Koepka’s gone: Is LIV Golf in decline or just fine?

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.

Brooks Koepka is back on the PGA Tour where he will presumably be happier. He has always prioritized the majors but last year missed the cut in three out of four of them. Do you expect Brooks to be a factor in the majors in 2026?

Jim Deeks, Fairways Magazine (@jimdeeks): No, I don’t.  But that may be more wishful thinking than realistic thinking.  His poor showing in majors last year may have been indicative of not having faced as much pressure as he used to face on the regular Tour.  It may take a while longer for his game and his psyche to bounce back.

Craig Loughry, Golf Ontario (@craigloughry): Koepka happy? Happier? Is that possible? If Brooks is healthy (I’m not convinced he is), I think he’ll fare better in the Majors in 2026, but I don’t think he’ll win.

Michael Schurman, Master Professional / Hall of Fame Member, PGA of Canada: Brooks is 35 years old and healthy. If playing the PGA TOUR or being closer to home makes him happy, he will be a factor. He has no monetary pressure, so his only motivation is winning, which should keep his swing loose and easy.

Hal Quinn, Freelance Writer, Vancouver: Koepka will be a media-hype factor pre-tourneys, and for the first couple of rounds get lots of airtime and ink. But not so much Sunday afternoons. That would be bad for golf its ownself, him winning a Major in exchange for his $5 Million re-entry fee.

Peter Mumford, Fairways Magazine: Brooks has never cared about the regular Tour events, his focus has always been on the majors. He’s still a Top 10 player in the world in my opinion, so if he’s healthy, he’ll be a factor in the majors this year.

When the PGA Tour announced the Returning Player Program, it was specifically aimed at Koepka, Jon Rahm, Bryson DeChambeau and Cam Smith and notably left out other recent major winners Dustin Johnson, Phil Mickelson, Patrick Reed and Sergio Garcia. The Tour has to walk a delicate line between making the Tour better by adding top players without angering the rank-and-file members who could see fewer starts if too many LIV players are added to fields. Did the Tour get this right or should they have gone after more LIV players?

Deeks: I don’t think the Tour got it right at all.  I don’t think they should have “gone after” anyone, if indeed they did.  But once a traitor, always a traitor in my view.  Anyone wanting back-in should be forced to earn it, like all other hopefuls… not given an express lane.

Loughry: The PGA Tour was a member-based organization with independent contractors. The newly formed PGA TOUR Enterprises changed things where players get an equity stake in the Tour and Pension money. It’s more complex. It seems like a stiff penalty for Koepka to come back and miss out on that, but he signed for $100M with LIV so I think he’s going to be OK. He can still play for prize money. At this point though, I don’t believe he’s playing for money.

Schurman: The criteria are so restrictive that only 5 or 6 players qualify. I agree there should be a path back to the Tour, but this rule is highly discriminatory. I’d prefer the rule to apply to all players, not just a few.

Quinn: Other than Koepka, the other Tour ‘qualifiers’ have said no, so the Tour got it right. The uninvited are like the guys already on the real Tour — talented and eminently qualified. The Tour guys deserve their spots. The others can build their offshore stashes a while longer, then face reality.

Mumford: This was one skirmish in a prolonged battle. The PGA Tour notched a win by stealing an elite player from LIV Golf and kept the requirements so tight they didn’t alienate the grinders. The Tour didn’t have to make a grand statement or all-encompassing policy – they just went after a handful of top players, and I expect they’ll do it again in a very selective way. Good move!

Some claim that Koepka leaving LIV Golf is the death knell of the upstart league. They haven’t had a major signing since Jon Rahm two years ago and if another star leaves that could be it. Others maintain that LIV will continue on as usual with that huge Saudi war chest and point to the fact that they have signed a number of decent players this year. How do you see it – is LIV on the decline or just fine?

Deeks: Again, wishful thinking, but I hope it dies, and I think it will be dead within two years.  Does anybody care about Mickelson, DJ, or Sergio anymore?  If only one of Rahm, DeChambeau or Smith crawls back to the PGA Tour, then LIV will definitely be on life-support.  The only good thing about LIV Golf has been short pants, IMHO.

Loughry: LIV is just a mediocre Tour with deep pockets. I could see them existing in a silly season type environment with a handful of events (team or individual), that’s about it.

Schurman: LIV’s market never was North America. They used name players to help establish a presence in countries around the world, many of which don’t play golf yet. Although they are a fledgling entity, they have accomplished their goal. Since money is no object, they can continue to grow by attracting top college players and wait for a star to arrive. People forget that Bobby Hull and Gordie Howe left the NHL, and Gretzky began in an upstart league. What happened to the new league? They amalgamated with the NHL.

Quinn: Just fine from this vantage point if LIV is in decline. But there has to have been an ascent before any decline is possible. If that happened, missed it. The recent changes to mimic a real tour are too late and make a lie of all of Greg Norman’s early bombast. It didn’t work; isn’t working; won’t work. Enough already!

Mumford: I don’t think LIV is in decline – maybe just a holding pattern while it does a reset. Money isn’t an issue but I’m sure by now they’ve realized there’s only one PGA Tour and they’re not it. The Koepka deal has effectively put a stopper to any outflows of elite-level talent from the PGA Tour. The next move is up to LIV. They should retreat from the U.S. market, expand their roster to 64 players, and take their brand of golf to 16 top international cities. If they established their teams based on national identity (Team Australia, Team Japan etc.) instead of ridiculous names like RangeGoats and Crushers, each team could host one home tourney. The success of LIV in Australia should be a benchmark for their next move.