The Round Table: Is Commissioner Monahan being cagey or naive?
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.
In his “State of the Tour” address last week, PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan said there was nothing new to report on talks between the Tour and LIV Golf. He also indicated that it was unlikely anything would happen that would affect their schedule in 2025 or 2026. With the SSG money in hand, Monahan sounds like he’s ok if the PGA Tour doesn’t strike a deal with LIV. There’s no telling what happens to LIV players as their contracts expire or if the Saudi PIF decides to start poaching again. Is Monahan being naïve or cagey?
Jim Deeks, Fairways Magazine (@jimdeeks): I think that, not surprisingly, golf fans don’t give a hoot what happens. The shining stars who bolted are out of sight, out of mind, although a few do pop up for the majors. If there was concern that PGA Tour sponsors would not renew because of a decline in star appeal, that seems to have died down as a new wave of previously unknown players have stepped up and shown the depth of talent that was lurking in the weeds. As readers will know, I’ve had nothing but disdain for the guys who bolted for LIV, and that remains intact. So, to answer the specific question, I think Monahan is right (and cagey) to just bide his time.
Craig Loughry, Golf Ontario (@craigloughry): Jay can manage this how he likes. I’m certain he’s aware of the issues surrounding dragging feet. Especially when it comes to corporate partners like RBC only extending for one year to see how this plays out. There are others as well. If the SSG money is his vault to rely on, then maybe he can let those corporate partners walk. Here’s the thing though, if that is the strategy, they should be prepared to accept the consequences. Treating Corporate Partners as disposable wipes sends a message to that community “we don’t care about you that much”. Creating and sustaining long-term relationships will be the key to the future success of the Tour, treating current ones well is extremely important.
Michael Schurman, Master Professional / Hall of Fame Member, PGA of Canada: Monahan is fulfilling his “American Dream” Get whatever you can for yourself. His income with the PGA TOUR was about $8M and he earned about $5M more in bonuses with his last contract. His new contract is worth close to $20M. In the meantime, his former employer (The PGA TOUR) has undergone massive changes many not for the better. They no longer field the strongest players. Professional tour golf around the world is growing in leaps and bounds without the PGA TOUR when they should have owned it. As purses increase on other tours, opportunities for international players will improve. Within a very short time, the PGA TOUR will only feature American players. So much for mega sponsors, the quality of the PGA TOUR and appeal from a worldwide audience. The silver lining will be the President’s Cup will become more competitive.
TJ Rule, Golf Away Tours (@GolfAwayTJ): Who knows? It’s been nice not hearing much about it lately, although obviously everyone hopes for some sort of resolution sooner than later. He’s been caught with his pants down before, so that’s always a possibility again, but I’d have to think they are more prepared for whatever LIV may throw their way this time around. One would hope. Then again, everyone can be surprised!
Hal Quinn, Freelance Writer, Vancouver: Judging Monahan is as tough as predicting how long the Saudis will keep funding the LIV charade now that it hasn’t killed the Tour as quickly as they hoped. The PR value of the sport washing exercise has been absolutely miniscule. They don’t tolerate losers and if and when they finally just write Norman a severance cheque, Monahan will look cagey. Until then, just blindsided and naive.
Peter Mumford, Fairways Magazine (@FairwaysMag): The SSG backing has given Monahan a level of confidence that the Tour can go it alone without a LIV deal. You hear that same sentiment from some of the players too. I think that’s naïve. The Saudis want into the PGA Tour and have the capital to make it happen. If Monahan dithers and delays a deal as part of a strategy, he’ll likely pay for that arrogance.
Prior to the FedEx St. Jude Classic, Scottie Scheffler said the playoff format was silly, suggesting that one event could derail his hold on the lead and wondered if that was a fair outcome for a season-long competition. Does Scheffler have a point and if so, what’s a better way to wind up the season?
Deeks: Teams that win the regular season often don’t win the final championship, and that’s a good thing. It’s why we have playoffs. So, I don’t see why Scottie should feel he should automatically win “the season” because he dominated the regular schedule. As I said last week, I’m not crazy about the current format, but I do believe that playoffs are a good thing, and all hail the guy who comes out on top of the process — Scheffler or not.
Loughry: Scheff isn’t wrong here, but I’m in the camp for rewarding sustained excellence. But if that’s not what this is, this is simply a sprint race, then the Fed-Ex Cup is for you. The only way I can think of that might work, is some kind of total strokes per cut made to per average par. The player with the least number of strokes taken for every cut made is your winner. A season-long tally. Oh, I admit there are lots of “holes” in a system like that, some events have no cut, some players don’t get into certain fields, etc. Maybe it’s stroke average to average par (per cut made)? As I mentioned last week, resetting is the issue, and I think the point Scheff was trying to make.
