a year.”

The great Talor Gooch, who apparently still hasn't used his LIV riches to purchase that missing "Y".  When last Talor assaulted our eardrums, he was comparing the LIV team competition to the Ryder Cup, so one does need to consider the source.

But that was non-specific, now comes this existential trial balloon:

Could LIV Golf move to 72-hole events? The league's top points-earner says ‘discussions will be had’

My amusement comes from this in the second 'graph:

Now that Rahm is the proud owner of a LIV Golf letterman’s jacket after jumping from the PGA Tour and DP World Tour for a deal reported to be worth somewhere between $300 million and $600 million, the question is whether he might have enough sway to introduce tweaks to the fledgling circuit.

Wouldn't that turn the letterman's jacket into a collector's item given that, were they to go to 72 holes, it would be comically humiliating to continue to operate under that discredited Roman numeral 54?   far from a done deal yet, as Gooch makes clear:

“We haven't had an open forum discussion with all the players,” said Gooch, who last week was transferred from Bubba Watson’s RangeGoats GC to Koepka’s Smash GC. “But you get both sides … guys who would welcome it [72 holes] and some guys who are opposed to it. Discussions will be had, and it'll be interesting to see what comes of it.”

Gooch contends there are varying opinions among players, with some who would vote to add a fourth round to LIV events, even though he isn’t in favor of the move.

“I think LIV Golf was meant to be something different; I think it's not supposed to be a carbon copy of the rest of professional golf. I lean towards keeping it at 54 holes,” Gooch said. “Part of it too, from my experience on the PGA Tour, was Thursdays are just irrelevant from a fan perspective [except for] only a couple times a year.

Sayeth the man whose tour has made Friday-Sunday irrelevant....

I never got around to blogging that blockbuster trade, but that team competition seems awfully.....well, bogus?

During this span, another couple moves involving LIV went down. And while neither will draw a fraction of the attention the others did (Sorry, guys), one trade is—at least, on paper—one of the most puzzling transactions in sports history. Drum roll, please!

Matthew Wolff for Talor Gooch?! Say what?!

In case you haven't been following LIV this past season, these are two guys going in very different directions with their careers. Wolff, once considered to be potentially the best player of the Class of 2019 that includes Collin Morikawa and Viktor Hovland, finished 27th in the 2023 LIV standings. Just one spot ahead of Pat Perez. In other words, not great.

Gooch, on the other hand, had a fantastic campaign, winning three times and finishing first on the season-long points list to claim an $18 million bonus. So why would the Range Goats, who finished fourth in the team standings, trade the league's best player for the league's 27th-best player? That's what we want to know!

Yeah, because they can't get rid of Wolff and Brooks might have hurt him if he wasn't removed from his team, but wow!

Though probably not quite this significant:

Better than the Red Sox trading The Great Bambino to their archrival for a loan to finance No, No, Nanette, the musical…slightly. https://t.co/GWPYpTTW4k

— Mark Baldwin (@markbaldwin1) December 7, 2023

More like Nolan Ryan for Jim Fregosi, methinks.

PGA Tour Hijinks - I'm all for merit raises, but is there a guy (excluding, perhaps Matthew Wolff) that had a worse year?

Sportico obtained the Tour’s IRS filings for 2022 and shared some key details, including increases to Commissioner Jay Monahan’s compensation, the Tour’s legal fees, revenue and overall expenses.

Monahan’s reported compensation for 2022 was $18.6 million, up from $13.9 million in 2021. That $18.6 million includes a $1.8 million base salary, $9.2 million in bonuses and incentives, and according to the Tour, an actuarial estimate of $7.4 million for non-cash benefits that Monahan will receive when he retires.

That's for 2022, when he was still, in theory, fighting the righteous fight against the Saudis, but remind me how that all worked out?  Though, given where we are today, those non-cash benefits might be payable fairly soon.

Jay's job is obviously to represent the interests of the players, the question being which players.  I'm sure that Patrick has Jay's ear, but you might have heard that others are wondering about their representatives:

On Sunday, 21 members of the Tour’s rank-and-file signed a letter written by a top-flight

litigation attorney and delivered to the PGA Tour policy board demanding answers on the state of the Tour’s negotiations with potential investment partners and a dialogue with the Tour’s upper chamber of decision-makers. The letter, written by Jacob W. Buchdahl, a partner at the high-powered firm Susman Godfrey, represents the most threatening step yet for the Tour’s playing class as it reconciles with changes to the Tour schedule that promise to enrich its top members.

The letter does not threaten any imminent legal action, but appears to show that at least a chunk of the Tour’s membership has consulted legal advice as the Tour policy board prepares for one of the most significant stretches in its existence. The 21 players listed in the letter are Tour lifers — including Lanto Griffin, James Hahn, Scott Piercy and former Masters champ Danny Willett — many of whom have been rankled by changes to the Tour way of life brought about by LIV. Chez Reavie, No. 111 in the world, is the highest-ranked player to sign the letter.

The heart of Buchdahl’s letter surrounds the current state of negotiations between the PGA Tour and a pair of high-profile investors, the Strategic Sports Group (or SSG) and Saudi Public Investment Fund (or PIF). On Sunday, the Tour policy board announced in a memo to players that it had agreed to “advance negotiations” with the SSG, a group of blue-blood sports investors that currently owns at least nine professional sports franchises. Later this week, Tour commissioner Jay Monahan is expected to meet with PIF chief Yasir Al-Rumayyan in an effort to hammer out the final stages of a separate round of negotiations before the pair’s Dec. 31 deadline.

Chez, it's very simple, you don't matter and have no representation.  The key bit here is in the last sentence:

At stake for both negotiations is a piece of equity in PGA Tour Enterprises, a for-profit subsidiary of the Tour that is expected to siphon off most of the Tour’s moneymaking properties — similar to the way other professional sports leagues operate their franchise models. The cost of equity is one of the issues at the center of the negotiations, though it is believed from the Tour’s initial “framework agreement” with the PIF that the Tour stands to make several billion dollars from the arrangement. A select group of players is also expected to receive pieces of equity under the agreement.

Obviously the guys signing this letter won't be receiving numbered stock certificates.  But if all the profitable assets are moved to the new entity, and I'm unclear whether that includes the actual tournaments and media contracts, and the equity is distributed, what happens nest year when a new talent emerges?  Yes, of course they can make additional equity grants, but the guys deciding on those (Tiger and Patrick, presumably) are the very guys that will be diluted by such equity grants.  Can you say "Conflict of interest"?

Kevin Van Valkenburg has an interesting piece up at No Laying Up, that I'll use for my graceful exit.  I know that I had promised to blog the mixed event and the Father-Son, but you'll have to remember that I lie.  Buried in Kevin's piece is some useful relative numbers that I think deserves to be the lede:

We know LIV ratings have been laughable, so let’s ignore them for a second. Let’s take the PGA Tour’s most important event — The Players Championship — as Exhibit A when we examine the allegation of golf’s cultural irrelevance.

In 2023, the Players Sunday broadcast drew 2.83 million viewers. That was up 11 percent from the previous year.

