Check in every week for the unfiltered opinions of our writers and editors as they break down the hottest topics in the sport, and join the conversation by tweeting us at @golf_com. This week, our writers discuss the future of LIV Golf’s star players and the upcoming PGA Championship at Aronimink.

For the first time since news broke that the Saudi PIF will not fund LIV Golf following this season, the league’s CEO, Scott O’Neil, and players spoke to the media at this week’s D.C. tournament. What was your biggest takeaway from what you heard from Trump National?

Jack Hirsh, Associate Equipment Editor (@JR_HIRSHey): That LIV is on the ropes. I think we knew this already, but nothing O’Neil said would do anything to convince me otherwise. It seemed like O’Neil was acting more reactionary than anything, which means he didn’t see the PIF pulling funding. That’s not a death sentence, but the next time the media hears from him, he’s going to need to come up with a more concrete plan about how LIV was going to survive. It didn’t sound like he knew how that would happen yet.

Josh Schrock, associate news editor (@Schrock_And_Awe): As expected, it feels like everyone is trying to figure out what’s next or if there is a next for LIV Golf. O’Neil didn’t offer many specifics on what funding they might get or how a 2027 season would look. I thought Jon Rahm saying that the players would need to make “concessions” to keep the business alive was telling. What does that look like? Who is interested in doing that? Still a lot of unknowns.

Dylan Dethier, senior writer (@dylan_dethier): LIV as we know it is over. That’s already been true — the original vision was a marriage of Greg Norman and Yasir Al-Rumayyan and had nearly blank-check access to the Saudi PIF reserves — but it was even clearer this week, as O’Neil explained that the plan is to make a new plan and players spoke of concessions and unknowns. 

One looming question is the future of Bryson DeChambeau, whose contract is up at the end of this year and who said last week he could focus on growing his YouTube channel and playing “tournaments that want me” if it doesn’t work for him to return to LIV or the PGA Tour. How valuable is Bryson to the future of the PGA Tour? And who holds the leverage in Bryson’s future?

Hirsh: There’s no doubt Bryson is super important to the PGA Tour from the standpoint of how many eyeballs he can draw to it that wouldn’t otherwise watch. That said, people are going to see right through his bluff. Bryson is entertaining, no doubt, but if he’s not playing competitive golf, then some of that really goes away. What is to differentiate him from any other YouTuber? I think his viewers hold the greatest amount of leverage in his future. Maybe I’m wrong and people would continue to watch him if he stopped playing any competitive golf once his exemptions ran out. But if I’m not and he loses his command on his viewers, you’re going to see he come back to the PGA Tour with his tail tucked.

Schrock: Bryson has value to the PGA Tour. If you’re just looking at a spreadsheet of who brings in eyeballs and whose presence would translate into dollars and cents, Bryson would be in the green. But the PGA Tour is doing good without him and I don’t think he’s doing himself a lot of favors by saying the PGA Tour is struggling and complaining about the policy regulating players’ social media content creation at tournaments. It will be fascinating to see what a return would look like for Bryson, should he want to come back. He was the lead plaintiff in the antitrust lawsuit against the PGA Tour in 2022, which members had to pay to defend. He disparaged the PGA Tour on his way out and worked to recruit players to LIV. Basically, everything Brooks Koepka didn’t do, he did. Bryson had all the leverage in negotiations when Koepka ditched LIV. With the PIF no longer involved, he has lost that leverage and now it’s up to the PGA Tour to decide if and how he returns. Playing YouTube full-time is a good headline but, as Jack noted, eventually the exemptions run out. They don’t hand those out for breaking 50 with Steph Curry.

Dethier: They each really stand to benefit from an enthusiastic partnership. They’ll also each survive just fine without the other. There’s some risk in trying to force something that neither side fully buys in on; to Bryson’s point, he should only play the PGA Tour if he wants to and if they want him to.

While appearing on The Rich Eisen Show last week, PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp said he’s interested in doing whatever makes the PGA Tour better when it comes to player reintegration, but “we need to balance that with the interest of our current golfers.” How does Rolapp go about improving his Tour while also not irking current members who never left in the first place?

Hirsh: Oh man! Isn’t that the million-dollar question? I don’t think there’s a scenario where the PGA Tour product vastly improves for the fan, but the majority of Tour pros (especially guys ranked from like 75-125) aren’t irked. Personally, I’m not a fan of the proposed two-tier Tour, but I can see how that would make it easier for the casual fan. As for reintegration. I say guys who wouldn’t otherwise be exempt need to take the Patrick Reed route. Sorry, not sorry.

Schrock: When someone finds the answer to this question, let me know. I do think we’re really only talking about a handful of players and the real questions revolve around Bryson and Rahm. Feels like the second-tier bucket — the Tyrrell Hattons and Joaquin Niemanns — can take the Patrick Reed route back via the DP World Tour and most of the membership wouldn’t bat an eye. But how Rolapp constructs a punishment and way back for Bryson and Rahm, two players who have irked membership in a way Brooks Koepka didn’t, will be a fascinating tight-rope act. 

Dethier: I think we’ve seen versions of these reintegration programs with Brooks Koepka and Patrick Reed — but those guys returned voluntarily, while LIV was still in existence. This version is far more complex. Especially with Bryson declaring that he’ll be with LIV as long as LIV exists, and that he wants to watch out for the league’s young would-be stars and their futures, too. I don’t see a simple fix.

The second men’s major of the year has arrived, as we head to Aronimink outside of Philadelphia for the PGA Championship. What’s your top storyline for this year’s event?

