Fan benefit of the new PGA TOUR investment deal unlikely
Don’t believe the hype that the investment in the PGA TOUR by the Strategic Sport Group has anything to do with fans. It’s about survival.
The PGA TOUR’s new investment deal with the Strategic Sport Group (SSG) has been announced to the tune of $3 billion with an overall valuation of the men’s pro golf tour over $12 billion. Uniformly heralded by the Tour’s Player Advisory Board as a positive move for the “game,” additional focus is being placed on how this will benefit fans in the process.
Don’t believe it.
As we’ve covered multiple times by now on this topic, the world of men’s pro golf has become saturated with greed and astronomical dollar amounts that nobody reading this will ever see in their checking accounts. The same can be said, of course, for fans of any professional sport. Fans are spectators to the action taking place on the field of play and the contract negotiations occurring in board rooms. It’s all fun to talk about over a beer at your favorite sports bar as we sit back and offer armchair analysis on why the signing of one player makes sense (or doesn’t) over another.
We revel in these types of debates. It’s the reason why fantasy sports are as popular as they are. Fans think we can do a better job as general manager of a fictitious sports team or roster than those actually doing it for a living. The money we threw around with abandon as kids playing Monopoly has transitioned into funny money we use to “sign” players in digital fantasy teams. None of it is real, none of it pays our bills, and it’s all used as an escape from everyday worries or stresses.
When we see news of Jon Rahm earning upwards of $500 million to join the rival LIV Golf tour, or the SSG investing $3 billion into the PGA TOUR, or the top 200-ish players receiving a piece of a $900 million pie, none of it can possibly register in the minds of the common fan. These are just numbers to us. They are details of a fairy tale written with greed and read with intrigue. Yet many of the golfers whom we embrace are trying to sell something to us that also doesn’t exist.
For example, when Max Homa offered his take on the PGA TOUR/SSG agreement, I was curious as to how fans would benefit from it. His response was thoughtful and made a lot of sense, but after further reflection still seemed like a polished talking point one might hear about the latest fantasy book in an ongoing series.
On its surface, the point Max raises is entirely correct. The difference between what the SSG has agreed to and what the Public Investment Fund (PIF) continues to spend on player acquisitions is stark. As Max points out, the former is literally investing in a league with the expectation of a massive return while the latter is… kind of just giving money away.
Sure, you could argue that LIV Golf needs to make a return on their acquisitions, but let’s be serious. Their viewership numbers aren’t anywhere close to being what they need to be in order for sponsors to pay attention. Off-course press and stories aren’t helping their public image by any stretch. A highly divisive social climate also contributes to the outlook of a fanbase that, let’s face it, falls into a certain extreme category.
The PGA TOUR still has to keep up with LIV, however, and this recent agreement is entirely to the benefit of the players. Fans haven’t been asking for any of this. Fans aren’t the ones complaining about the perceived hardships of PGA TOUR life. We just want a telecast that doesn’t litter us with commercials during a tournament’s critical moments. We want ticket prices that aren’t drastically increasing one year over the next. We don’t want to pay $20 for a beer if we’re fortunate enough to attend an event.
I’m not sure how any of those factors improve as a result of this investment. If anything, I’d expect all of those variables to increase significantly.
Any argument that the on-course product will also improve as a direct result of this investment is also unfounded. Love them or hate them, many of the game’s biggest names — Rahm, Koepka, DeChambeau, Mickelson, Johnson, Reed, etc. — are no longer on the PGA TOUR and won’t be at the events included in the final TOUR valuation number of $12 billion. In some ways the product has become less valuable in the eyes of a fan, yet this investment is supposed to also benefit us?
This goes without saying, but it’s OK if the PGA TOUR wants to protect its best interests as a business in the midst of a nasty battle with a competitor. To assert that any of this is being done for the betterment of golf fandom is absurd at best and downright insulting at worst.
Gambling, Sex, and Drugs: Unbecoming Behavior on The PGA Tour?
Could recent reports pertaining to elite players and high ranking executives in men’s professional golf point to a larger cultural issue?
Extracurricular activities by PGA TOUR golfers and executives have once again entered the spotlight in recent weeks, some more overtly than others. As with all professional sports, the lives of those in power — either on the field of play or in board rooms and executive offices — are lightning rods for public attention and intrigue. Tales of extramarital affairs, scandal, gambling and worse are perhaps only trumped by the seemingly mild penalties that are enforced (if at all).
On the PGA TOUR, the textbook public example of such behavior includes the exploits of its biggest star nearly 15 years ago. News of Tiger Woods and his behavior off the course shook not only the world of golf and sports but pop culture as a whole. It’s a story that we all know well enough by now that it becomes almost an afterthought, reduced to a blemish on a reputation as opposed to a catalyst for widespread change.
For most casual golf fans, this was an introduction to a phrase that remains as vague now as it did then: “conduct unbecoming a professional.”
At a high level and under the PGA Tour’s rules, “the commissioner has the authority to discipline players for ‘conduct unbecoming a professional’ with what is defined as a major penalty (i.e., a fine in excess of $20,000, suspension from tournament play for more than three tournaments and/or permanent disbarment from play in PGA Tour events).” It’s a phrase that can most recently be found in the early days of the LIV Golf vs the PGAT saga. TOUR commissioner Jay Monahan relied upon the phrase as grounds to enforce suspensions on players who defected to the rival, Saudia Arabia-funded LIV.
