How Monopolistic Practices of the PGA Impacted LIV Golf's Rise
- Mark Ridgely
- May 2
- 5 min read
The handwriting was on the wall the first day it became real. The death of the LIV tour was an inevitable event from day one; it is only a matter of time before the last scoop of dirt is piled on top of it's grave. The PGA monopoly, like others in American sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, PGA) is on the cusp of killing off the upstart competition. Make no mistake, the PGA is a textbook monopolist no matter what industry it is compared to.
The talking heads in the media and traditionalist players are making sure the innovation the upstarts bring to the discussion are disparaged and downplayed. Dan Patrick mentioned on his radio show that he didn't understand how LIV is a desirable way to compete: wearing shorts, playing loud music, shot gun starts and team play. All of this seems insignificant. I don't know about him, but when I play of the weekend with my friends, that's exactly what everyone is doing. LIV is more relatable to the average player's game than the PGA.
A key factor behind this struggle lies in the monopolistic practices employed by the PGA Tour, which effectively stifled LIV Golf’s growth and influence. The PGA is doing a great job using its media leverage to discredit the innovations, to preserve its stranglehold on the game in the United States and top players. CBS television network personalities Jim Nantz and Michael Breed and Golf Channel talking head Brandel Chamblee make it their life's work to warn listeners about the downside to watching or attending LIV events. The PGA has adopted many of the innovations the LIV tour brought to the table. Money is the biggest. To satisfy Tiger and Rory and stop them from defecting. The no cut and reduced fields in the Select tournaments guarantees a pay, just like LIV, and a reduced number of tournaments offer the opportunity for bigger paydays for the best players (Scottie Scheffler made $50 million in 2025). In addition, they are using Tiger's winter league to keep the consumers attention and test the team concept without pissing off the traditionalists.
The PGA Tour’s Dominance in Professional Golf
The PGA Tour has long held a near-monopoly over professional golf in the United States and much of the world. This dominance comes from decades of building a strong brand, securing lucrative sponsorships, and controlling access to top tournaments and players. The Tour’s structure creates a closed ecosystem where players, sponsors, and broadcasters operate within its rules and schedules.
As usual, there are consequences. Players of LIV attempting to rejoin the PGA are being ostracized with onerous penalties and hoops to jump through. The hypocrisy is disconcerting since a player without a tour card can receive a sponsor's exemption to have a spot in the field. Or players at the bottom end of the pay scale, who aren't as talented as many of the LIV players, are given priority over better competitors. They earn their rights to play in a tournament because they toe the line and earn enough money to avoid relegation to Q school.
How LIV Golf Entered the Scene
LIV Golf launched with a promise to revolutionize the sport by offering higher prize money, innovative formats, and a player-first approach. Backed by significant financial resources, LIV Golf attracted some high-profile players who were frustrated with the PGA Tour’s restrictions and compensation models.
The new league introduced team-based competitions and shorter events designed to appeal to modern audiences. This approach challenged the traditional tournament format and threatened the PGA Tour’s grip on professional golf.
Barriers Created by the PGA Tour
Despite LIV Golf’s innovative approach, the PGA Tour responded with a series of measures that limited LIV’s ability to grow:
Player Suspensions and Bans: The PGA Tour suspended players who participated in LIV events, effectively forcing golfers to choose between the two leagues. This move discouraged many players from joining LIV, fearing loss of status and income on the PGA Tour.
Exclusive Media Deals: The PGA Tour’s exclusive broadcasting contracts limited LIV Golf’s exposure. Without access to major sports networks, LIV struggled to reach a broad audience, reducing its appeal to sponsors and fans.
Tournament Access Restrictions: The PGA Tour controls entry to many prestigious tournaments. Players aligned with LIV Golf found themselves barred from these events, which are crucial for ranking points, sponsorships, and career progression.
Sponsorship Pressure: Sponsors often hesitate to support players or events outside the PGA Tour due to its market dominance. This pressure limits LIV Golf’s ability to secure long-term commercial partnerships.
These tactics created a challenging environment for LIV Golf, making it difficult to build a sustainable alternative.
The Impact on Players and Fans
The PGA Tour’s monopolistic practices forced players into difficult decisions. Many had to weigh the guaranteed opportunities and prestige of the PGA Tour against the financial incentives and innovation offered by LIV Golf. This divide created tension within the professional golf community.
For fans, the situation was confusing. The split diluted the talent pool and fragmented the viewing experience. Fans loyal to traditional golf formats found LIV’s approach unfamiliar, while those interested in change faced limited access to LIV events.
Lessons from Other Sports
Monopolistic behavior in sports leagues is not unique to golf. Similar dynamics have played out in basketball, soccer, and cricket when new leagues tried to challenge established organizations. In many cases, the dominant league uses its control over players, media, and sponsorships to maintain power.
For example, the World Series Cricket in the 1970s faced resistance from traditional cricket boards but eventually led to changes in the sport’s structure. The key difference is that those leagues found ways to coexist or evolve, while the PGA Tour’s stronghold has so far prevented LIV Golf from gaining similar traction.
What This Means for the Future of Golf
The PGA Tour’s monopolistic practices highlight the challenges of disrupting a well-established sports ecosystem. While LIV Golf brought fresh ideas and financial muscle, the barriers imposed by the PGA Tour limited its ability to grow and compete on equal footing.
This situation raises important questions about competition, fairness, and innovation in professional sports. If the PGA Tour continues to restrict alternatives, the sport risks stagnation and alienation of players and fans seeking change.
The PGA has mortgaged its future by sidling up to the big money of New York hedge funds. The $3 billion investment from Strategic Sports Group (SSG) has yet to be digested, but the organization is beginning to feel the heat by instituting layoffs of 4% (56 employees) of organization staff (who cares about them? They'll find new jobs). The correction is starting. Sponsors are leaving. They can't justify the cost of sponsorship compared to the benefits, moving the tour further into the pocket of the big money investors. The PGA is reducing the number of tournaments and redirecting play to the venues in better TV markets, knowing they can't compete, to reach the needed cashflow to satisfy their investors. Maybe the Western Open will return?
The LIV legacy will affect the PGA tour well in the future regardless of the punitive measures taken by the PGA against LIV players returning. The PGA should have embraced the upstart and treated it like it does the other tours around the world. It could have innovated and leveraged the differences to bring new patrons to the game. Can you imagine how popular the TV ratings would be if Rory and Scottie put together a team respectively top to play in a couple of LIV tournaments? What would the gamblers think? I can hear it now... "What's the line on the Crushers beating the two PGA teams?" They won't.
Who is the loser in this? The consumer. Who else! Higher cost and the same game on TV the comedian Bill Cosby famously made fun of during his standup routine. No surprise there.
Comments