Hirsh: That more golf tournaments need to be in Philly. I’m biased, but come on, we only get a golf tournament in the Philly metro every four years (the next one on the schedule is the 2030 U.S. Open at Merion). There are dozens of outstanding tournament-quality venues within 90 minutes of the airport. Not to mention it’s the best food city in the northeast (I said what I said). I think the Philly crowds are going to show out in force this week and show everyone exactly why we need to have a regular event. I’m sure the Cobbs Creek project will be highlighted and hopefully, soon, that might be the host of a tournament in Philly.

Schrock: I feel like every PGA Championship has the same top storyline, which is: So, what’s the identity of this major? Ever since the move to May, the PGA Championship has been adrift. It’s a major, but doesn’t really have the major juice we will get at the U.S. Open, Masters or Open. It’s almost Chevron-esque in that you’re telling me it’s a major but I’m not seeing it. Going to Valhalla and Quail Hollow hasn’t helped. I’m bullish on Aronomink giving us a major feel we’ve been missing at this event but we’re still looking for an identity for the fourth major. 

Dethier: Jordan Spieth hunting the career Grand Slam, fellas! [Returns to earth] Honestly, for me it’s the ongoing Scottie-Rory major hunt. To Schrock’s point, as the PGA continues to hunt for an identity, its strongest virtue is that yeah, it’s a major! These are the ones that we really keep track of. I can’t wait. 

Rory McIlroy and Scottie Scheffler have won four of the last five majors, with McIlroy already taking the Masters this year. Which player do you like better heading into the PGA?

Hirsh: Rory just won one. Scottie has finished second his last like bajillion events. I more likely see him defending his title than Rory getting halfway to the slam.

Schrock: Rory won at Augusta with his B- game. Scottie has been playing with his B- game for like the last two months and barely finishes outside the top five. I feel like Scottie’s floor is Sunday contention and a to -five, whereas Rory could win or bomb out early. I’ll take Scottie. 

Dethier: Scottie’s the best golfer in the world and continues to play like it, so I’ll take him at an old-school major championship test over anyone. But I think Cameron Young might win, and I also think these three could end up 1-2-3 in some order, like they did at Augusta National. 

Alex Fitzpatrick wasn’t a PGA Tour member until he teamed with his brother, World No. 4 Matthew Fitzpatrick, to win the Zurich Classic last month. But in his first two starts as a Tour member, Alex tied for 9th at the Cadillac Championship and now 4th at the Truist Championship Sunday. Has his play been the biggest surprise of 2026? If not, what has been? 

Hirsh: Yeah, and I don’t think anything will top it. To go from having zero status to winning a team event with your brother and finishing top-10 in the next two Siggies? Now he’s playing in his second major. Quite the whirlwind.

Schrock: In a year of surprises, from Brooks Koepka’s return to Rory’s second jacket and a freakin’ Gary Woodland win, I think Alex Fitzpatrick’s last month, namely how he has played post-Zurich, is the biggest surprise. I would like to throw in Brandt Snedeker winning in Myrtle Beach today, which was his first win in almost eight years and first since he had experimental surgery on his sternum. He had five top-10s in six years coming into this week!

Dethier: The biggest surprise of 2026 is what Sungjae Im did from that bunker on the weekend. Other than that, though? Yeah, I’d say the Brothers Fitzpatrick take the cake, with a nod to some epic, inspiring wins from the trio of 40-somethings (Rose, Woodland, Snedeker). Also, did you see what happened on the Euro Tour this weekend? Golf is full of glorious, unexpected surprises. Maybe another one this week.

Check in every week for the unfiltered opinions of our writers and editors as they break down the hottest topics in the sport, and join the conversation by tweeting us at @golf_com. This week, our writers discuss LIV Golf’s future after the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund announced it will cut funding for the rebel league after the 2026 season.

In a press release Thursday, LIV Golf announced new board members as it transitions from “a foundational launch phase to a diversified, multi-partner investment model.” Hours later, its bankroller, the Saudi PIF, released its own statement saying the “PIF has made the decision to fund LIV Golf only for the remainder of the 2026 season. The substantial investment required by LIV Golf over a longer term is no longer consistent with the current phase of PIF’s investment strategy.” Now that you’ve had a few days to digest this bombshell — and after a rollercoaster April for LIV Golf — what thought has lingered with you?

Josh Sens, senior writer (@joshsens): That for all the tumult, not much changed, aside from some players getting a whole lot richer. I suppose you could say LIV’s birth shook the Tour out of its complacency, which led to (ongoing) schedule changes and even fatter purses for already extravagantly paid golfers. Beyond that, though, what? Is there now an insatiable demand for team golf? There is not. Is professional golf itself a better product now for fans? I don’t see a ton of evidence of that. 

Josh Schrock, associate news editor (@Schrock_And_Awe): I think Sens pretty much nailed it. What will stick with me long after LIV either morphs into something else or goes away entirely is that money couldn’t buy the parts of professional golf that actually resonate with fans: the tradition, the history and the meaning of the results. Billions of dollars can do a lot, but they can’t speed up time. It takes decades for sports leagues to resonate with fans and to develop a connection. LIV Golf was never going to be able to achieve that goal in a short time frame. As our Michael Bamberger wrote, LIV Golf changed the PGA Tour, but not for the better. And I feel like a reckoning is coming now that the Tour’s great opponent is teetering. 

James Colgan, news and features editor (@jamescolgan26): Good points, gents. My lingering thought was this: We never heard the “don” of LIV Golf, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, say a single word. However golf history remembers LIV’s most powerful Saudi benefactor, it will NOT remember him for saying a single word about the sport. “His Excellency” left golf as he entered it: Without a peep.

At Trump Doral for this week’s Cadillac Championship, several players were asked if LIV members should be welcomed back to the PGA Tour, and what types of penalties they should face. If you werePGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp, how would you handle players’ reintegration? Is it different for everyone? Would you not allow certain players at all?