Do you know how many people tuned in to watch Ohio State play Michigan in college football’s marquee regular season match-up? 19.07 million.

When the Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles faced off recently, it was watched by 29.02 million people.

The most important event on the PGA Tour drew about 500,000 fewer eyeballs than a game between Iowa State and Kansas State.

Are we really supposed to believe, based on numbers like this, Rahm’s $450 million contract (who knows the real number when accounting for clauses and equity) is driven by a real market? It’s asinine.

In a rational world, those golf viewership numbers would define the economic value of the event and the Tour, and would control purse sizes.  Instead, we have internalized the Saudi's sportswashing-inflated purses, and the Patrick Cantlay's of the world believe this has defined the value of the golf ecosystem.  I suppose it does, at least for the moment, but what happens when the Saudi's tire of Phil and Sergio's acts?

Kevin led with this anecdote, which sounds like your humble blogger on June 6th:

I’m often hesitant to assign much weight to anecdotal evidence, but this week, during one of the busiest seven-day stretches in the history of professional golf, I received a text from a friend that stopped me cold.

We don’t play golf together as much as we’d like, owing to our busy work schedules, but he follows the game closely and reads about it constantly. He listens to podcasts, watches videos, then shares them with friends. He is, in simplistic terms, a golf sicko. He also belongs to what is arguably the sport’s most coveted demographic: He owns his own business, he has disposable income, he isn’t married to any particular political ideology, and he buys new clubs as often as some people buy golf balls.

He wanted to let me know he was fed up with the professional game. Done with it.

He still loved the sport, and still looked forward to teeing it up together, but he wasn’t going to watch anymore. He might tune in for the majors, but that was probably it. The PGA Tour and LIV? All of it had started to feel a little gross. Everything going on — whether it was Jon Rahm’s departure to LIV; the squabbling over billions of dollars in equity in a potential merger between tours; even the governing bodies’ decision to try and curtail distance — left him feeling used.

“The fan experience,” he wrote, “is secondary at best. And fans don’t like getting fucked with.”

As someone who makes a living writing about golf, and frequently commenting on the professional game, I would love to pretend my friend is an outlier. He might be mad now, but this too shall pass, as the idiom goes.

In recent days, I’ve come to realize he is more likely the tip of the iceberg.

My prediction at the star of this mess was that we would end up hating each and every one of those guys, and it seems that we're ahead of schedule.

As easy as it would be to point the finger solely at those who went to LIV, there are very few innocent bystanders here. Those who stayed with the PGA Tour are now mud-wrestling over different piles of money and control. They do not seem to care if the sport (at least the professional version of it) is irrevocably broken in this process, as long as a handful of them achieve generational wealth.

I understand, in a micro sense, why Rahm went back on his word and took LIV’s money. He almost certainly looked at the mess that is the PGA Tour and realized he was under no obligation to support that clusterfuck of ego and uncertainty. I can’t pretend I know Rahm well, but I’ve been around him enough to know he is driven by pride more than money. He did not feel sufficiently valued by the PGA Tour, so why help them wade through a murky future when someone was dangling half a billion dollars in his face?

With all the private equity sharks circling the PGA Tour at the moment, many of them whispering in Tiger Woods’ ears about a way to box out the Saudis, you can understand why Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the Chairman of the Public Investment Fund, felt he had to make a bold chess move with Rahm. Whether the Masters winner is a knight or a pawn probably doesn’t matter, though I’m sure Rahm sees himself as the former, not the latter.

In a macro sense, I wish Rahm would have remained true to his word, because he is among the most thoughtful, principled, interesting people in professional golf. I fear he’ll be neutered now that it is part of his job to be a mouthpiece for an autocratic government. Perhaps he’ll prove me wrong, and I hope he does. It will be interesting to study his temper when his 2024 U.S. Open prep involves three rounds of team golf in front of dozens of fans at Golf Club of Houston in sweltering conditions in June. If the CW Network is still bothering to count viewers, they can put me down for that one.

I wish Rahm stayed true to his word, as well, but given that Jay Monahan and Jimmy Dunne puked a fast one on him, it's hard to argue that he should be the loner whose word still retains value.

But the larger problem is that the PGA Tour's legacy is far less robust than most folks understand.  When we look at the combined golf calendar we often lump it all together under the PGA Tour banner, but that's quite misleading.  Right now those four majors have been substantially, what's the term of art, elevated?  But the PGA Tour itself is revealed as substantially diminished in comparison, and there's similarly diminished reasons to tune in.

The next few months will be quite fascinating, though it remains hard to see anything in it for the fans.

It's a chill life here in Utah, although I'm not at all clear about my blogging plans.  There are some plans involving the family, though the absence of fresh snow may impact those.  I don't know when I'll blog, but you should just do as you always have, check back early and often.

Tuesday Trifles - Wasatch Edition

We're back on Utah time, so expect posts to be up a bit later in the morning.  But, quite the mess, eh?

PIFfing Into The Wind - Yeah, I don't know how this resolves, but one gets the feeling that there's only four events we'll need to watch next year.  Hard to grab onto a place to lede from, so shall we just enjoy Shack roasting a certain Spaniard?  

Here was Jon Rahm throwing out the World Series first pitch in October and lifting the Masters trophy back in April:

Here is Jon Rahm after signing with LIV last week:

 

As caught by Golf Digest’s Ben Walton, note in the top photo of Rahm posing with the old Florida Man bearing a strong resemblance to a former World No. 1, look how the Masters champion adjusted his watch to make sure it’s visible even after he’s been wired $100 million and could buy any man jewelry he wants. Remarkably, product-hawking remained top-of-mind as he began his quest to grow the game.

 I'm just gonna let him rant on:

When offered again he took the silly money. But Rahm also jettisoned the respect he’d built-up at the apparent behest of his new Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia sugar daddies benefactors. Rahm hid behind family needs in the initial Fox News reveal of his shocking decision in endorsing a tour he’d mocked. It only reinforced how everyone has a price and will justify it every way imaginable instead of maintaining some semblance of dignity by saying, “the amount they offered to put the PGA Tour out of its misery proved absurd and I could not say no, so I’ll do my best to earn it while using it to give back somehow.”

During a nails-on-chalkboard appearance with former placekicker and relentlessly-overcompensating-as-a-result bro show host Pat McAfee, Rahm listened to the tank top-wearing windbag ramble on about how this was a show for the little people who work hard and started with nothing. McAfee blabbed on about how annoyed he is by the terrible types who lament athletes taking sportwashed money before telling Rahm how amazing it is to be “changing your family tree forever.”

The family tree?

This would suggest Rahm’s offspring won’t ever have to be hard working types sitting at home watching The Pat McAfee Show. One could try explaining the irony to McAfee and I’m confident someone has spent a few too many hours under the tanning bed lights. (If you want a Monday migraine, here is the full appearance.)

Can you feel the game growing?

Look, we get it: louder, edgier, sillier and angrier is the LIV thing. They even put out a photo of Rahm that looked like a defiant drunk mug shot next to some more unadulterated grow-the-game hogwash. And it’s a “quote” talking about bigger audiences divorced from the reality: LIV has been watched by miniscule audiences despite a massive cash outlay.

Anyone but me think it reminds us of Tiger's mug shot?

Of course, it could have been worse:

Oh wow pic.twitter.com/3pI8dxEOZX

— No Laying Up (@NoLayingUp) December 8, 2023

Amusingly, not that I can find it right now, but Geoff saw the above and tweeted his relief that at least Ohtani had spurned the dreaded Dodgers.....  Yeah, maybe that explains his crankiness.

Your humble blogger has spent the last two years criticizing the Tour's reaction to the LIV threat.  I couldn't understand why they weren't calling the LIV events exhibitions, only to learn that that was because they eanted to play exhibitions as well.  The objections to tainted money were thereby one-dimensional and, now that Jay is cool with Wahabi cash, what is the remaining objection to LIV.

What's most disillusioning is that the one guy making those substantive arguments has now pulled an Emily Litella and said, "never mind."

One last Geoff bit:

But it’s no less agonizing to watch a generational talent look ridiculous. One who had many of us believing he had taken inspiration from class acts of the past and seemed genuine in his pursuit of history above all else. During last Thursday’s rushed rollout, Rahm immediately showed he is not his own man in following LIV’s tacky rollout script. One oddly designed at appealing to angry bros who feel America has wronged them. How they think this will appeal to a larger audience—especially women or a red-white-and-blue core that’s still not wild about Saudi Arabia—is tough to comprehend.

OK, but let's remember that that pledge of "fealty" was no less genuine.... The Tour Confidential panel had thoughts:

1. Adding to a week that already had an announcement of a controversial golf-ball rollback (you can read that special edition of Tour Confidential here), World No. 3 Jon Rahm joined LIV Golf for a deal that’s reported to be well into nine figures. Not long ago Rahm said he had no interest in the up-start league and that crazy money wouldn’t change his lifestyle anyway. So, what happened?

Josh Sens: The big thing that changed is the golf landscape, in which the Tour did a sneaky about-face on doing business with the Saudis (giving players free license to do the same) and the

Saudis, with a deadline to a potential agreement fast-approaching and the Tour talking to other suitors, had all the more incentive to gain added negotiation leverage. What didn’t change is that the Saudis have bottomless financial resources and everyone has a price.

Zephyr Melton: After the Tour showed they were willing to do business with the Saudis, all bets were off. Rahm stayed through the chaos of early defections — watching his colleagues get paid hundreds of millions — and got very little from the Tour in return for his loyalty. With the Tour and LIV looking to merge in the future, he may as well get his bag while he can.

James Colgan: Yeah, LIV offered Rahm a metric ton of cash, which was enough to tip the metaphorical scales. But I also think LIV offered him something the PGA Tour didn’t: the opportunity to be the face (and the voice) of the league. In a world where the Saudis have their hands deep in both leagues, the “legacy” offered by the PGA Tour paled in comparison. Oh, and the eight zeroes helped.

Not sure being the face of THAT tour is such a great thing.... But the money is forever.

2. Rahm seemed to be a player who cared deeply about winning some of the PGA Tour’s marquee events, once saying “There’s meaning when you win the Memorial. There’s meaning when you win Arnold Palmer’s event at Bay Hill. There’s a meaning when you win, LA, Torrey, some of the historic venues. That to me matters a lot.” Does Rahm signing with LIV Golf mean he’s moved on from that previous stance, or is there a chance he knows something we don’t know about the future of the two leagues?

Sens: Possibly. It’s not hard to imagine a merger, or a world where barriers between the two circuits disappear, allowing players to jump back and forth. But what seems more relevant to Rahm is that, with his exemptions and his stature, will still get to play in the events that matter to him most no matter what.

Melton: I find it hard to believe Rahm knows much about the future of the two leagues because it seems like even they don’t know what the future holds. It’s more likely that they made him an offer he simply couldn’t refuse.

Colgan: I think we’ve seen enough evidence from previous defections that declarations of allegiance to either league aren’t worth the air they’re spoken into. Everybody’s got a plan until they’re staring down life-changing money.

Look, he spoke about caring about those PGA Tour events, but I would say at this point we should assume that nothing he says is anything but transactional.

But the bigger issue is one that I've tried to note more than a few times, which is that the PGA Tour itself is marginal.  We think of that golf eco-system as unified, but when you bifurcate the majors from the PGA Tour, the latter struggles for relevance.  

The obvious advantage the Tour has is the history of these events, including their ties to (sometimes) iconic venues.  But then the Tour devalues those events by limiting field sizes and turning them into LIV-lite, so what's the reason to stay?

Tony now says he's staying, but it's domino time:

3. Now the golf world waits for more dominos to fall, especially since Rahm will captain one of his own LIV teams. Do you see more PGA Tour players or big names joining LIV in the coming weeks? Who might be on their radar?

Sens: Recent remarks from Tony Finau’s orbit make it sound like he’s already gone. But other names being bandied about — chiefly Hatton, maybe Hovland?- seem highly realistic, too. Of course, Rory jumping would make me spill my coffee. But at this point, there’s not much news that could cause much shock.

Melton: It sounds like it’s a matter of when, not if, more big names follow Rahm. Tony Finau and Tyrrell Hatton seem like prime candidates.

Colgan: We’ve seen Finau and Hatton’s names tied to Rahm, which makes some level of sense (and also gives LIV a team filled with three of golf’s all-time good guys). I think the bigger news, after Rahm, is that nobody is off the radar anymore.

Tony made perfect sense, as he's not so good at the golf thing lately.  But Mr. Rahm will need a team, and I don't see him grabbing Matthew Wolff.

Wither The Tour - What a bizarre moment in golf.  The TC panel takes a crack at where this leaves things:

4. Where do the PGA Tour, and commissioner Jay Monahan, go from here? And what does Rahm leaving for LIV mean for the ongoing merger talks with a deadline for a deal looming later this month?

Melton: I’m not sure where Monahan goes from here. It doesn’t look like he’s got many cards left to play. As for the merger, plucking off Rahm (with others sure to follow) gives the Saudis that much more bargaining power.

Colgan: In signing Rahm, the PIF ostensibly puts a gun to Monahan’s head as it relates to merger conversations. His best option is to pray these negotiations finalize before another star jumps ship — as everyone at the table now knows. I think we can feel confident things are going to get moving quickly, as the Tour’s new partnership of billionaires indicates.

Sens: I have a holiday fruitcake that I suspect will be around longer than Monahan. I’d be surprised if he’s still commish next year. As James says, the urgency for talks is greater than ever, but any merger would still have to pass muster with regulators. The short answer is, another year of a divided professional game, even if the court fights are done.

Jay seems to have become a eunuch, and we should expect him to remain in place only as long as he's useful, though the question of useful to whom will remain pending.

That last bit from Josh Sens refers to this development:

A story posted on pgatour.com said: “The PGA Tour Policy Board has unanimously selected an outside investment group to further negotiate with as talks with the PIF continue to progress. The decision to advance discussions with Strategic Sports Group (SSG) was announced Sunday in a memo to Tour members.”

Golf Channel’s Rex Hoggard first reported the memo the board sent Sunday.

The memo states that the board has been reviewing proposals over the last few days and that negotiations with SSG will continue. SSG is headlined by Fenway Sports Group but includes Marc Attanasio, Arthur Blank, Gerry Cardinale and Cohen Private Ventures.

This has not shut the door on Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund as the board wrote that “we anticipate advancing our negotiations with PIF in the weeks to come.”

 It seems like the unspoken conversation has gone about like this:

Jay:  We don't need your stinking money.

Yasir: Fine, we'll just write the checks directly to your players.

Just after I last posted on this topic, this Sports Illustrated item dropped, with two notable revelations, this being the first:

Whatever LIV Golf is paying Jon Rahm to leave the PGA Tour, it is an enormous number. Here is a larger one: Last summer, after the PGA Tour and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund announced their framework agreement, PIF indicated a willingness to fund a $1 billion equalization pool for the PGA Tour players who turned down LIV offers before the framework agreement, people familiar with the discussions tell Sports Illustrated. The number wasn’t final; nothing was final, obviously. But that’s where this was headed: A $1 billion-dollar equalization pool on top of a $2 billion PIF investment in the PGA Tour.

The numbers could have gone down—but they also could have gone up.

Those are rather large numbers, yet we're hearing that PIF is dragging its feet in the negotiations.....  This is the more incendiary revelation:

What has happened since should outrage the Tour’s rank and file. It is a story of political maneuvering and bruised egos obstructing common sense, with Patrick Cantlay seizing control and somehow turning himself into arguably the most powerful person on the PGA Tour, including the commissioner. Cantlay has formed an alliance with fellow Tour Policy Board members Tiger Woods and Jordan Spieth, and that group, along with Colin Neville of Raine Capital, is now driving the Tour’s negotiations with PIF and other investors.

How is that going? Well, multiple sources tell SI that Neville assured bidders no players from the Tour’s much-discussed meeting in Delaware in August 2022 would defect to LIV. Rahm was in Delaware, he might be the best player in the world, and he just left. What are those bidders supposed to think now? (A spokesperson for Raine declined comment on behalf of Neville.)

No word on whether Patrick has found a hat that fits, but word on the street was that he wanted to blow up the Saudi deal in order to keep them as leverage.  In other words, he wants Saudi money without the unpleasant aroma, so good luck with that.

So, how's the terrific penis' plan working out?

There is still the possibility this all ends happily for everybody, but the Tour is in a worse negotiating position than it was this summer, with no clear endgame in sight. Rahm’s departure is not just a blow to the Tour; it is the strongest public indicator yet of how poorly the ship has been steered.

Go back to the framework announcement in June. The rollout was a disaster, but the principles of the agreement were clear: PIF would invest in the Tour. PIF chairperson Yasir Al-Rumayyan would be chairperson and get a seat on the PGA Tour Policy Board—but the PGA Tour commissioner would get to decide the fate of the Tour and LIV. LIV agreed to drop all lawsuits against the Tour with prejudice.

Less noticed at the time: While the sides set Dec. 31 of this year as a target to complete the deal, there was no exclusivity window. The PGA Tour was free to talk to any and all other investors while it negotiated with PIF. One attorney who has worked on mergers and acquisitions for decades and had no connection to this deal told SI that was extremely unusual: Normally, “once it’s public, you’re locked into the deal until either the deadline for closing passes or some condition that can’t be met.” Another attorney with a similar background concurred.

More fundamentally, it's unclear as to whether Yasir knew they would be trying to dilute their influence by including other financing sources, since money is all the Saudis bring to the table.  We might view Yasir's signing of Rahm as an indication that he's not planning to play well with the others.

The framework agreement also included a clause in which LIV and the Tour agreed not to poach each other’s players as they negotiated. This meant that the Tour could solicit bids from other investors, and LIV could not retaliate by—just for example here—throwing a half-billion or so dollars at Jon Rahm.

There were indications the Justice Department might view the no-poaching agreement as an antitrust violation, and so as a show of good faith, the Tour and LIV removed it. But the rest of it remained. Al-Rumayyan had been very clear that he wanted it to go through.

The Tour had a chance to use the nonexclusivity to either find other investors—lowering PIF’s stake and possibly clapping back at critics who said the Saudis would run the Tour—or simply use the possibility of it to get the best possible deal from PIF. That is also a critical point: The sides had not yet agreed on what the Tour and its assets were worth. Would a $2 billion investment buy 20 percent? Fifty percent? Ten percent? It would be whatever both sides thought it was. The last three years in sports have taught us that the Saudis do not worry about the numbers after the decimal point.

Good faith?  Hey, why start now?

Back to the TC gang:

5. Rahm leaving was a dagger to the PGA Tour, not only because he’s well known but because he just won the Masters, is in his prime and was supposed to be a core piece the PGA Tour builds around. If you are a PGA Tour player, what are you most curious about regarding the future of your league?

Sens: So many things. Who will be left to compete against week in and week out? How tough will it be to retain sponsors? What’s going to happen with world rankings, gateways to the majors? What happens to prize money? Should I look to start earning my living in pickleball?

Melton: I’d be asking if the league will even exist in five years. If they keep hemorrhaging stars, there won’t be much of a product to sell in the future.

Colgan: I’m wondering at what point we start asking if all the best players in the world are still on the PGA Tour.

It's not going to be a hemorrhage, because they can't absorb that many, so it's clearly more about the specific players involved.  There aren't too many Jon Rahm's, but reasons for tuning in on any given Sunday are diminished.

But the bigger issue is that those still on the PGA Tour, Patrick Cantlay most notably, refuse to ply their trade for the amount the golf ecosystem can support, at the same time we see that ecosystems value diminished by the defection of a key player.  I'm sure it'll all work out, for Patrick that is.

Gonna leave you there and get on with my day.  No blogging tomorrow due to a conflict, but we'll catch up the Father-Sone, PGA-LPGA later in the week.

Late-Week Lamentations - Rahmbo, We Hardly Knew Ye Edition

For an early December week it's been shockingly newsy, not that any of it is for the better...

This post might be a bit of a mess for the reader, as I began drafting Thursday afternoon as the Rahn news was breaking.  I shan't rewrite anything, though I'll throw in some new bits, so expect a continuity-challenged post.  Yanno, just like any day that ends in "Y".

Fealty, Schmealty - As I peck away on Thursday afternoon, there's been to official announcement, though it seems like a done deal:

Jon Rahm bolting PGA Tour for LIV Golf in potential $600 million coup

The whispers in the golf world are becoming a shocking reality.

Jon Rahm is leaving the PGA Tour for LIV Golf this week, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Previous reports on Rahm’s defection have noted the deal would pay the reigning Masters champ somewhere in the range of $600 million.

ESPN confirmed Rahm’s LIV move and put the money at north of $300 million in a three-year deal.

That's an amusingly wide range of deal values, but it's quite the background music for Jay's warm get-together with Yasir this week.  Wonder what they might talk about...

