The European Tour CEO is an ‘ideas man’. Here, he discusses a wide range of topics including the distance debate, the inevitability of a World Tour, appearance money and his wish to add the Australian Open to the European schedule.
Where does the Tour stand on the contentious issue of how far the ball goes at professional level? If the R&A and the USGA do eventually act on that, will you be okay with whatever they do?
We will continue to have discussions with the R&A and the USGA. We don’t have all the information at this particular time. But we will certainly give our thoughts and opinions. And whatever we collectively agree upon, we will pull on that rope.
What is your own feeling on this subject?
I’ll let you know when I have all the information.
Isn’t one consequence of how far your members can hit the ball the loss of some iconic venues? Sunningdale and the Kings course at Gleneagles come to mind. They have both provided enormous entertainment over the years but are now deemed to be obsolete. Hasn’t the quality of your product been hit by distance gains?
They are both excellent courses. But there are so many out there. So I wouldn’t concur that the quality of our courses has suffered. However, I do believe that 8,000-yard courses are not things I would like to see. But as to what the final solution is, I will defer to the R&A and the USGA.
So you’ll be okay with whatever they do?
I hope we come up with a collective decision. One we can all buy into.
Let’s talk about the Vic Open that now includes both men and women playing alongside each other. Is this something you would look to do more of going forward?
The Vic Open was just another of the different formats we have brought to our Tour. They have all brought a lot of interest. It was a good event, a good test event. The biggest challenge for us in Australia is having two strong, sustainable, viable tournaments for a long period of time so that we can grow them and build them.
The country is so vast you can still have a four-hour flight between events. But that’s ok, because we have to travel so far to get there. And that is why, in a perfect world, we’d love to have the Australian Open and the PGA – and maybe one other – back-to-back-back there. What we can’t do is have just one event at the end of such a long journey.
We have funded a commercial director in Australia along with the Australasian Tour, but it comes down to government and regional funding.
The Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, is a complete golf tragic. You should be all over him.
What they are really interested in is a mega-superstar event. They would love to have a Dunhill Links-style event. But in order to make that work, they would need every top Australian player to come back and embrace it. That’s a massive commitment. Think about how long it takes to fly from, say, Orlando to Melbourne. Not many people are going to do that for just one week.
We found that when we put on a plane to take players from the British Masters to the US PGA this year. It was in New York, which was fine. But it would have been very different if the PGA had been in Los Angeles. That almost doubles the flying time and makes a significant difference to a player’s decision.
So yes, Australia is a magnificent country. It has great courses and great support. But it is a long way to go.
Still, you are not dismissing the concept of playing with the women, given that you are going to have a similar event in Sweden next summer. Albeit there are only 75 men and 75 women taking part.
That’s true. The interesting thing about that is that, when we took the idea to the tournament committee, I was wondering how they would react to us, in effect, taking away 75 playing opportunities for our members. But Sweden is the perfect place for this particular tournament. We want to showcase inclusivity. We believe it is very good from a commercial perspective, having women play with men. But it remained an interesting decision for us.
How many “different” events can you have in any season? How many is too many? How many is not enough?
That’s a great question. And how many different formats are there? I believe we should try most things even if, in the end, some don’t really work out. For example, I strongly believe in “Golf Sixes.” But we haven’t rolled it out with the proper investment. I still believe it has a significant role in creating a carnival-like atmosphere, which is our key growth initiative for the game.
There are 100 72-hole tournaments ever year. But there is a great challenge for our global industry. You can accuse of having the wrong “double-C.” Which means we have consumer confusion as opposed to consumer clarity as an industry.
What I mean is, what tournaments are really, really important. We made the Rolex Series important. They are important events. They are important from a Ryder Cup points perspective. That’s why we made the qualifying period start and finish at the BMW PGA Championship. Consumers are looking for events that are important. Saturation of choice right now is at an all-time high. There is so much content out there, on so many different platforms.
So what is critical going forward – for any industry, but especially in sports – is complete consumer clarity.
As far as how many is too many and how many is not enough is concerned, I think we need to select a couple of key formats that we see as having the best chance of being successful. Then build on them.
What sort of feedback have you had from the players? What have they liked and not liked?
It will be fascinating to see the reaction to the Scandinavian Mixed. Because it is so different. It will be interesting to see how the leaderboard works and if there is a good mix up there.
I’m smiling here. Because you are very good at not actually answering the question.
(laughs) Okay. Everyone who has played Golf Sixes liked it, despite being very hesitant going in. But they all loved it. Because it is fun. Sport is supposed to be fun and entertaining.
There was a mixed reaction to the Super Sixes. The format was fine. But players did not like the play-off being a shoot-out on a pitch hole.
Look, we all love the game. We all love the traditional game. I love playing 18-holes. However, if you take what we all love, you also have to understand that it has to change. There have to be variations. If you keep the words that Keith Waters – our Chief Operating Officer – you will be okay. Every event has to be credible, yet entertaining.
That’s why we don’t have a five-club event on Tour.
You should have. That would be great. Every club in the country has one of those ever year.
I know. But it is credible for the pros? It’s an interesting question.
Absolutely. Go for it. We’d see some shot-making.
Fine. When we announce the five-club challenge, I expect a glowing review from you.
