The Round Table: A lifeline for LIV, the FedEx Cup and the new Tour

Each week, we ask our panel of writers, PGA members and golf industry experts to weigh in with their views on the hot topics of the day.

Despite our best efforts to stick a fork in the thing called LIV Golf and declare it dead, it refuses to die. This past week, LIV announced a term sheet with an investor to fund a 10-event series in 2027, albeit with a bunch of conditions, one of which is the retention of their “A” list players. Still lots of questions about the deal, the future of LIV Golf and even some of the players. What’s your biggest takeaway from this latest news?

Jim Deeks, Fairways Magazine (@jimdeeks): Complete disinterest.  Pass the fork, please.

Craig Loughry, Golf Ontario (@craigloughry): My biggest takeaway LIV is no longer talking about growth, it’s talking about and seems to be about survival. A signed term sheet is better than no term sheet at all, but there are still a lot of hurdles before anyone can declare victory, especially around retaining star players and finalizing funding. The fact the proposed model shrinks to 10 events tells you it’s a forced reset. LIV isn’t dead, but it’s evolving into a leaner version of itself. For now, stability remains more promise than certainty IMO.

Michael Schurman, Master Professional / Hall of Fame Member, PGA of Canada: Money talks! As long as someone with lots of it wants to pay, things will happen. Don’t forget the basic image of the players and the sport. It’s attractive to sponsors.

TJ Rule, Golf Away Tours (@GolfAwayTJ): My biggest takeaway is that I’m glad I’m not part of that investor group, what a terrible investment.  The momentum for the tour seems to have stalled at best and even if they have some “A” list guys, their relevancy in the world of golf given the lack of exposure to 95% of the global golf viewing audience has diminished so drastically that it’s hard to consider them “A” players any longer.  But hey, if it keeps guys like Bryson away from the PGA and DP World Tours for a few years longer, maybe there are some positives to the continuation of LIV.  Maybe they can lure P Reed back into the fold.

Hal Quinn, Freelance Writer, Vancouver: It’s another desperate attempt to put lipstick on a pig to sucker in investors. Any potential investor think the Saudis were wrong in abandoning this fiasco? Saw a bit of the latest pseudo tournament, mercifully missed ‘Mr. 70’ in his cart tour. Speaking of Drumpf, crowds were like a club championship. Fox’s leaderboard was impossible to follow with the shotgun start. Guys in shorts and bad music? Can see and hear that at any muni on any Saturday. If they live to play a bit next year, players would have to take equity positions because there’s no cash to buy them out. Turn out the lights, the comedy’s over.

Peter Mumford, Fairways Magazine: My question is why? Is there some void that LIV 2.0 can fill? Is the golf world starving for shotgun starts and loud music? As a disruptor, the first iteration of LIV served a purpose and if they had merged, might have added a valuable international component to the PGA Tour, which was clearly stagnating. But that ship has sailed and now I can’t imagine many, or any, rational golf fans or sponsors that want a scaled down re-do.

The PGA Tour has completed its regular season with the Top 70 players qualifying for the playoffs. Any surprises that stand out to you of players that did or didn’t make the cut?

Deeks: In reviewing the list, I saw two names I’m completely unfamiliar with: Kristoffer Reitan (at No.18!) and Matt McCarty (48).  I was delighted and surprised to see Sudarshan Yellamaraju (57), who seemed to have magically stepped off a TTC bus onto the PGA Tour in June and drove like a Ferrari the last few weeks.  Happy to Corey Conners and Nick Taylor in the group, but surprised Mackenzie Hughes didn’t make it.  Also, it’d be fun to compare this list from the one 10 years ago… so many old names missing now.

Loughry: The biggest surprise for me was seeing Jackson Koivun squeeze into the final playoff spot at No. 70 while several established names were left on the outside looking in (Koepka and more). On the positive side, Michael Brennan’s leap from No. 105 to No. 47 with a Wyndham win was exactly the kind of late-season drama the FedEx Cup was designed to create and hopes for. The playoffs are supposed to reward season-long consistency, but it’s always fun to see a great week completely change a player’s year.

Schurman: I’m not so surprised by the final standings as I am how much I enjoy the Wyndham event. I wish there was a better way to follow the players’ standings. The pressure must be at a high.