As the guy who told you to watch Jon Rahm way back at the dawn of time, his relationship with Phil and Sergio always ensured that he'd be a flight risk, though I'm still struggling to understand the timing.  But there's no underestimating the potential impact, both because of his status in the game, but also because Rahm, more than most, made the intellectual case against LIV.

Shall we review some of his prior thoughts, many of which have been helpfully compiled by Golfweek here  First, this that came with his fealty:

February 2022: 'Declaring my fealty'

“I wanted to take this time to say that this is my official, my one and only time to talk about this, where I am officially declaring my fealty to the PGA Tour,” Rahm said ahead of the 2022 Genesis Invitational. “I’m a PAC [Player Advisory Council] member and I have a lot of belief in Jay Monahan and the product.

“There’s been a lot of talk and speculation on the Saudi league and it’s just not something that I believe is best for me and my future in golf and I think the best legacy I can accomplish is on the PGA Tour.

“Everybody’s free to make their own choice, it’s as simple as that. All I can say is from somebody young like myself who has his entire future ahead of him, it doesn’t seem like a smart thing. Again, the only appeal I see is monetary, right? So like I said just earlier on, I think there’s a lot more to be able to play for besides just money on the PGA Tour. There’s history, there’s legacy. At the end of the day, I’m in this to win tournaments, I’m in this to play against the best in the world.”

Jon has a clarification for us....he doesn't play for money, though apparently he does play for boatloads of money....

About that innovative format:

June 2022: 'Shotgun three days to me is not a golf tournament'

“I consider the PGA Tour has done an amazing job giving us the best platform for us to perform. I do see the appeal that other people see towards the LIV Golf. I do see some of the – I’ll put this delicately – points or arguments they can make towards why they prefer it. To be honest, part of the (LIV) format is not really appealing to me. Shotgun three days to me is not a golf tournament, no cut. It’s that simple,” Rahm said at the 2022 U.S. Open. “I want to play against the best in the world in a format that’s been going on for hundreds of years. That’s what I want to see.”

“There’s meaning when you win the Memorial Championship. There’s meaning when you win Arnold Palmer’s event at Bay Hill. There’s a meaning when you win, LA, Torrey, some of the historic venues. That to me matters a lot, right. After winning this past U.S. Open, only me and Tiger have won at Torrey Pines, and it’s a golf course that we like, making putts on the 18th hole. That’s a memory I’m going to have forever that not many people can say. My heart is with the PGA Tour. That’s all I can say.”

So, is he leaving because of all those no-cut Designated Events?  If so, that would be epic, because there's a point that we need to make, which is that the PGA Tour has muddied the distinction with LIV through their Honey, I Shrunk The Field Size initiative, and I'll support Rahm if he makes the case that in ruining the Tour's marquee events he eliminated any reason to stay.

At the same time as these comments, he had this as well:

“Will our lifestyle change if I got $400 million? No, it will not change one bit,” he said. “Truth be told, I could retire right now with what I’ve made and live a very happy life and not play golf again. So I’ve never really played the game of golf for monetary reasons.

That's why I'm guessing that ESPN's $300 million number will prove to be low....

And, doesn't this just sum it all up:

August 2023: 'I laugh when people rumor me with LIV Golf'

 Because you knew they were wrong, or because you knew they were early?

Eamon Lynch had these thoughts a week or so ago:

Lynch: A Jon Rahm leap to LIV will force a messy, make-or-break moment for PGA Tour and its top stars

OK, whatcha mean by that?

For two years, we’ve seen skirmishes claimed as decisive victories. The moves by Dustin Johnson and Brooks Koepka to leave the PGA Tour for LIV were no more conclusive than the decisions of Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy to remain. A jump to LIV by Jon Rahm – the subject of intense speculation – will be no different, whatever the banner-wavers and pearl-clutchers on either side say. But it would represent something significant, beyond being an example of what happens to a man of supposed character who remains in the mephitic orbit of people like Phil Mickelson and Sergio Garcia.

A Rahm departure would be more impactful mostly by dint of timing, hastening a reckoning for the competing agendas that have all but paralyzed the PGA Tour’s Policy Board.

Gee, I'd been reliably informed that Tiger was running everything now, so what is this paralysis you speak of?

Among players on the board, there’s a faction opposed to involving the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund in the future of the Tour, preferring to partner with one of several interested private investors. Their motivations are varied, whether it’s patriotism, a desire to see LIV continue for leverage or simple aversion to a Framework Agreement foisted upon them without consultation. Jay Monahan, however, is adamant that the Saudis be included, presumably because he’d rather not have a free-spending rival approaching apostate members who promise fealty only until the offer swells sufficiently.

I know which side Cantlay is on, but where does Tiger come down?  

Word on the street is that Yasir has been slow-rolling the negotiations, so it's not clear that a deal is going to move forward with the PIF only one of the financiers at the table.  But perhaps Jay is surprised that those that keep bonecutters in their consulates play hardball....

This standoff makes any poaching of Rahm an astute leverage play by PIF governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan, who is scheduled to meet Monahan this week. It would be a sharp reminder to resistant player directors of the damage he can inflict, potentially guarantee PIF participation in the Tour’s future, and secure terms more favorable than had seemed likely. If a peace deal is consummated, Al-Rumayyan might never have to make a Year 2 payment to Rahm. And if it isn’t? Well, he bought the Masters champion and world No. 3 as a high-profile plaything for his league.

To the Player Directors sure, but isn't it more of a warning shot to those other investment banks?  It's one thing to fund PGA Tour ventures in a time of peace, but if they can steal Jon Rahm, they can steal anybody and maybe everybody.

Back to Eamon:

One school of thought says losing Rahm would finish Monahan, reinforcing a perception that he is being outmaneuvered. Alternatively, he could emerge stronger if hesitant players embrace his case for détente. Of course, player directors might also be galvanized against PIF as an untrustworthy partner and entirely torpedo the Framework Agreement. That too has ramifications. Do the Tour’s private equity suitors, who thought they were going into business with the Saudis, have the stomach to go to war with them instead?

Like an artfully designed golf course, there are plentiful options, each with its own perils.

Just like we erred in thinking that Greg Norman matters, I'm not sure Monahan is anything more than a placeholder here....  But again, you guys had a nice little tour, are you sure you want to be partners with these folks?

Eamon gets the divide between the haves and have-nots, though can only go so far with it right now.  But here's another curious bit that is related:

Another new income source for PGA Tour players nearing fruition

Overlooked in the torrent of news and reaction in the wake of the PGA Tour’s bombshell June 6

announcement that it was forging a partnership with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund was that Tour leadership was aiming to make its loyalists whole by giving them an ownership stake in the Tour’s forthcoming for-profit arm, PGA Tour Enterprises.

Jimmy Dunne, a Tour policy member at the center of the Tour’s secretive, high-stakes dealings with the Saudis, spelled out some of the plan in a piece published by ESPN on June 9, noting: “The new [company] would grow, and the [current PGA Tour] players would get a piece of equity that would enhance and increase in value as time went on. There would have to be some kind of formulaic decision on how to do that. It would be a process to determine what would be a fair mechanism that would be really beneficial to our players.”