(Also of note: in 2015 the TOUR prohibited its players from accepting sponsorships from daily fantasy sports brands on grounds of such action being unbecoming a professional. The TOUR would eventually reach a partnership agreement with DraftKings in 2019, just four years later.)
To say that the enforcement of any disciplinary action against its players by the TOUR is kept quiet would be an understatement. Such was the peculiar case of Dustin Johnson’s “voluntary” absence from competition in 2014 following reports of a suspension allegedly due to cocaine, which the TOUR denied. A stark contrast to other major sports, the TOUR’s approach to such matters has always been hush-hush.
Fast-forward to last week when the FirePit Collective published an excerpt of power-gambler Billy Walters’s upcoming book, in which the author details his friendship with Phil Mickelson, complete with accusations that Mickelson attempted to gamble on the 2012 Ryder Cup despite being a participant. Mickelson has since denied this claim in a tweet while all but admitting to Walters’s other claims of the golfer’s exuberant wagering habits.
Whether or not Mickelson’s behavior would also meet the TOUR’s definition of “unbecoming behavior” is a moot point, of course, as his loyalties are squarely positioned with LIV Golf that — for now — operates under an entirely different rule book.
The examples of Woods, Mickelson, Johnson and others are glaringly obvious and amplified by their stardom and accomplishments, easily recognizable by die-hard and casual golf fans alike. However, could there be a much larger, more secretive, less public example of bad behavior unfolding in plain sight?
The sudden resignation of PGA TOUR executive Andy Pazder last week might have only been noticed by golf media and Golf Twitter obsessives. A 30+ year executive at the TOUR, Pazder most recently served as the chief tournaments and competition officer. The abrupt nature of Pazder’s resignation caused a flurry among golf media, igniting suspicions as to his reasoning. Could it be due to the ongoing PGAT/LIV golf drama? Or was there something less public?
Enter MaryAnn O’Neill.
If her name isn’t immediately recognizable, here’s a refresher. O’Neill is the founder and managing partner of Icon Sports Partners and former girlfriend of pro golfer Tom Pernice, Jr. In July 2022, Sports Illustrated published two articles detailing the fallout of their relationship that included instances of domestic violence suffered by O’Neill, followed by glaring inaction by the PGA TOUR in terms of disciplinary action against Pernice. As referenced in the SI.com reporting, O’Neill provided disturbing text messages and recordings to substantiate her claims.
Days after Pazder’s resignation became public, O’Neill tweeted out an interesting comment from her account.
(Note: It has since been reported on Golf.com that Pazder’s resignation was not voluntary but rather “expedited” due to behavior the “Tour deemed was inappropriate conduct that violated company policy.”)
Initially O’Neill’s tweet went unnoticed by the majority. In due time, however, it caught the attention of numerous accounts (including ours). At the time of this writing it has amassed nearly 70,000 views.
Admittedly, I was curious. So I connected with O’Neill.
While the details of our conversation were off the record, she did grant me permission to disclose that we spoke for about 45 minutes. O’Neill covered a wide range of topics that, if I’m being honest, left me with more questions than answers.
Another look through her Twitter timeline yielded a post she authored on a whistleblower website that covered a great deal of information about her experiences as a “WAG” (wives and girlfriends) on the PGA TOUR. It’s eye-opening, both in its detail and content matter, and provides intimate details of the violence and abuse O’Neill suffered at the hands of Pernice during their relationship. I highly encourage you to read it.
What’s most disturbing about the timeline and experiences that O’Neill went through is the fact that despite all of it, Pernice remained active on the PGA TOUR. He had been allowed to compete for a long stretch despite O’Neill’s outreach to tour executives for help. Her post also discloses the glaring absence of a domestic violence policy on the TOUR, which SI.com’s reporting corroborates.
As O’Neill points out in her post, the TOUR instead falls back on an all-too-familiar phrase:
The PGA Tour is one of the few professional sports organizations that does not have a clear policy for addressing domestic violence. The NFL, for instance, has a two-strike policy by which athletes are expelled from the league for at least one year after two allegations of domestic violence or abuse. In contrast, the Tour merely scolds players under a blanket term of “conduct unbecoming of a professional,” and this extremely vague guideline is unevenly enforced.
While cases like O’Neill’s are still pending, it is a stark reminder of the horrors that can exist even at the highest echelons of professional sports. We don’t have to look further than recent headlines from the NFL, NBA, or MLB for additional examples of executives completely mishandling reports of abuse — if not ignoring them entirely.
Amid a time of monumental change and paradigm shift, men’s professional golf has much more to address than playoff points, rival tours or sponsorships. It is unclear what the future shape of the PGA TOUR will look like in two, five, or ten years, but it’s evident that much has been left unchecked among its stars and executives in certain circumstances. Sadly, the same can be said for not only any major sport organization, but also most large corporations in America.
With great change comes great opportunity, and even greater questions as to the ability of an organization’s leaders to drive the change to fruition and in the best interest of all.
After all: anything less would be unbecoming.
