Callum Hill: LIV may be dying, but golf’s old guard hasn’t won a thing

They shouldn’t be so ready to acknowledge the waving of the white flag.

If LIV Golf has taught us anything, it is that professional golf’s biggest problem was never the rebel tour itself. It was the complacency, fractured leadership and increasingly distorted priorities that made a breakaway league look so attractive in the first place.

LIV arrived with what we thought was a bottomless chequebook, a promise of financial security and a willingness to challenge an establishment which had enjoyed decades of control. It threw enormous and downright ridiculous sums of cash at some of the biggest names in the game, introduced a team concept and attempted to sell a different version of professional golf.

It alienated fans – especially the die-hards, struggled to establish cultural relevance of its team competitions and relied heavily on a financial model that has finally proved impossible to sustain. With the Saudi Public Investment Fund having withdrawn its backing and LIV entering Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States, the project faces a bleak future.

"The breakaway league may ultimately be remembered as an expensive failure. But established tours should be judged by what they do next, not by whether their rivals survive."

There is an uncomfortable part for the PGA Tour and DP World Tour, though. LIV was able to disrupt golf because the established system gave it an opening.

For too long, professional golf operated with a sense of complacency; its leading players had nowhere else to go, and the sport’s governing interests were rarely aligned. LIV exploited those weaknesses with extraordinary financial power. The fact that it is ultimately going to fail does not mean those weaknesses have disappeared. Nor does it mean the ‘traditional’ tours have suddenly earned the right to congratulate themselves.

PLUS...

LIV Golf's future to be decided by end of the month

An attorney for LIV Golf has told a US federal bankruptcy court judge that a decision on whether ‌the rebel circuit winds down operations or moves forward with a proposed 2.0 model will be made by the end of the month.

The PGA Tour has responded to the threat with elevated events, larger purses and a renewed emphasis on its biggest stars. Yet the sport still has to answer a basic question … what makes a tournament worth watching when it is not a major, and why should fans care about the players who are not already household names?

The DP World Tour faces a different challenge. It must retain its identity and international reach, while ensuring that its best tournaments remain meaningful. Becoming a feeder system for the PGA Tour solely would be a poor outcome for a circuit that has spent decades developing players and staging phenomenal events around the world.

Then there is the inevitable question of reunification. Some of the players who joined LIV accepted extraordinary sums to leave. Others stayed, accepting the financial and competitive consequences of doing so. It would be naive to expect those decisions to be forgotten, and insulting to those who remained if the returnees were simply waved through without a proper framework.

PLUS...

LIV’s last stand: Golf’s revolution unravels as deadline looms

LIV Golf’s future hangs in the balance as players face a November 16 deadline to commit to the DP World Tour, with a wave of departures threatening to derail plans for a new-look league in 2027.

Keeping players apart out of spite would be equally foolish. Fans did not ask for this civil war of wealth and greed, and they should not be expected to accept a fractured game indefinitely because its most powerful figures cannot agree on the terms of peace.

If the best players can strengthen fields and make tournaments more compelling, golf should find a fair way to bring them together. That means transparent rules, meaningful consequences where appropriate and a clear understanding that no player, however famous, should be bigger than the game.

The romantic notion that professional golf can simply return to how it was before LIV is just as misguided as the idea that LIV was going to save it.

The breakaway league may ultimately be remembered as an expensive failure, but established tours should be judged by what they do next, not by whether their rivals survive.

If golf’s leaders use this moment to improve the schedule, create stronger events and give fans a more coherent product, LIV will have forced the sport to evolve.

If they simply restore the old hierarchy and congratulate themselves for winning the war, they will have wasted the most expensive warning professional golf has ever received.