Last month, in a memo to his players, Tour commissioner Jay Monahan added of the equity stakes: “…this would be a unique offering in professional sports, as no other league grants its players/members direct equity ownership in the league’s business…[and] the PGA Tour will be stronger with our players more closely aligned with the commercial success of the business.”

Perhaps it was overlooked because of the complete absence of any information on what assets will be in this entity?

Alan Bastable does a creditable job of relating some of the conflict between the haves and have-mores, including Lanto Griffin's recent criticisms.  But here it gets interesting:

Still, details about the players-as-owners plan have been scant, as some pros have grown increasingly agitated by the Tour’s shift toward catering to and lining the pockets of its stars. One such newish revenue channel that favors the Tour’s A-listers is the Player Impact Program, which pays players huge sums for, in the simplest terms, generating buzz. Another is the Tour’s signature-event structure, which the Tour’s middle-class critics contend is unfairly restrictive to players trying to rise up the ranks, given the number of FedEx Cup points that signature events award relative to run-of-the-mill tournaments. Going to bat for the Tour’s “normal guys” in an interview with Golfweek last month, Lanto Griffin, said, “To have the deck stacked against us — we’re losing points, money, starts, it feels like, who’s making these decisions?”

The players are, Lanto! At least some of them are, anyway, and far more proactively than they were even just a couple of years ago. The signature-event concept was cooked up by Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy, along with 20 or so of their other top-shelf comrades, at their now-landmark Delaware summit in August 2022. That the new schedule most benefits the stars who bring the most eyeballs to the Tour was no accident and it has not sit well with some of the Tour’s proletariat. Chris Stroud, a 41-year-old one-time Tour winner and former Player Advisory Council member told Golf Channel last week, “The Tour doesn’t care about you if you’re not in the top 30 and I learned that quickly that I needed to take care of myself.”

Some of them, exactly.   And some of the players re making the decision to compensate some of the players, the Venn diagram of those two "somes" requiring only the one circle.

There's bene pushback:

Seemingly sensing the growing angst, the Tour’s player directors — Tiger Woods, Charley Hoffman, Peter Malnati, Patrick Cantlay, Webb Simpson and Jordan Spieth (plus Adam Scott, who next year will replace Hoffman) — dispatched a memo to the membership last week, which touted the “diversity” of the player directors’ career paths and outlined plans for the creation of a “governance committee,” which would ensure “no major decision can be made in the future without the prior involvement and approval of the player directors.”

Which isn't going to make Lanto feel any better about all this, because those are the very guys that already robbed the bank for the PIP program and Designated Events.  But then comes the curious part, as this opportunity is presented without any linkage to the civil war amongst players noted above:

The P.D.’s buried the lede, though. The real news for Tour members itching for more guaranteed income was on page 2, which confirmed that plans are afoot for a new revenue stream for all players. The fifth of the memo’s seven bullets read: “We will establish a program through which membership has direct ownership in our tour through equity grants. Alongside our governance review, we believe this program will help further align our interests and create substantial economic opportunities for the membership. While we are finalizing the details of the program with management and the independent board members, we are committed to providing ownership opportunities to both current and future PGA Tour members. All investor groups have been incredibly supportive of this program.”

This is a paradigm shift. Historically, Tour players have been independent contractors guaranteed not much more than tournaments in which to compete. Make more birdies than bogeys and players are handsomely compensated, but the inverse can mean players going home with nothing — actually less than nothing when you factor in their travel, lodging and assorted other costs. Established players do get to participate in the Tour’s generous pension plan — according to golf finance reporter Jared Doerfler, as of Dec. 31, 2021, more than 100 members had retirement account balances north of $5 million — but until recently regular old paydays have come only through one primary channel: weekend tee times.

Now, players will stand to profit not only when they play well but also when the Tour itself turns a few bucks. A Tour spokesperson did not respond to an inquiry about how the ownership grants will work, but the memo from Tiger and Co. clearly affirmed that they are nearing fruition. To players fighting for their livelihoods, missed cuts will still hurt, but having another revenue stream should help soothe the sting.

Repeat after me, kids.  SOME players will stand to profit, but can we venture a guess as to which players it will be?  Gee, you're quite the cynical crowd, aren't you?

Lastly, Geoff has weighed in with a Quad post as the whys of Rahm's decision, so shall we take a peak?  Yeah, that was rhetorical....

Take your pick of reasons Jon Rahm went against his word and has hopped on Saudi Arabia’s sportwashing bandwagon:

The money, of course. It might be the richest contract ever given to an athlete. Rahm told Fox News’ Bret Baier that the advance money is “private and it’s going to stay private,” then proceeded to suggest he does not play for the money but wanted to give his family the “resources” necessary. The old put food on the table play which does actually work in some circles. Moments later, after having it pointed out that he’s made negative statements about LIV in the past, Rahm wheeled out his first of what are expected to be many “grow the game” pronouncements.

As you're well aware, when they tell us it isn't about the money.... 

The PGA Tour leadership legitimized sportwashing. Everything changed on June 6th when Jay Monahan flipped on Saudi Arabia, swooned over his new friend Yasir, and Jimmy Dunne forgot. This shocking turn occurred when the Tour appeared to have the upper hand from victorious decisions bound to put Yasir Al-Rumayyan in a deposition he wanted no part of.

Rory was the more public face, but D-Day was a betrayal of everyone that stayed, so why should they be bound by their public statements, when their alleged leadership isn't.  Rahm's comments about the LIV format are being repeated fairly, but without the acknowledgment that the Tour is moving in that very direction.

But this perhaps shouldn't surprise us:

Easily annoyed. The general worldwide for Rory McIlroy gets to Rahm. He appears to loathe when, (A) McIlroy is held up as a standard bearer, (B) as the epitome of what the game stands for and, (C) when he’s viewed as golf’s greatest talent even as Rahm picked off two majors while McIlroy’s drought approaches a ten-year anniversary. We also know Rahm believed more toilet access during a round was a top priority. So his First World needs are as robust as his bladder is tiny.

Yeah, seems to be missing a noun, but we take his point.  I'd guess  that Rahm assumes the Ryder Cup will work out (in fact, he might be OK with that taking a little time, as Bethpage looks like a tough week), but we can console ourselves with the thought of hos awkward this will all be to Rory...

It may be just petty jealousies, as Geoff suggests.  But my own personal belief is that Rory and Tiger failed to show actual leadership in failing to protect the rabbits and the integrity of the high-dollar events, so is it possible that Rahm agrees?  And, logically, if everyone is selling out and getting theirs, why shouldn't he take the easy road?

Global golfer. Rahm views the game globally and the PGA Tour’s future is shaping like a glorified AJGA schedule made by graduates of that borderline xenophobic college admissions program. The PGA Tour had its chance to re-imagine the operation into an F1 global spectacle largely based in the U.S., but the Delaware summit types made clear that is not of interest. “I want to leave the game of golf, at least in Spain, in a better state than I found it,” he told Fox News. “If I can do a little bit in Spain and maybe the rest of the world that will be a very successful career, and I hope that solves whatever issues there may be in the game.”

Only a global golfer could turn his back on two tours that made him rich, so sure....