Sens: Open a pathway for guys to play their way back on, with a point system that has some kind of reward for past performance. So that maybe the likes of Bryson and Rahm and Smith can compete in regular Tour events but not elevated events, which they’d still have to play their way into. The less relevant LIV guys would probably just retire rather than face that grind. And the younger guys would be left to try to earn their cards, which is what they’d probably be doing anyway. 

Schrock: It’s going to have to be a case-by-case basis. As Rolapp and Jordan Spieth have noted, the PGA Tour extended an offer to Bryson DeChambeau, Jon Rahm and Cameron Smith earlier this year and it wasn’t accepted. The next deal shouldn’t be as forgiving. Both Spieth and Rolapp also subtly mentioned the lawsuit that DeChambeau was a key plaintiff in after LIV launched in 2022. That’s a lawsuit that PGA Tour players had to pay to defend, and the road back for those who signed on to sue the Tour should be harsher than those who went to LIV quietly, like Brooks Koepka, and didn’t rock the boat. Rahm will be the interesting case. His exodus came at a time when LIV was floundering, and it gave the rebel league juice and calcified the two sides’ stances in golf’s civil conflict. That rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. I’m not sure there’s an easy way to bring either of the big names back without upsetting a big portion of Tour membership, but the Tour would certainly benefit economically from reintegrating them quickly. As for the rest of LIV’s roster, some who resigned their membership, like Patrick Reed, can try to play their way back via the DP World Tour or KFT. Many will disappear with their millions and not even knock on the door at the global home. In all honesty, we’re probably talking about 15-20 players in total that decisions need to be made on.

Colgan: I’d give Bryson a path back. His presence would single-handedly change the PGA Tour’s economics, and he’s probably the only LIV player for whom that is true (Jon Rahm probably deserves consideration here as well). Everyone else would be subject to a lengthy (and expensive) return process through the Tour’s strategic partners at the DP World Tour and the KFT, or a short-term retirement.

Even if LIV Golf receives alternative funding, with the substantial PIF coffers no longer available, does this end any sort of competition that was remaining with the PGA Tour?

Sens: I think so. If LIV taught us anything, it’s that the world does not need more professional golf. At least not for the money these guys think they deserve to be making. Ironically, the Tour’s real competition for eyeballs these days doesn’t come from LIV. It comes from a bunch of YouTube bros producing their own content. 

Schrock: Yes. Without the $30 million purses and signing bonuses, LIV will cease to be any sort of threat to the PGA Tour. It sounds like it’s close to a wrap, barring an unforeseen bailout.

Colgan: No fat lady is singing. Yet. But it sounds like she’s warming up. 

What’s the best-case scenario for LIV Golf going forward?

Sens: Maybe pivot to crypto?

Schrock: Try to merge with the DP World Tour. LIV can slink along with limited funds, but there will almost certainly be a talent exodus once the money dries up.

Colgan: I think there’s a vision that could exist with significantly smaller purses at LIV’s previously successful golf-crazy venues (Korea, Australia, South Africa). The problem LIV is going to run into is that every sports league needs significant TV revenue to survive, and they’re not anywhere close to that right now.

Sunday’s golf slate featured two blowouts, as Nelly Korda won by four in Mexico and Cameron Young won by six in Florida. Both have had fantastic starts to 2026, but which one are you taking as most likely to continue this success through the summer?

Sens: I think they’ll both keep rolling, but Young’s summer is going to stand out just a bit more boldly when he wins his first major at Shinnecock.

Schrock: It’s Korda for multiple reasons. The first is that she’s the unquestioned best player on her tour. Young has been fantastic but has to deal with Scottie Scheffler, Rory McIlroy and the blistering hot Matt Fitzpatrick. Korda changed her mentality after a winless 2025 and has been relentless to start this season. The only thing that can hold her back is a balky putter, but her new putting coach seems to have at least made that a net neutral. I expect her to win at least one more major this year and wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a three-major 2026 for Nelly.

Colgan: Cam! He’s a no-doubt top-5 player in the world right now, and a maiden voyage PGA Championship at Philly looms.

Check in every week for the unfiltered opinions of our writers and editors as they break down the hottest topics in the sport, and join the conversation by tweeting us at @golf_com. This week, we discuss LIV Golf’s chaotic week and uncertain future, Matt Fitzpatrick’s win at RBC Heritage and Rory McIlroy’s career Masters prospects.

Early last week, several news outlets reported uncertainty regarding LIV Golf’s future, indicating the Saudi PIF was on the verge of pulling its funding. LIV CEO Scott O’Neil told his staff via email on Wednesday: “Our season continues exactly as planned, uninterrupted and at full throttle. While the media landscape is often filled with speculation, our reality is defined by the work we do on the grass.” But O’Neil was more specific about the situation on Thursday, when he said in a TV interview, “The reality is you’re funded through the season, and then you work like crazy as a business to create a business and a business plan to keep us going.” (The clip was deleted but still circulated online.) On Sunday, Jon Rahm won LIV’s sixth event of the season, in Mexico City. What’s your primary takeaway from what was a wild week for the five-year-old league? 

James Colgan, news and features editor (@jamescolgan26): My primary takeaway is simple: The Saudis seem to be getting out of the business of running a golf league, which is a truly momentous takeaway for the entire sport. LIV now enters a period in which it will need to work hard to find a path to survival, and as its CEO, Scott O’Neil, himself said, it seems all options are on the table.

Josh Sens (@joshsens). One takeaway is as old as capitalism: that new businesses — even the disruptive variety — are hard to grow no matter how much money you put into them. That said, for Saudi Arabia, getting out of the business of funding a professional golf tour would not have to mean getting out of golf. A new course just opened in Jura. Others are in the works. The ambition is still to grow the country’s presence in the game, but likely now as a host for golf tourism and tour events. Which, in retrospect, seems like it would have been the better path all along.

Josh Schrock, associate news editor (@Schrock_And_Awe): My main takeaway is that if the PIF pulls out, LIV Golf, as we know it, would need to reinvent itself. O’Neil said he would pursue all avenues to get more funding, but it’s hard to see one or several sponsors willing to bankroll the league at a level that would allow for more nine-figure contracts. O’Neil himself said LIV wouldn’t be profitable for five or 10 years without significant changes.  

To Schrock’s point, can LIV continue in its current form without PIF’s deep pockets? If so, what would need to change?

Colgan: Definitely not in its current form. The league has spent more than $5 billion of Saudi funding to date, and, as Josh noted, O’Neil has already said that the league is several years away from any hope of profitability. Depending upon who steps up to help LIV with funding, I’d say any change is on the table.

Sens: Nope, the league would not be viable in its current form, and I have a tough time imagining what other form it might take. A limited series of world championship events with big overseas dollar sponsorships? But is there really a market for more big-dollar professional golf than we already have? The LIV experiment has shown that certain markets — Australia and South Africa, for example — are hungry for golf star power, but, on a global level, building and drawing eyeballs to a new league is a steep hill to climb.

Schrock: LIV could try and merge with the DP World Tour or reconstruct how it did a lot of things when the PIF spigot was on. But the contracts and purses would have to go down, and, at that point, how many players are going to want to continue when the financial payoff isn’t what it was when they initially signed on? A lot of moving parts to consider, many of which we still have limited to no information on. 

If LIV doesn’t survive past 2026, would you expect the PGA Tour to offer LIV’s top players — Bryson DeChambeau, Jon Rahm, etc. — a path back to the Tour by way of a similar agreement that Brooks Koepka accepted?

Sens: For the big LIV names, absolutely. If the Tour wants to be a showcase for the world’s best talent, and it does, it will work out a deal with Rahm and DeChambeau and maybe a small handful of others. The rest, I suspect, will have to play their way back in through other smaller tours.

Colgan: In that theoretical, I’d think the Tour can afford to offer a “Koepka Deal” to Bryson and Rahm … and probably leave the rest of the LIV contingent to serve out their suspensions on the DP World Tour. 

Schrock: From a pure cost-benefit analysis, Tour CEO Brian Rolapp would probably love to add Bryson and Rahm back in the fold just as he did with Brooks. But things are not always that easy when you’re dealing with two players who already turned down an opportunity to come back, who might not be as well-liked by the current membership as Brooks, who kept his head down after he left and didn’t take any swipes or recruit other players. The feelings might not be the same toward Bryson, who was a named plaintiff in LIV’s antitrust suit against the PGA Tour and its members, or Rahm, whose departure post-framework agreement rubbed many players the wrong way. Would they immediately add value to the Tour? Yes. But for Rolapp to sell that vision, it’ll be a tricky high-wire act.

Matt Fitzpatrick won the RBC Heritage in a playoff over Scottie Scheffler, who started the day three shots off the lead but caught Fitzpatrick late. Is your Hilton Head takeaway more focused on Fitzpatrick’s second win in the last month, or Scheffler’s second straight runner-up finish?

Colgan: How quickly we forget that Scottie Scheffler remains a U.S. Open victory away from the career grand slam? Kudos to Fitz for another win, and for continuing to reestablish himself as one of the premier players in the sport … but my eyes are already peeking ahead to Shinnecock.

Sens: Like Woods before him, Scheffler has twisted our expectations so wildly out of proportion that a second-place finish somehow gets cast as a failure. Fitzpatrick is on a great run of golf. Scheffler is operating in a different dimension. Whatever “struggles” he went through earlier seem to be behind him. So yeah, as James said, eyes on Shinnecock. But also on Aronimink before that. And frankly, anywhere Scheffler tees it up.

Schrock: The Scheffler “struggles” were blown out of proportion as we tend to do when an elite athlete dips below the level at which we’ve become accustomed to seeing them operate. Scheffler almost erased a 12-shot weekend deficit at the Masters with an ice-cold putter. He’s the best in the world, and I expect him to contend every time he tees it up. To me, this was more about Fitzpatrick. A year ago, he was in a bad spot. His game was “rubbish,” and he was ranked 79th in the world. A year later, he has three worldwide wins and has beaten both Rory and Scottie in separate playoffs. His rise back is impressive, and I think he’s a much better player now than what we thought his ceiling was when he won the 2022 U.S. Open. Expect him to threaten at Aronimink and the Open. 

Speaking ahead of the Senior PGA Championship, major champ Padraig Harrington made one bold claim regarding how many more Masters Rory McIlroy could win given his success at Augusta, comfortability there and the fact that the course allows some players to stay competitive into their 50s. “Rory could win 10 [Masters] at this stage, or five of them, anyway.” While 10 seems lofty, what say you? How many Masters titles will Rory end his career with?

Colgan: I think we do this a lot with star players: we see them win a little, and we immediately assume they can win a lot. It’s so, so hard to win a Masters. I believe Rory could get to three, like fellow late-Augusta-bloomer Phil Mickelson, but I’ll probably hold off before adding any more to the list.

Sens: When Tiger won the Masters by a staggering 12 shots, I remember the talk being that he would never lose that tournament again. He got to five. Impressive. But yeah, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Things happen. Life happens. Four green jackets for Rory doesn’t seem entirely outlandish. Maybe five if all the stars align? But 10 is preposterous. Ain’t gonna happen.

Schrock: We quickly forget that Rory went 10 years without winning a major of any kind. Golf is a fickle, weird game. I think he can win a third jacket and maybe, maybe you can talk me into a fourth at the end of his career. But the real question is how many majors does Rory win? I feel like I want to say nine, but again, we like to be prisoners of the moment with these things.

Check in every week for the unfiltered opinions of our writers and editors as they break down the hottest topics in the sport, and join the conversation by tweeting us at @golf_com. This week, we discuss Shane Lowry’s epic collapse at the PGA National, the future of off-week events like the Cognizant and more.

Shane Lowry led the Cognizant Classic by three with three to play on Sunday at PGA National, but he found the water off the tee on both 16 and 17, doubled both and handed Nico Echavarria the title. What in the world happened to Lowry? And when’s the last time we’ve seen a Sunday collapse this rough?

Alan Bastable, executive editor (@alan_bastable): Doubt is what happened. Lowry said his fanned iron into the water on 16 “completely threw me,” and, from that moment on, he never was able to pop his wheels back on. It was shocking because it was Lowry — a guy we’re used to seeing deliver in the nerviest of spots — but it also was wholly relatable, because this is what golf, perhaps more cruelly than any sport, does to players of all abilities: one negative thought begets more negative thoughts, and before you know it, you can barely draw back the club let alone find a tucked pin from 200 yards out. Lowry said it all when he said, “I just felt like it was weird out there.” The last Sunday like this one? Gosh, there have been many. Fleetwood’s oil-leaking finish at the Travelers last year comes to mind.

Jack Hirsh, associate equipment editor (@JR_HIRSHey): Are we used to seeing Shane Lowry deliver in the nerviest of spots? The Open Championship was seven years ago now! Since then, the only event he’s won was a team event with Rory McIlroy and the only other time he came up clutch was last fall at the Ryder Cup. Aside from that, he’s been the best player at PGA National over the past five years, a tournament that doesn’t draw the star power it once did, and has no wins to show for it. There was also his three-wack in Philly last season. All of this is to say that something clearly changed in Shane Lowry since the Open, where he can’t seem to get over the hump unless he’s part of a team. Seems that came back to bite him here. As for recent comparisons, non-Fleetwood division, double-double is tough, and frankly something I’d rather see at In-N-Out, but Joel Dahmen bogeyed the last three to lose in Puntacanna last year and Collin Morikawa bogeyed three in a row to lose a 7-shot lead to Jon Rahm in 2023 at the Sentry.

Josh Sens, senior writer, (@joshsens): The list of late meltdowns is long and painful. I’d agree that Fleetwood stands out as the most recent of a similar scale. Speaking of that, I was glad to see Lowry take a page from the Fleetwood playbook and not shy away from post-round questions, as he did after his disappointing finish at the Truist last year. What exactly happened? Lowry himself said that golf happened. He’s on a tough run of brutal finishes. But I wonder if by addressing the questions head-on, he, like Fleetwood, will have a breakthrough soon. You can’t beat back the darkness by ignoring it.

Three of the top betting favorites for the Cognizant Classic withdrew early in the week, leaving just eight of the top 50 players in the world in the field. The Cognizant, the first stop of the Florida Swing, follows two straight Signature Events on the West Coast and is followed by two more Signature Events (including the Players). With all the discussion surrounding new schedules, is the Cognizant a good example of why the PGA Tour schedule is too unbalanced and needs a change? Or an example why these tournaments are necessary so a mostly young, unproven group can pave their way?

Bastable: Well, we know change is coming. Question is, how much that change will affect the Tour’s underclass? It’s not hard to grasp why congregating the stars as much as possible is a good business model. But the Tour’s decision-makers seem less energized about creating pathways — at least in the form of a robust schedule of “tier 2” events — for the dreamers. Sounds like the endgame is marquee names clashing in marquee markets. This week, though, was a reminder of why it also can be highly entertaining when less established players lock horns with the stars. Sometimes the underdogs win.  

Hirsh: I agree, Basty. Call me a traditionalist, but there’s always going to be tournaments that have and tournaments that are have-nots. I thought the Signature Event model with Siggies and Full-fields was a nice compromise to what is being proposed by having an elite tour and then something in between the PGA Tour and the Korn Ferry. Where the issue lies is the balance. Wasn’t the idea to have two full-field events followed by two siggies or a major? We started the season with a run of four full-fields and now you have four Signature Events in five weeks (counting the Players) with the poor old Cognizant getting squished in there. Perhaps there are a few too many Siggies, but we need to shake up the calendar a little and balance this out so these tournaments don’t get left out to dry. 

Sens: You absolutely need to have a few of these lower-wattage events in the mix. It keeps a pipeline open and the dream alive. And as we saw today, it can also lead to pretty compelling entertainment. I don’t know the right balance. 80-20? The top Tour brass is getting paid a lot of money. Let them figure it out. Meantime, though, I think a lot will sort itself out naturally in the years to come, depending on what sponsors decide they want to do.

Much was made pre-tournament about the overseeded rye grass at PGA National, where a course that was once one of the most difficult on Tour has seen lower scores over the last few years (and 17 under win this year). Are you bothered by the conditioning changes and lower scores? Is this something, or nothing?

Bastable: ​​I have a hard time getting too worked up about overseeding, or, for that matter, whether a winning score is 7 under or 17 under. But I do think it’s important for tournaments to establish an identity, and PGA National had that for many years in the form of a teeth-kicking test that felt different from the homogeneity of most other non-major weeks. Shane Lowry reflected on the defanging of PGA National earlier in the week, saying he hoped “the scoring is a little bit more difficult this year and it plays like it used to.” On Sunday, he got his wish.

Hirsh: Spot on. I don’t care too much about winning scores, but PGA National is supposed to be a challenge for these guys. There’s also a bit of an issue since they made the 10th hole a par-5, as this course was previously a par-70 (now 71). Echvarria’s winning aggregate of 267 is the same as Camillo Villegas’ in 2010, although he won by five that year. I say make em suffer not because I wanna see lower scores in general, but seeing Tour players struggle in a non-major is enjoyable once in a while.

Sens: Tougher is always more interesting. Overseeding also uses a lot of water. In short, I’d like to see it play firmer and faster. Though the turf itself had nothing to do with Lowry’s struggles. His tee shots on 16 and 17 didn’t threaten dry land.

Scottie Scheffler didn’t play this week, but last week at Riviera, he ended his streak of 18 straight top-10 finishes, the longest of any player in the modern era. Meanwhile, Xander Schauffele also had a streak of his own end earlier this season, when he made the cut in 72 straight events (the longest since Tiger’s 142) in a streak that lasted nearly four years. Which was more impressive?

Bastable: Oh, it’s Scheffler’s run, which, lest we forget, also included seven wins. It’s hard to compute that level of consistency but consider this for perspective: Tiger’s best run in this category was “only” a mere 11 straight top-10s.

Hirsh: It’s Schauffele’s for simply how long he kept it going without having a bad week. That is, until Scheffler passes him later this summer… 

Sens: Come on, Jack. That matchup goes to Scheffler, and it’s not especially close. 

Hirsh: What fun is agreeing all the time?

Sens: I’d rather save the disagreements for truly arguable topics.

Speaking of Scheffler, he’s been great as usual so far this year — that is, except for his first-round slump he’s been in his last three starts. After winning his first start of the season, Scheffler has carded opening rounds of 73, 72 and 74 in his last three starts, which has been just enough to keep him out of the winner’s circle. Back at the Arnold Palmer Invitational this week, what does Scheffler shoot come Thursday?

Bastable: Considering in his five API starts all he’s done is win twice and never finish outside the top 15, I like his chances of shaking this curious monkey from his back. There’s zero chance this is nothing more than a weird statistical anomaly. His previous five first-round scores at Bay Hill, in reverse chronological order: 71-70-68-70-67. This year he’ll open with another 70, and we can all move from sweating Scottie’s mysterious case of the Thursdays.  

Hirsh: I was about to say wait, 70 is just even par, but then I remembered Bay Hill is another course I wish would go back to par-70! But I digress, Scheffler shoots a four-under 68 and is one off the lead before he cruises to his second win of the season. What’s that? You just wanted his first round score? Deal with it.

Sens: If it were almost any other player, I’d say those rough opening rounds were signs of some kind of mental struggle. But given that it’s Scheffler, I’m going to chalk them up to a statistical anomaly. If he shoots 75 this Thursday, I’ll consider changing my mind. But I won’t have to, since he’s going to shoot 69.

Our Josh Berhow recently wrote about Town & Country Club in Minnesota, a private course that boasts an unconventional 3-5-5-5-3 finish. What’s the most unusual or quirky feature of a couple you have played?

Bastable: Haven’t played it but recently learned that Desert Highlands in Scottsdale closes with a pair of par-3s followed by a pair of par-5s. And Crail (Balcomie) in Scotland has the reverse early in the back nine: two par-5s followed by two par-3s. For back-to-back majestic par-3s, tough to beat Cypress Point’s 15th and 16th.

Hirsh: I love courses that have more par-3s and par-5s than par-4s, but I actually belong to a club in Scotland, Fortrose and Rosemarkie, that has a par-3 9th, followed by eight straight par-4s before another par-3 to finish. On paper, that might sound a little boring, but the way the back nine goes up and back a peninsula while playing along Ness Road, I actually didn’t even realize the eight consecutive two-shotters until the third time I played it. Also, depending on the wind you get, some of those two-shotters are one-shotters and others are three!

Sens: Pacific Grove Golf Links in the Monterey area, widely referred to as the “poor man’s Pebble,” opens with consecutive par 3s. I don’t think I’ve seen that anywhere else, other than on, well, a par-3 course.

Every year, the PGA Tour shares an annual report with its membership. It is often a 50-plus-page document, fronted by a photo of the previous year’s FedEx Cup champion and a lengthy, optimistic letter from the commissioner. 

It looks like a magazine, with big, glossy images and infographics and a table of contents. But buried within that “Annual Report to Membership,” as it is titled, is financial information about the Tour’s core business, its revenues and losses, as compiled by Grant Thornton, the Tour’s accounting firm.

GOLF.com obtained copies of these annual reports from recent years, which are filled with important details on the state of the Tour. Together, the documents provide a holistic look at the Tour’s business as of year-end 2024, covering every corner from TV revenue and outside investment to the health of player retirement accounts. Here are nine key takeaways. 

1. PGA Tour’s official valuation

On Jan. 30, 2024, the PGA Tour finalized a deal to sell a piece of equity to Strategic Sports Group, a collection of prolific sports investors led by the owners of the Boston Red Sox. At the time, headlines pegged the deal as a $3 billion investment and a $12 billion valuation, which isn’t necessarily inaccurate. The figure just wasn’t fine-tuned.

According to the annual report, SSG’s initial investment of $1.5 billion was for 11.62% of PGA Tour Enterprises, valuing the Tour at just over $12.9 billion, more than originally reported.

Why do the closing adjustments of the Tour’s agreement with SSG matter? Because a $900 million change in valuation is, at least on the surface, a 7% sweetener on the Tour’s value, which matters even more when Tour equity now belongs to the players, and because the Tour has flirted with additional outside investment (like from a sovereign wealth fund), which could be affected by price fluctuations. According to a source with knowledge of the Tour’s financials, the Tour was profitable in 2025, a positive sign that its new equity partners would certainly care about.

