A two-tiered Tour, player grumbles and the Players Championship
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.
Last week, the PGA Tour unveiled its latest model of Designated Events, scheduled to start in 2024. Essentially, there will be eight Designated Events with $20 million purses, smaller fields (70-75 players) and no cut. The Top 50 players are exempt, and others have a chance to play their way in. The announcement attracted more than a few grumbles from players farther down the rankings, alleging that the Tour was creating a two-tiered structure and it would be very difficult to get any big names at the non-designated events. (James Hahn was one of the more outspoken critics. You can read his comments HERE). How do you like the new model and is the grumbling warranted?
Jim Deeks, Fairways Magazine (@jimdeeks): Yes, I think the grumbling IS warranted. The PGA Tour seems intent on throwing lots more money at the big stars… perhaps this is simply hush money or “retainer” money to prevent any more names from defecting to LIV, but it all seems heavily weighted to the bigger names at the expense of guys who are grinding away trying to make a living. Then again, I suppose that’s just Darwinian logic. But the net result seems to be that non-elevated events have sunk to a lower level than they used to be, just inches above the minor league Korn Ferry Tour. How long will non-elevated tournament sponsors be willing to support their lessened events? And as for that ridiculous PIP program, it should be scrapped completely. I mean, how can the guys who don’t quite qualify for the elevated events ever expect to achieve wider popularity, if nobody’s paying attention? Unfortunately, none of this inequity and chaos would be happening if LIV hadn’t come along and dropped a hydrogen bomb on the sport, for no apparent reason.
Craig Loughry, Golf Ontario (@craigloughry): I think the events will be a nice addition from a fans point of view. Grumbling from some of the players (non top 50, is definitely warranted). However, if the top players stay away from non elevated events (play less of them which is more than likely to happen), and those purses are also increasing, then some players (second tier: outside the top 50) are sure to benefit financially as long as they perform. As mentioned in previous posts, it’s the world ranking system that will throw a wrench into all these things. How are these new elevated events going to be awarded WR points, and non elevated events? Surely, they won’t be equal. Interesting times.
Michael Schurman, Master Professional / Hall of Fame Member, PGA of Canada: Why do we keep going back to the past? Before 1983, only the top 60 money winners kept their cards. Since Dean Beman and Gary McCord created the All Exempt Tour in an effort to ensure strong fields, the only other two pathways were Sponsor Exemptions and Monday Qualifying. Sponsors have squawked for years about attracting the best players. Sponsors have tried first-class flights, rental cars, the best buffet in town, babysitting, sightseeing, fashion shows and gifts for wives and even endorsement packages that include appearances. Now everything is simplified by huge money. There has always been a multi-tiered system. The top 15 or 20 get ‘crazy’ money for exhibitions, the top 70 get rental cars, the top 60 play in the Pro Am, Arnie and Jack host limited field invitationals as do the Masters. All the Tour is doing is going back to the format that worked 50 years ago.
TJ Rule, Golf Away Tours (@GolfAwayTJ): The grumbling is 100% warranted. This is just making the rich richer, but I guess that’s not the point. It will make the designated events more interesting for the fans, but it basically creates two separate tours, with the non-designated events just acting as a feeder “tour” to the big events. It gives the lesser players a better chance of winning an event, that’s the one positive, but I don’t see any other positives from the player’s perspective.
Hal Quinn, Freelance Writer, Vancouver: Well, Peter Malnati was the voice for the guys outside the top 50 in all the meetings, and he came away convinced that the new model is good for everyone — players, fans, and sponsors. He was at the table, knows all the calculations, was adamantly opposed, and came away on side. I’ll go with his take not Hahn’s. As we know, there were already no cut events on the Tour, and they’ve added six, making 23 of the 34 events having 36-hole cuts. Guys have various ways to play into the big money events, and that carrot will help the non-designated tourneys. I’m just not fond of the removal of the ‘must play 3 non-designated events’ starting next year and the loss of the Match Play. Still, 2024 is going to be fun to watch.
Peter Mumford, Fairways Magazine (@FairwaysMag): Memo to Greg Norman from Jay Monahan: “You were right. Thanks for the idea.” Not that you’re going to see that anytime, ever. However, the PGA Tour has moved very close to Norman’s mid-90’s idea of getting the better players together more often for more money. But isn’t this what most golf fans wanted? The grumbling isn’t really warranted. There’s still a path to the designated events for everyone and ironically, more opportunities for those farther down the rankings in the non-designated events. I’d prefer to see the Tour force the Top 50 to play some non-designated events – 3 or 4 would be ideal – to help sponsors, tournaments and fans. Ultimately, though the bottom line is as it’s always been – if you want something on Tour, just play better.
The PGA Tour’s announcement also attracted plenty of comments from players on the LIV Tour, who noted the smaller field, no cut, large purse format and said it just copied the LIV model. Is it likely the second tier of PGA Tour players may look more favourably at LIV now that they will basically be excluded from the big purses on their own Tour?
Deeks: Yes, possibly. And I wouldn’t blame them. Although as I’ve said many times before, here, I don’t think LIV will last beyond 2024. So, I’m sure that even the angry players may be thinking that defecting just isn’t worth it.