Kooky advisors. Rahm’s got a strange inner circle and talks to people who’ve shown they aren’t the sharpest grooves in the set: Phil and Tim Mickelson, agent Steve Loy, and Sergio Garcia.

I assume Sergio and he will have  a tearful reunion, presumably destroying a few greens just for old-time's sake....

Category error:

Exempt. Rahm will make Masters appearances until he’s 65. He is in the U.S. Open until 2031. The PGA Championship and The Open through 2027. He also seems to have left open the door for appearances on the PGA Tour and DP World Tour, telling Fox News: “LIV Golf gives me the freedom to be able to play golf when it doesn't conflict, with the PGA Tour or DP World Tour and I certainly want to be a part of that in the future.”

That may explain why he can do it, but doesn't cover why he would want to... But it does somewhat limit who could follow him, no?

This is new data for sure:

Support from Callaway. An initial report suggests Callaway will take a stake in Rahm’s LIV team, where Rahm already has a stake in the company. This marks the first major corporation to back LIV.

Does he have gambling debts for them to pay off as well?  maybe we should have seen this coming given their ties to Phil.... I certainly will not be at any Callaway demo days in the near future.

Underappreciated. Most marvel at how he has delivered on the hype of becoming the next star in golf. Or at how he learned English and continues to refine his eloquence. Or at his sincere appreciation for the past and at how he overcame a childhood deformity that limits mobility in his right leg. But we also see his on-course tantrums and swearing that suggest mood swings or even a darker side to his thinking. When he randomly revealed his childhood ankle issues—I was there and immediately asked a peer if he’d told this tale before and the answer was “definitely not”—Rahm seemed perturbed at golf media for not somehow knowing this previously-held secret.

I'll pass on that until we get a team in from Vienna, but we can only enjoy the knowledge that Jay's sit-down with Yasir will be quite  the high-stakes shootout.  

As wide-ranging as Geoff's analysis is, it seems to me that it's all Tiger's fault.  Rahm told us what he needed 18 months ago, and it wasn't the damn porta-potties:

Jon Rahm had some fun chiding Tiger Woods on Tuesday when asked if he’s sought any advice from Woods over the years like advice Woods once got from Spanish legend and former Masters winner Seve Ballesteros about Augusta National.

“I think there’s only one man in this field that hears advice from Tiger, because I’ve asked before and I get nothing,’’ Rahm said. “So, you might need to ask Justin Thomas. I’ve asked [Woods] before. I remember asking him at East Lake the year he won [the Tour Championship in 2019] on the putting green in the practice round: ‘Hey, man, any tips for Bermuda?’ He turned around and said, ‘It’s all about feel,’ and just kept going.

“I was like, ‘Cool, thank you.’ ’

And now we hear that it's Tiger that will save us from the abyss..... All he had to do was throw the Spaniard a bone.... 

Taking The "Back" Out of "Rollback" - As expected, the USGA and R&A have quickly pivoted from their Bifurcation strategy and have announced that we'll all pay the piper, though no need to toss those Pro-V1's just yet.

From Geoff, their new propose is as follows:

THE R&A AND USGA ANNOUNCE DECISION TO REVISE GOLF-BALL TESTING CONDITIONS BEGINNING IN 2028

Revised test conditions to address consistent increases in hitting distance, golf’s sustainability

Impact on recreational game kept to an absolute minimum

6 December 2023, St Andrews, Scotland and Liberty Corner, NJ, USA: The R&A and USGA will update the testing conditions used for golf ball conformance under the Overall Distance Standard (ODS), which will take effect from January 2028. The decision aims to reduce the impact increased hitting distances have on golf’s long-term sustainability while minimising the impact on the recreational game.

The word rollback does not appear, as we're merely modifying testing conditions:

The revised ball testing conditions will be as follows: 125-mph clubhead speed (equivalent to 183 mph ball speed); spin rate of 2220 rpm and launch angle of 11 degrees.

The current conditions, which were established 20 years ago, are set at 120 mph (equivalent to 176 mph ball speed), 2520 rpm with a 10-degree launch angle.

To recap: 125 was the initial proposal, raised to 127 but lowered again after pushback from during the comment period. (Comments submitted and approved for public consumption, as guaranteed in the Vancouver Protocols, can be viewed on the R&A distance page). However, USGA CEO Mike Whan implied during a Golf Channel appearance that the speed number shifted back to the original 125 number when it was decided to apply testing to all golf balls instead of a competition ball concept opposed by, among others, the PGA Tour and PGA of America.

Sorry, not trying to make your brain hurt, but this is how it's done.  What's it all about, Alfie?

An analysis of ball speeds among golf’s longest hitters in 2023 shows that the fastest ten players had an average ball speed of 186 mph, while the average ball speed of the fastest 25 was 183.4 mph (the very fastest averaged 190 mph).

The longest hitters are expected to see a reduction of as much as 13-15 yards in drive distance. Average professional tour and elite male players are expected to see a reduction of 9-11 yards, with a 5-7-yard reduction for an average LET or LPGA player.

The change in testing speed is expected to have a minimal distance impact, 5 yards or less, for most recreational golfers. Research shows an average swing speed of 93 mph for male golfers and 72 mph for female players.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me whether the new balls will spin more, which always seemed to this observer a way to accomplish that which is desired without unduly focusing everyone on lost distance.

Why the change from the previously-announced Model Local Rule model:

The extensive feedback received showed worldwide sentiment that the retention of a single set of playing rules and equipment standards is critically important to the sport and should apply across the game. Feedback from manufacturers resulted in the timeline being extended to 2028 to allow more time for innovation and production of new products for elite and recreational players.

Short-sighted, methinks.  The rules-making bodies are reinforcing the belief first developed in the square groove litigation, that these entities cannot issue equipment rules without the consent of the manufacturers, which seems entirely bass-ackward.

There's a couple of fair-sized surprises involved, first this factoid that will surprise many:

A significant portion of golf ball models that are currently in the market – and more than 30 percent of all golf ball models submitted for conformance across the game – are expected to remain conforming after these changes are applied.

So, in what sense is the ball being rolled back for recreational golfers?  To me, the most serious criticism of this move is that the proposal is so timid as to be not worth the effort, an opinion with which I reluctantly am in agreement.   

The second surprise is for sure big, though it's an open issue as to whether an asterisk is justified:

Arguably the biggest surprise in the announcement, the governing bodies announced a continued effort to investigate driver performance in two areas: spring-like effect and off-center forgiveness. To be clear, this isn’t the first time the USGA and R&A have questioned whether the driver needed to change.

In 2020, their Distance Insights Project hinted at the potential for new conformance tests for clubs and balls, as well as the adoption of local rules that would allow courses to require limited-flight equipment. A Notice and Comment in March 2023 also identified an interest in investigating driver performance after repeated use, also known as “CT creep.”

Which might have TaylorMade worried if, yanno, they hadn't folded like a house of cards on the golf ball.... Just sayin'!