2. But what about SSG’s *other* $1.5 billion? 

Times were different when the SSG agreement was consummated in early 2024 — just as they were different in 2023 and 2022 and 2021, which is quite obvious in the annual reports. At that time, the Tour was just months removed from a framework agreement with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, and all indications were that both parties would eventually finalize an agreement granting the Saudis a similar piece of PGA Tour equity.

How close did they get? Close enough to meet about it in the White House. But golf fans know that plan fizzled.

What they can wonder now is if SSG’s first $1.5 billion investment in the PGA Tour will be its last. PGA Tour Enterprises — the for-profit arm of the Tour — has three years from the date of the initial 2024 investment to officially draw on the remaining $1.5 billion, in which it would offer up more equity as a result. That deadline is Jan. 30, 2027, less than a year away. That decision will ultimately be made by the PGA Tour Enterprises board, which consists of seven player directors (Tiger Woods, Camilo Villegas, Patrick Cantlay, Keith Mitchell, Maverick McNealy, Adam Scott, Joe Ogilvie), commissioner Jay Monahan, chairman Joe Gorder and, importantly, four investor directors from SSG (John Henry, Sam Kennedy, Arthur Blank and Andrew Cohen).

3. The Tour could (should?) own more events

The Tour maintains a considerable grip on the structures of pro golf and its worldwide audience, but for years managed only a conservative approach toward owning its own events. A significant part of the Tour’s business is dependent on sharing tournament ownership with local organizations.

As spelled out in the annual report, the Tour owned eight events outright as of year-end 2024. It has boosted than number to 10 with the formation of two more tournaments (bolded below) in the last 12 months:

— Players Championship (March)
— Tour Championship (August)
— Presidents Cup (September)
— FedEx St. Jude Championship (August)
— The Sentry (January … for now)
— Truist Championship (May)
— Baycurrent Classic (October)
— Cognizant Classic in the Palm Beaches (February)
— Cadillac Championship (April)
— Biltmore Championship (September)

It will be interesting to keep these specific tournaments top of mind as the Tour looks to announce a new schedule structure in the coming months, just as it was interesting when the Tour kick-started a discussion earlier this month about the Players Championship being worthy of “major” distinction.

Elsewhere, the Tour’s uncertain future in Hawaii might not necessarily spell demise for its premier Hawaiian event, The Sentry. It seems far more likely that the tournament will simply shift locations and dates, as has been reported by Golf Digest and Sports Business Journal. Considering The Sentry’s status as one of the few wholly owned and operated events, it would make little sense for the Tour to do anything else. 

4. TV business increasingly massive 

It goes without saying that pro sports’ billion-dollar days are made possible only by television viewership and the rights to broadcast events (TV and media acumen is a major reason why Brian Rolapp was hired as PGA Tour CEO.) But the Tour’s recent annual reports underscore that trend.

Year after year, the Tour’s broadcast arm — aka its “core business” responsible for driving the largest amount of revenue — has continued to see growth via media rights.

In 2019, the Tour’s net TV revenues accounted for roughly 48% of its core business. Just three years later, in 2022, once the Tour’s newest TV rights deal began (with ESPN+ joining as a streaming partner), the Tour’s TV money suddenly became 67% of its core business. It has settled in to a roughly 65% share of that metric in recent years.

That may mimic the trend of other pro sports over the last decade, but it serves as a perfect reminder that the next few years figure to be the most important years in PGA Tour television history. The Tour itself is in the midst of restructuring its entire schedule and competitive format, which will lead to restructuring deals with TV networks. The hope, as it exists within the Future Competition Committee, is that the new schedule will be so valuable that it dwarfs the current TV deal, which is worth roughly $1 billion annually. 

This, of course, presents a slight apples-and-oranges scenario for the Tour and its TV partners. Under a revised competitive format, decades-long TV partners may be expected to pay the same or more for a different product, different inventory, different stakes, etc. Golf fans will have to put their faith in the brains behind it all: SSG’s savvy sports leaders and the player-led faction of PGA Tour Enterprises’ board. 

5. Tour’s TGL ownership

According to the report, the PGA Tour — which has long called itself a “partner” of TGL — owns 20% of the simulator golf league, which is considered a joint venture between the Tour and TMRW Sports. The Tour acquired that 20% stake via a “non-cash $50 million investment” — which, by year-end 2024, had depreciated to $38.3 million. That value-loss might be exactly what you’d expect from a startup league that saw its inflatable dome collapse and, at the time of accounting, had not yet hosted any matches. The 2026 report will be far more telling as it likely will include an indication of TGL’s financial performance in its first full season, during which it established numerous founding partnerships that would help its bottom line.

Also detailed in the report are the origins of TGL, which was established by TMRW Sports on March 4, 2022, just three months before LIV Golf launched its first season (and five months before Rory McIlroy and Mike McCarley announced it to the world). As Phil Mickelson and Greg Norman were putting the final touches on LIV Golf, Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy — co-founders of TMRW Sports — were not sitting idly. The non-cash $50 million investment was finalized roughly a year later, on March 9, 2023, just as TGL was locking in player commitments.  

6. Tour’s Pro Shop ownership

Similar to TGL, the PGA Tour owns a considerable stake (~27%) in Pro Shop Holdings, the media company founded by “Full Swing” executive producer Chad Mumm and three others. That said, the annual report lists this deal as a “contribution agreement, intellectual property license and stock purchase agreement.”