You’ll get one. You have my word. Anyway, let’s move on. You once said your aim was to make the European Tour a “viable alternative” to the PGA Tour. How close are you to that?
That was what I said early in my tenure. But I would now change the word “alternative” to “difference.” We’re definitely viable. But we are a different Tour with a different offering. We want our players to be global players and we embrace the fact that they play on both Tours. We recognise the fact that, with three majors in the US surrounded by big events, it is fair that players want to be over there at that time of year. If we had three majors in Europe, it would be different.
If I am totally candid, every golfer aspires to play in the majors. There is no debate about that. But the fundamental question – which I never hear – is, if we started golf right now, what would a new Tour look like?
The four majors would be different.
True. If the game was to be truly global. And if our piece of paper was really blank, every round would be only, say, 12 holes. So the game would be quicker.
Is appearance money good or bad for the European Tour?
I don’t understand the question.
Well, do the advantages of paying appearance money outweigh the implication that your events are somehow inferior and so have to pay stars to appear?
The reality is that, outside of the four majors and a few other events like this week at the DP World, or the BMW PGA Championship, or the Scottish and Irish Opens, appearance money is a way of life on every Tour. That is reality.
So it’s not a battle worth fighting?
No. I don’t fight that battle in any way. We as a Tour don’t pay appearance fees. The promoters do.
Is there any pressure put on your television commentators to cheerlead more than they should? I know guys who commentate – experts on the game – who feel restricted in what they can and cannot say.
Our guys?
Yes. And that is typical everywhere.
I don’t put any pressure on them in that way. What I believe is that journalistic integrity, because of my background in media, must always play a role. However, what we want the broadcast to be is informative and entertaining. That’s what we talk about. We want it to be a celebration of our game. I’m not sure I’d ever use the word “cheerlead,” but I do believe there needs to be more cheerleading in our sport in general. So I’m not sure it is such a bad thing.
Not always.
But if someone has pulled a five-foot putt and missed, the commentator needs to say that was a bad stroke. That, to me, is fine. I’d be shocked and disappointed if we ever told people what not to say. What we preach is more and more story-telling and more graphics. We want the pace to be quicker. We want more highlights of the beautiful places and diversity we have on our Tour. We want in-round interviews, which, while they are not cheerleading, they are not hard questions.
Nor should they be, mid-round. There’s a difference between broadcasting and journalism.
Correct. I think our world feed (which is what is heard in Australia) has improved dramatically. Its pace is better. It’s more entertaining. It’s more informative. There is more story-telling. But I personally would be surprised if anyone is told not to say “bad stroke” when one is made. Regardless of who it is.
Last question: I’m going to give you three wishes. What are they?
For the Tour?
Yes.
A year where all four majors are won by European Tour members.
A year when I am never asked, “what about the strength of your fields?” Is that too much to ask (laughs)?
And I’m having trouble with the third one … (long pause)
I’ve got it. I’d like to see a time when we, collectively and globally, come up with a message that emphases the strengths of our game, its unique components and a strategy how to best communicate that.
Are you talking about the game’s image? Golf is a fantastic game but its image is not always what it might be.
Here’s the reality. Golf is one of the most inclusive games of all-time. An 80-year old can play with an eight-year old. Women can play with men and compete. People with disabilities can play. I can play golf with anyone but I couldn’t play tennis with Rafa Nadal … even if I had the doubles court to hit into and he played left-handed.
He does play left-handed.
(laughs) Don’t put that in the interview!
Golf has great health benefits, too. It teaches life skills to the young. It teaches integrity and respect and emotional control. 73 percent of the wealth in the UK is owned by those over-50. People live longer. So golf has huge benefits for them. Golf can be something that can mitigate dementia. It helps with agility and balance. It helps fitness.
Is the golf club system fit for purpose in creating the environment you just described? So many of them have so many rules, so many “don’ts.” They exclude, not include.
It’s problematic. But things are changing. You can keep the tradition and respect in the game and still embrace millennials and ‘Gen-Zs.’ The former have attention spans of 12-seconds, the latter eight seconds. They are completely different. Their definition of “cool” is different from when the game was created.
“Things are changing. You can keep the tradition and respect in the game and still embrace millennials and ‘Gen-Zs.'” – Keith Pelley
Anyway, that’s my third wish. We should be anything but an elitist sport.
Ah … one last question. The 2022 Ryder Cup is heading to Italy. How are things looking?
We visited the Marco Simone course during the Italian Open this year. The course build was behind where we wanted it to be, but now we are ahead of schedule. It will open in time for the 2021 Italian Open, which will be played there.
The back-nine is done. It is a fantastic risk-and-reward course, perfect for match play. And it is an enormous facility, from where you can see the Basilica in Rome. The designers are now working on the front-nine. There is one great location for spectators. You see the drivable par-4. You overlook a par-3. A lot of thought went into that aspect. We want viewing to be as good as possible without people having to sit in a grandstand.
Post-Ryder Cup the course will be very playable for members too. Yes, it is easy to make it penal with rough. But with little or no rough it will be so much fun for all.
Related Articles
Huggan: Confident tours wouldn't be bothered by LIV Golf
Feature Story: Moving the Needle