Golf.com stood up an ad hoc Tour Confidential panel on this subject, so I'll freeride on that to the finish line:

The USGA and R&A have officially decided to rein in the golf ball, crafting a rollback plan that will go into effect in 2028 for professionals and 2030 for recreational golfers. (You can learn more about it here.) For starters, let’s ask an easy one many golfers might be wondering: why does golf need a rollback anyway?

Sean Zak: Because two-decades worth of trend-lines say that in 2044, we’ll have pro golfers hitting the ball 340 yards in the air over the course of an entire season. Should that impact the 12

handicap? It’s an easy argument to say no. But we’re all connected in this game. People want to be connected to the golf Rory McIlroy plays. It is going to help the game to slow down the direction top players are taking it.

Jack Hirsh: Aside from the fact that some of the game’s great cathedrals are becoming or already obsolete, I think excessive distance is too easy to come by at the amateur level too. For example, my 68-year-old father has played holes exactly the same way as he has since he was my age. But I take lines he’s never even thought of when I don’t hit it much farther (relatively) than he did 40 years ago. Because of lines I can take, I can shorten a hole that on the card would seem like a 7-iron approach to a wedge, while he has hit 4 or 5-iron into the same hole forever. Now, on some of those holes, I’ll probably have to take the line the designer intended me to, evening the playing field.

Ryan Barath: I believe the scale of the game has gotten a bit out of hand at the professional level, and that same issue has trickled down to elite amateurs and even to junior golf. Many courses have been relegated to driver-and-short iron contests, and with the goal of golf being a total test of skills, this will bring more skill back to golf as a whole.

I like Barath's take best, because these guys simply overpower Par-4's.  I remember Gil Hanse putting a centerline bunker on a Par-4 at TPC Boston a few years ago, and seeing DJ lay up off the tee and hit 7-iron into the green.  As I recall it, DJ said it was the longest club he hit into a Par-4 all year....  is that the game we want?

According to the governing bodies’ research, the longest professionals are expected to lose about 13-15 yards in driving distance, with average professionals and elite males losing 9-11 yards, LPGA players losing about 5-7 yards and average males with swing speeds of 93 mph or lower to lose about 5 yards. Are those driving losses too much? Too little?

Zak: I’ll take the Content Goldilocks stance and say I think they’re justttt right. Just enough to keep Augusta National from creating a new tee box on Hole 3. Or on Hole 2. Just enough that they might be able to move back up a tee on No. 15. Try your hardest to not think about the changes to your own future game — which for 95% of golfers will be negligible — and realize that this move is still about the longest players in the world. It’s bifurcation lite.

Hirsh: I agree with Sean. You could argue it’s not quite enough for the game’s longest players. However, most recreational golfers won’t notice a difference and some of them can even continue to play the same ball.

Barath: At the very highest level I was expecting a further decrease in distance, but also think that as a whole this could lead to additional changes down the line, so for right now this seems like a great start.

As noted above, there's a question of whether the gain is enough to justify the changes....

A key part of all of this is to make sure some of golf’s classic golf courses aren’t rendered obsolete by an explosive golf ball and evolving equipment. But USGA CEO Mike Whan said on Golf Channel Wednesday that he’s “got a folder of golf courses we don’t think we can play our elite events. This change is not significant enough to make me take any of those courses out of the folder.” Why isn’t it possible to make those courses playable again, both with this distance rollback and course setup?

Zak: The move isn’t exactly to pull courses OUT of Whan’s magic folder. It’s to keep from putting more courses INTO the folder. The rollback is to keep from adding St. Andrews’ Old Course to that folder. And so when the U.S. Open goes to Merion in 2030, we’ll have two years worth of seeing no one launching it 340.

Hirsh: There’s no doubt in my mind we won’t eventually get back to the same place we’re at now with distance. Equipment isn’t the only issue here, so too is human performance. While there have been advances in the aerodynamics of driver heads in that time, PGA Tour average swing speed has increased 2.7 mph since radar tracking began in 2007. While that might not seem like much, it translates to 4 mph of ball speed and about 8 yards. Yet, average driving distance increased about 11 1/2 yards in that span. So both equipment and human performance are partly to blame, but human performance will make up for the distance the rollback losses in time.

Barath: Unless golf architecture resorts to digging literal trenches to prevent golfers from hitting it to certain places on the course, the overriding advantage will still be distance. Without the ability to lengthen a golf course, any course that isn’t at a specific length or has the infrastructure to host will forever be lost to high-level competitive golf, and that’s unfortunate but it’s just a reality.

Ummm, Sean, being a golf writer means actually knowing stuff.  The Old Course has only been playable for the professionals because several tee boxes have been placed on adjoining golf course, so it's lone been in Mike Whan's folder...

What’s an important piece of all of this that isn’t getting enough attention?

Zak: Overall selfishness. Everyone will react to this news with themselves in mind. It’s human nature. But as you read and parse through all the reactions, think about why they’re reacting this way. Keegan Bradley is thinking about himself when he calls it “monstrous.” Most pros are thinking about themselves. Equipment manufacturers are thinking about how much it’s going to cost them in R&D. I’m doing my best to be sympathetic to their worlds being turned sideways. But my assessment of who is being the least selfish? The USGA and R&A and their 20- or 30-year view of where the game was being taken.

Hirsh: That they’re going to look at driver forgiveness next. I think that could be where the game actually becomes bifurcated because you need to give players incentive to not just swing away as hard as they can.

Barath: Jack hit the nail on the head — the fact that they’re ready to start looking at limiting driver speeds and potentially forgiveness could bring even more limitations to golf at the highest level.

Yeah, and let me just say that deferring the driver until later strikes me as really weird.  But, more so than weird, pushing it past 2030 seems a dereliction of duty, no?  Almost like they're not really serious, eh?

So, any parting thoughts?

Zak: I am in the 99.99th percentile of awareness on changes to golf courses with hosting professional tournaments in mind. I study this stuff largely out of boredom. But at every tournament, Tour pros get a pamphlet of changes made to the host course from the previous year. It could be a different length of grass behind a green or a new bunker placed along a fairway, but often it’s a new tee box or two, created in the last 12 months, to make this course a little more challenging, always through lengthening. It happens almost everywhere all year round. At the Charles Schwab and at the Masters and at events in the fall. Every major tournament that revisits one of the best courses in the world often does so with a new tee box. Always lengthening. The USGA and R&A have made a blanket decision to slow down all of that. Good riddance.

Hirsh: I think a lot of the anti-rollback argument comes from the PR perspective that it’s a bad look for the game. “The game is in a great place, why would we make it less fun?” This is bogus because the majority of new golfers probably have no idea about the rollback and probably won’t care or know the difference. To me, it seems the expected mass blowback and negative response didn’t materialize amongst the general golfing population.

Barath: I think like many things in the modern day world, any perceived big announcement brings with it enormous amounts of potential arguments and individuals not willing to look past their own biases to formulate a more educated and balanced response. Nobody ever wants to have something “taken away” and the messaging is going to be the most important part of this change going forward, especially for most recreational golfers.

Yeah, but they might have already lost that messaging war....

That's it for this week.  Monday is a travel day, so we'll probably catch up on things on Tuesday from Western HQ.  Have a great weekend.