Pro Shop is the choice production house of the Tour, and for obvious reason. Why go elsewhere when you can retain a predictable storytelling result from a company that influences your bottom line? That partnership helps explain how, say, Scottie Scheffler ends up starring in “Happy Gilmore 2,” which was produced in part by Pro Shop.

Pro Shop is an exploratory media venture for the PGA Tour, wherein the Tour can benefit from Pro Shop producing The Skins Game, which re-debuted on Amazon on Black Friday, or from Netflix’s “Full Swing” and “Happy Gilmore 2.” All it cost the Tour was a non-cash, asset and IP licensing deal worth $17 million. Pro Shop’s licensing deal with the Tour runs through 2030, similar to the Tour’s deals with other broadcast partners.

7. Strategic Alliance remains complex as ever 

It’s February 2026, which means we just passed the five-year anniversary of the Tour’s original investment in the DP World Tour, based in Europe. While the deal was announced in November 2020, the PGA Tour officially acquired a 15% equity interest in European Tour Productions on Jan. 29, 2021, in an agreement priced at $85 million, with $30 million coming up front. About 17 months later, in the wake of LIV Golf launching, the PGA Tour bolstered its partnership with the DPWT, expanding the alliance to 2035, increasing its ownership to 40% by 2027.

Over the years, the financial relationship between the PGA Tour and DPWT has changed shape, as detailed in the report. At times, the PGA Tour has loaned money to the DPWT and been repaid. More commonly, as DPWT CEO Guy Kinnings has noted, the PGA Tour has “underpinned” the DPWT’s tournament staging efforts, i.e., paid for shortfalls in funding DPWT purses. That underpinning number increased from 2023 (~$24.9 million) to 2024 (~$28.2 million), aligning with an increase in the DPWT season-long purse total.

While it is largely difficult for the public to assess the health of the PGA Tour’s investment in its European cousin, the internal report notes impairment losses of $25.1 million on the PGA Tour’s DPWT equity shares, which suggests something worse-off than the day the expanded alliance was signed. There was also the leaked legal documents (from the summer of 2022, when LIV launched), which included the PGA Tour’s assessors suggesting a 100% takeover of the European Tour Group, calling it a “distressed asset.”

Rest assured, not everyone feels that way. The DPWT has played a quiet but massive role in the ongoing saga between the PGA Tour and LIV Golf and will continue to in the coming years. The DPWT and PGA Tour have agreed to defer the payments the PGA Tour was scheduled to make in 2023, ’24 and ’25 to 2028, ’29 and ’30, only elongating the tail of their arrangement. 

As it stands, the PGA Tour has acquired a 30% equity stake in European Tour Productions, but the partnership includes a clause where, as of Dec. 31, 2027, the PGA Tour could “put back” the shares or the DPWT could buy back the shares. The original 15% would be at a fixed cost, while the remaining 25% would be at a variable rate, based on market value. As every profit and loss of the PGA Tour is being analyzed in great depth these days, the alliance could look a whole lot different in the years to come (particularly given the continued existence of LIV Golf and the deep pockets of the Saudi PIF).

8. Tour’s golf courses and (future with?) TPC Boston 

The report also revealed the Tour’s involvement with its TPC courses. In total, there are 30 TPC courses, a handful of which host PGA Tour events. But only about 35% of those courses are owned and operated by the Tour. The majority of those courses are part of the “TPC” network via licensing deals. Understanding the ownership of these courses could inform a bit about their fates when it comes to the Tour’s future.

For instance, the Tour owns 81% of TPC Deere Run in Western Illinois, which annually hosts the John Deere Classic. Out east, the Tour maintains a 62.5% ownership in TPC Boston, a course at which the Tour hosted 17 events since 2000. While the Tour’s ownership stake in TPC Boston hasn’t changed over the years, the Tour’s visits to Boston have been eliminated … for now. Numerous reports have suggested that a reduced Tour schedule would like mean a return to some of the major American markets, including Boston, New York and Chicago. If that’s true, TPC Boston would make obvious sense as a landlord where the rent is extremely cheap, if not free.

9. The road to retirement

One of the points the Tour clearly wants to stress to its members — as evidenced by its high placement in the report — is how much money is piling up in their retirement accounts. Through various plans, the Tour has contributed $47 million to eligible players’ retirement accounts in each of the last four years. Similar to your 401(k), that money largely stays put until players can draw upon it after their core playing years are over, most often around age 50. Step 1 is finishing high in the FedEx Cup.

In August 2024, when Scottie Scheffler earned $25 million for winning the FedEx Cup, $1 million of it was deferred to his retirement account, just as a portion of the year-end bonuses were deferred for all 30 players at the Tour Championship. Any players who didn’t advance, but still finished in the top 150 that year, also earned a piece of the deferred pie.

The Tour also contributes a certain amount — around $5,000 in 2024 — for every cut made by players who play a minimum of 15 times. For each of those those first 15 made cuts, players receive one “point” ($5,000) of Tour contribution. For all cuts made after the first 15, they receive two points ($10,000). Play a bunch of events and make a bunch of cuts and you won’t be returning to the normal workforce when your playing career is over. 

Surprisingly, the 2024 leader in the Cuts Plan clubhouse was not Scheffler and his 19 cuts made in 19 starts. Rather, it was Mark Hubbard’s 26 cuts made in 30 starts that garnered 37 “contribution” points, sending $187,881 into his retirement account. Make 20 cuts a season for a bunch of seasons and the money piles up quickly. As of year-end 2024, 372 players had retirement balances north of $1 million. Of that group, 179 had amassed balances of $3 million or more — and all in addition to on-course and endorsement earnings, again, at year-end 2024. Rest assured, the players’ nest eggs have only increased since then. 

The author welcomes your comments at sean.zak@golf.com.