While I’m no apologist for the PGA Tour I do think there is a problem with oversimplifying issues (as in the above examples) in that it masks the bigger picture and, by default, potential solutions.

There are grains of truth in both arguments, of course, which is why these simplistic points of view seem to proliferate so easily. But that doesn’t make them true.

(Nor does it mean the PGA Tour couldn’t do more beyond their own shores but more on that later.)

The realities are far more nuanced and, in the case of the European Tour and their strategic alliance in particular, we are a long way from being in a position to realistically judge if they have done the right thing.

The truth is that if you want to ‘blame’ anyone for the current US centric state of professional men’s golf then point the finger at Tiger.

He didn’t deliberately cause the upheaval we see today nor the global shifts in power in the game of the last two decades but all of those things have happened because of him.

(The subtle difference between the two concepts in that last sentence will be lost on some and I may avoid Facebook and Twitter for the rest of the day for that reason. If you need me and have my email or number, that might be the best way to get in touch for a while.)

For those still here, let’s take these things one by one and see if we can’t find some more nuanced reasons why the game finds itself where it is today.

RIGHT: Tiger didn't intentionally set out to change the global state of golf, but he certainly did. PHOTO: Patrick Smith/Getty Images.

There is a famous line in the movie All The Presidents Men which has proven universally true both before and since ‘Watergate’.

“Follow the money” means just that and in the case of golf that means Tiger and, by default, the PGA Tour.

And when the most money flows to the PGA Tour so, too, do the most players.

The often unspoken truth about the PGA Tour’s dominance is that it is home to virtually all the best players in the world for all sorts of reasons, the main one being money.

That means it has the biggest stars and when star power is the currency of tournament golf, guess who dominates?

If you’re old enough to remember Tigermania 1 and 2 you will recall the extraordinary amounts of cash that suddenly found their way into the professional game in America.

So enormous was Woods’ early appeal that a TV executive was famously overcome with excitement when he heard Tiger was playing an event his network was broadcasting and jumped into a swimming pool.

(There is some debate about Tiger’s direct impact versus a more general explosion of money in US sport during the same period, but it would be naïve to think he had no bearing on increasing purses.)

"The truth is that if you want to ‘blame’ anyone for the current US centric state of professional men’s golf then point the finger at Tiger. He didn’t deliberately cause the upheaval we see today nor the global shifts in power in the game of the last two decades but all of those things have happened because of him." - Rod Morri.

What is undeniable is that after Tiger turned professional in 1996, the PGA Tour became an increasingly attractive place to play no matter where in the world you hailed from.

Where once the European Tour was a legitimate second option and also the preferred path to professional golf for most outside America, the more direct route of the secondary US Tour started to become more popular.

Top European players were drawn to the larger purses on offer in the US and, by default, the European Tour became a tougher sell for sponsors.

Those who decry the strategic alliance between the DP World and PGA Tours are perhaps underestimating just how difficult present day PGA Tour purses are to ‘compete’ with.

Tournament golf is built around stars and the biggest stars – including those from Europe –are now firmly ensconced on the US stage playing weekly for money all but unfeasible in any other part of the world. Or – importantly – with any other fields.

To get them to travel anywhere – including here to Australia – requires more than a golf course and a tournament.

There is no malice in this on the part of the PGA Tour. It is simply a result of market forces. And if the DP World Tour suddenly offered exactly equal prize money to the PGA Tour it is still doubtful they would attract 50 percent of the top players for all sorts of other reasons including travel, tax, scheduling and lifestyle. The same is true for Australia.

It has been the reality for many years that the European Tour has been a feeder Tour for the PGA Tour and formalising that arrangement to make the transition easier for their top-10 players each year makes sense.

The second part of this puzzle is the bit that rightly upsets people and that is that the PGA Tour seem yet to grasp the notion they have a responsibility to the game beyond US shores.

International players have added, and continue to add, greatly to the appeal of the PGA Tour

and some acknowledgement of that via support for circuits in other parts of the world (selfishly, I think predominantly of Australia) would go some way to correcting that perception.

Would PGA Tour Australasia, similar to Latin America and Canada, be a bad thing for the game here? Or the PGA Tour in the long run?

Lots to ponder there but shifting the narrative from ‘things aren’t as good as they were in the past’ to ‘how might we build something better and more sustainable for the future’ is surely a more productive way forward.