Rule: First off, it’s nice to see 3 Canadians make the playoffs, despite it being a less than stellar year for the Canadian contingent on Tour.  It’s impressive to see guys like Michael Brennan and Jackson Koivun make the playoffs playing a very limited schedule.  The future it bright for those two guys, it seems like 2027 will be a breakout year for each of them.  I guess there are a couple of veterans like Jason Day and Brooks Koepka who are a bit of a surprise not to have qualified, but maybe that speaks to the lack of competitive reps for Koepka over the past few years.  I’m sure he’ll bounce back next year.

Quinn: Of course, what stands out is that there will be 11 first timers. This season has been the coming out party for the 20-somethings, and a reality check for some former luminaries — Day, Horschel, Glover, Finau, Koepka among them. Not quite a changing of the guard yet, but man there is a lot of talent in the barracks.

Mumford: Flashes of brilliance that catapult a player to our attention, followed by a long fade to obscurity is the norm on Tour. It’s a cycle repeated endlessly and should never be a surprise. The bigger mystery is how some players stay on top year after year, while injury, lack of motivation and declining skills claim their contemporaries. Brooks Koepka’s not on that slippery slope yet, but the rest of the stalwarts outside the cut line have left their better days behind them and were no surprise.

Starting in 2028, it looks like the PGA Tour Championship Series will have 23-24 events running from February to August, then there will be a Challenger Series with the same number of events that runs concurrently, then there will be a revamped Fall Series. Seems like even more professional golf when virtually everyone said there was already too much. It seems that as long as sponsors are willing to write cheques, the Tour will produce events in some form or another. In your opinion, is this sustainable and is it what fans want?

Deeks: Yes, it’s sustainable because, as you indicate, sponsors are willing to write cheques (and sponsor CEOs like to have their 1:30 on air saying how excited they are to be sponsors, and donating millions to orphan whales or whatever… whether it makes any impact on their marketing results or not).  No, I don’t think it’s what fans want at all.  Diehards will watch anything, but more casual viewers will be turning off simply because it IS too much.  I’m a fairly diehard fan, but you won’t catch me watching most of these events unless it’s raining outside and the only other sports on TV are Texas Hold’Em Super Challenge or Women’s Judo.

Loughry: Is it sustainable? Probably, as long as sponsors keep seeing value. Is it what fans want? I’m less convinced. Golf’s challenge has never been a lack of tournaments; it’s creating events that feel meaningful. If you add more golf without adding more significance, viewers eventually tune out or will just focus on the MAJORS (purest significance). The Tour’s hope is that clearer tiers, promotion and relegation, and defined pathways create more drama. That could work. But fans follow stories and stars, not inventory. More events only help if they give people a reason to care.

Schurman: I’m not sure yet. I see groups of events played close together, some for big money, some for other players for less money. It looks like a traffic jam. I wish we could learn what the criteria was when they interviewed for CEO. Rollap might be what they were looking for, in which case they have much different thoughts about the TOUR than I do. Or they think like I do and they hired the wrong guy. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. And, if it’s true he shredded documents concerning Rory’s exemption for his 15th tournament, this should all be over.

Rule: I don’t mind more tournaments if it means giving more guys a chance to make a living on Tour.  I know the Challenger series will be seen as a second tier, but it’s a tier that will pay more, presumably, than the Korn Ferry does, so more guys can pocket some real money.  The mainstays on Tour will play very few Challenger series events, so it’s not a busier schedule for them, it’s just an opportunity for more guys to play on Tour.

Quinn: As my favourite guy, Bob Segar, sang: “Say I’m old-fashioned, say I’m over the hill.” Yup, admit it. However, another old saying my grandfather used: If there isn’t a problem, don’t fix it.  The Tour has done just that, and not for the better. The olde meritocracy worked. Glorified mega-money limited field events will never be even vaguely close to the aura and historic resonance of The Open, the prestige and historic place of the other Majors. It’s NFL marketing, it’s overload, it’s manic monetizing (hello FIFA), and no fans of golf (except for the mouth breathers) wanted any of this. No one I know would even consider paying to stream this “content.”

Mumford: Maybe you can concoct a pro football league in a workshop or focus group, but the PGA Tour was grown organically over many years by players, host venues large and small, and fans. The new Championship Series will be a giant exercise in hype to promote a soulless, clinical product based on money. Forget tradition and legacy. Fans may grow to love it, but I’d argue it’s not what they want. The Challenger Series by default becomes minor league and should merge with the Korn Ferry Tour. It’s DOA.