Loughry: It may be that those second tier players look at LIV, but I don’t think LIV wants them. That’s not going to help them sell their product long term (nor lead to any significant revenue generation for ad/tv). It’s the non elevated PGA Tour events that might be concerned, they no doubt want talent to draw eyeballs for their sponsors/partners and ticket/corporate sales. I could see a few of these (not just Honda) struggling to keep their events as perhaps the value or return just isn’t there (when the originally signed their deals). The whole ecosystem is in for a shake up. I could see some charities potentially losing some of their donations/proceeds as a long-term result.
Schurman: I’ve been preaching that the PGA TOUR had to do something the change their business model since long before LIV arrived. Guys like Kitayama can thank Walter Hagen who played hundreds of exhibitions, Ben Hogan who elevated the pro’s share of exhibitions and endorsements, Arnold Palmer for being himself, Greg Norman for his foresight, Seve Ballesteros for his willingness to stand up, Tiger Woods for leading professional golfers into becoming more athletic and therefore increasing their promotional value and Phil Mickelson for being a jerk even though he caused a change. The LIV players will go down as pioneers who broke away from the power of the almighty and travelled to unforeseen shores only to find a very different life from the one they left. I was surprised by the Bay Hill results. Kurt Kitayama won using Tim Tucker who is DeChambeau’s regular caddy. Why isn’t Tucker banned by the PGA TOUR?
Rule: Perhaps, if they get an offer it would be hard to refuse I’m sure. But there are still many critical differences between the tours, namely the history of the events on the PGA Tour, and the source of the money on LIV, not to mention the paltry viewership for the LIV events. It’s hard to argue however that the PGA Tour hasn’t copied some of LIV’s model with this new schedule.
Quinn: If the Tour had found the mysterious pot of millions and made these changes a couple of years ago, there wouldn’t be a LIV. Don’t think Greg and Co. have shown enough to make a move attractive (that team thing and selling ugly T-shirts ain’t helping) to any players still within shouting distance of their primes. Sure, a lot of guys who can’t see themselves playing into the designated events will be talking to their agents. But they’ll have to send resumes with photo IDs and won’t be cashing cheques anywhere near the size of the first wave.
Mumford: I think we’ll have to wait a while for that. There may be a bit of shuffling at the end of this season, but I suspect most players will see how 2024 goes, hoping they can play their way into a few designated events or maybe even a Top 50 spot. If there’s any large-scale movement to LIV, it’s likely to come from the DP World Tour, which has become the red-headed stepchild as far as Jay Monahan is concerned, despite their ‘Strategic Alliance’.
The Arnold Palmer Invitational delivered a stellar finish with Kurt Kitayama holding off all the top ranked players in the world. The Tour moves over to Ponte Vedra for the Players Championship this week. Did any player exhibit something at Bay Hill that would make him your betting favourite at the Players?
Deeks: I think all the top players have been showing real talent lately. I’d still be putting my money on McIlroy for Ponte Vedra, but as Jack Nicklaus said recently, Rory may just put too much pressure on himself in the big tournaments. Surely it’s hard not to feel that pressure when you’ve got Rahm, Homa, Thomas, a resurgent Spieth, Scheffler and Schauffele, and perhaps a hot Kitayama, all playing really good golf. All that said, wouldn’t it be nice to see Corey Conners or Mac Hughes drift up the middle and win the damn thing?
Loughry: Actually, the API was quite a show. I think the golf course generally presents a good finish (reachable par 5’s, tough par 3’s and the 18th is a swing hole too). The leaderboard was peppered with good players, of them Rory, Spieth, Cantlay and Scheff caught my eye. It’s nice to be in good form going into a big event. Of them, I think Spieth is the one to watch, he seems to be finding his game over the past month.
Schurman: Immediately, Rory looks good but I’m saving him for April. Something upset Rahm last week. If whatever it was has been dealt with, he is something to behold. Tyrell Hatton is a good pick and he plays well at TPC as does Patrick Cantlay, who I have picked forever. However, I’m going to pick a long shot this time and go with Keith Mitchell.
Rule: Rory looks good and is poised to win for the second time at the Players and cement his spot as the best player in the world over Jon Rahm. It was great to see such a star studded leaderboard at the API, made for great Sunday tv, let’s hope for the same this week. My other pick to play well and be in the mix on Sunday is Victor Hovland, one of the best ball strikers on tour. It doesn’t always take a great putting week to win at TPC Sawgrass so his less than stellar short game won’t hold him back this week.
Quinn: Really like the way Rory is playing. Like a lot of guys, he could have won Bay Hill with a couple of different swings in the final round. Wouldn’t surprise me if he’s putting for eagle on 16 on Sunday already leading or with a chance to win it.
Mumford: Lots of top ranked players to pick from. Generally, I like the ‘bounce-back’ factor – a player that was playing really well but messed up down the stretch and didn’t quite get it done. Lots to choose from there too, however I think Jordan Spieth has the simplest fix to get the win. He was in the mix at the API and just missed a handful of 5-10-foot putts in the closing holes. His ball-striking was spot on and his short game hot as always.