Schurman: A tee shot is struck and travels 130 feet in the air and over 300 yards down the fairway on the 18th hole of the US Open. It lands and rolls along the fairway coming to rest in a huge, deep divot. There is a lake 20 yds ahead extending 200 yds to the green. The shot is unplayable. The player is tied for the lead. His entire career, lifetime of effort and golf future will be decided by this shot. Is that fair? No but neither is golf. Teams in every sport play a season-long qualification process to gain entry into a play-off. A playoff means exactly that. Play until you win or are eliminated. Nobody cares if you end the season undefeated and enter as the top seed. All they care about is do you have what it takes to win the championship.
Rule: What’s the alternative? Handing him the FedEx Cup and not having the playoffs mean anything? Other sports separate their regular season from playoffs and don’t give the top team much of an advantage heading into the playoffs other than one additional home game. He gets the advantage of a points lead heading into the playoffs, which is fair in my mind. If they want to do playoffs, they need to give everyone a chance to win. Just perform when you need to and be relatively satisfied with your near $30M year despite possibly not winning the playoffs in the end.
Quinn: It’s really about semantics and the years-long failed marketing by FedEx and the Tour. If they insist on perpetuating the faux drama (and total absence of actual drama, let alone public interest) by using terms “season-long” and “race” then for it to mean anything it ends before the so-called “playoffs.” Scheffler got his $8 M for winning the season-long race. Done and done. Calling the following threesome of inflated events part of the “season-long race” really is silly semantics, to put it mildly.
Mumford: I totally agree with Scheffler. The playoffs are silly and more importantly, they’re unnecessary. Men’s professional golf has four majors which identify the best of the best. The season-long points race was better when it was called the Money List, but regardless of name, it recognizes a consistent record of achievement. Trying to distill it into a three-event climax distracts from that season-long effort, especially when they try to handicap the outcome. If they must have something, call it a Tour Finale and give out huge sums of money but it’s just one event. Don’t confuse it with winning a season.
After the FedEx St. Jude Classic, the field was cut to 50 for the next payoff event. More importantly perhaps, those same 50 players are now guaranteed entry to the eight Signature events in 2025, the Players Championship and likely all four majors. With the huge purses attached to each of those events, it makes it even harder for players on the outside to move up. Do you like the new system?
Deeks: Under the principle “to the victor(s) go the spoils,” yes, I do. Play well and you’ll be suitably rewarded. Don’t play well, then lick your wounds, whine all you want, but then go practice.
Loughry: I suppose it works for some, but I wouldn’t say I love the way it works. Dunlap showed it is possible to break through, I suppose that makes his story even more impressive (because it is so hard to break in). But it shows there is a path. Odd though, he’s had two wins this year (4 top 10’s) and sits 48th in the FedEx Cup standings. Even more head-scratching his OWGR is 36th. It just seems odd, right?
Schurman: The PGA TOUR is one of the most merciless, ruthless, capitalistic businesses. Shoot the lowest score or not. Each has consequences. The top 50 consists of 50 players who fulfilled the criteria to earn benefits. These are the best players in the world. They are the best at what they do. There is an appeal to some fans who are entertained by huge car wrecks. I’m not but everybody pays to watch for their own reason. With the ‘advanced’ scoring start in the last round, everyone is amply rewarded for their season and combined playoff performance. An alternative might be to reduce to the top 24 instead of the top 30 and play 72 holes starting from zero.
Rule: Not really. I like giving guys a better chance at moving up and qualifying for big events. Otherwise, we will end up seeing the same names year after year because when you get into the Signature Events, it gives you a massive advantage in trying to keep your spot in the top 50. But this is what all the top players wanted, and in order for the PGA Tour to stop losing guys to LIV, they had to satisfy the top tier. So, it’ll be this way for the foreseeable. I guess we have to get used to it.
Quinn: The new system was a knee jerk reaction to the Saudi scourge. It has trampled the founding concepts and character of the Tour. The bloated purses and exclusionary strictures have not only made it harder for a lot of really good players to get a foot in the door but made it almost impossible for what used to be the Tour’s strength — its golf playing and golf loving fans — to relate, or even care. How do they walk that back? Good luck.
Mumford: I would like the Signature events better if they had a larger field and included a cut. As they are now, they’re just a convenient way for the Tour to skirt its own rule about paying appearance money. Monahan may have temporarily halted the player exodus, but he’s created a different two-headed monster that is bound to haunt him as he navigates sponsor cancellations and player revolt from the lower tiers.
