The lawyer in me has two questions about this week’s stunning announcement that the PGA Tour and LIV Golf are merging. The ethicist in me has one.
I wonder, first, what is going to happen to the players who rejected the Saudi-backed LIV tour and stayed loyal to the PGA. After all, many of them left millions — in some cases tens of millions — on the table. Now they are being told that the rivals are creating what the parties themselves call “a new, collectively owned, for-profit entity.”
Maybe the umbrella organization that is now going to govern the sport should prioritize making up for some of the largesse the players missed because of their loyalty. Otherwise, the new entity might face lawsuits by golfers who believe they were hoodwinked by the PGA and left millions of dollars on the table. Maybe the merger deal would turn out to include a clause setting aside a big pot of money — that formerly tainted and untouchable Saudi cash — for distribution to those who refused to switch.
Illustration: Tania Chou
I know, I know: Typically the economic cost of bad predictions about the future lie quite properly on those who made them. Here, however, the players who rebuffed LIV’s advances have a reasonable case that they were misled.
Second lawyerly thought: Remember that pesky antitrust lawsuit filed in September last year by Phil Mickelson and other pros who had defected to LIV? The complaint alleged that the PGA Tour’s restrictions on play in unsanctioned events was an illegal use of monopsony power, and that its punishment of players who signed with LIV was forbidden “anticompetitive conduct.”
At the time, I wrote that the lawsuit, together with scrutiny by federal regulators, would force the PGA to cave on the effort to ban players who had signed with LIV. However, like everyone else, I never imagined that we would get the O. Henry ending of a merger.
Why not?
Because the merger, too, raises antitrust questions. For instance, would LIV and PGA remain competitors? Or might they come up with some rule that spells out how many tournaments players may (must?) compete in for each? Because if they do not bid against each other, player incomes might actually tumble. After all, the only reason LIV has had to offer so much money is that it is trying to pry pros away from the PGA.
Small wonder that federal authorities reportedly plan to scrutinize the merger. Until about five minutes ago, the feds were investigating the PGA for — well, pretty much the same stuff that Mickelson and his fellow plaintiffs alleged in their suit. Now that the PGA has waved the white flag and agreed to create an umbrella group alongside LIV, authorities are going to look into that too.
True, professional golf has survived antitrust examination before, going all the way back to the 1930s. The last serious threat — an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission during the administration of then-US president Bill Clinton that led to a staff recommendation to take action — died in 1995 under intense pressure from Capitol Hill.
Things are different now. As one observer has said, should Pepsi and Coke undertake a joint venture, we would expect the antitrust folks to be interested. If that sentence makes you wonder how the National Football League and the American Football League got away with their 1966 merger, Congress passed a special antitrust exemption. That is not likely to happen this time around, and not only because we are a long way from the Clinton era. The other reason is the Saudi money in the picture, which is the cause of this week’s outraged commentary suggesting that the PGA has sold whatever is left of its soul.
Which leads to my ethical question: Why is anybody surprised that the PGA decided to go for the money? It is a business, and the televised events are marketed to a small but, ahem, rather exclusive clientele. It is no accident that two of the three companies with the greatest number of sponsorship deals with individual golfers are Rolex and NetJets.
The PGA wants to maximize profit, and it is betting that the outrage will fade and the fans will stay.
Do not get me wrong. I am not saying a company cannot draw any ethical lines. Moreover, I have long taken the view that those in the public eye — including professional athletes — carry a special responsibility to comport themselves in ways we would want others to emulate.
However, the PGA is not irrational to bet that golf fans would keep watching. After all, on the very day the merger was announced, the US Department of State was busy trumpeting “eight decades of partnership” with Saudi Arabia and billions in technology, energy and defense deals.
So when the Los Angeles Times denounced the deal as “a stunning act of hypocrisy unmatched even in the mercenary world of professional sports,” I find myself constrained to disagree. Admitting that they are in it for the money is not hypocrisy. It is the truth.
Stephen Carter, a professor of law at Yale University, is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS