by
It has been suggested that the upcoming presidential election could shape the future of golf’s civil war.
The sport has been controversial since LIV Golf, funded by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, launched a breakaway league and began poaching players from the PGA and DP World Tours.
In June 2023, a framework agreement to unite the rival factions was announced. Since then, talks have dragged on about a potential deal that would see PIF pump more than $1 billion into the PGA Tour.
The political reaction to a deal could reportedly depend on who wins the election between Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump next month.
According to legal experts quoted by The Athletic, the two candidates for the White House would likely take different approaches to a future settlement.
PIF Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan (l.) talks with PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan (r.)
The goal, outlined by PGA Tour CEO Jay Monahan and PIF Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan, was to “reunify the world of men’s professional golf.”
But Monahan’s claim that the deal would “take the competitor off the table” sparked antitrust concerns, and The Athletic claimed “the red flags raised by the DOJ (Department of Justice) have not gone away.”
The next administration will reportedly have the power to “dictate the DOJ’s priorities,” and experts believe the likelihood of a merger is much greater should Trump win.
The Republican candidate hosted a series of LIV golf events and previously urged golfers to “take the money” from the Saudi-funded spinoff. The PIF also reportedly invested $2 billion in his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s private equity firm.
Brooks Koepka and Rory McIlroy are among the stars caught up in the sport’s civil war
In addition, the former president “was never particularly respectful of anti-competitive regulations,” they say.
It is believed that Harris, on the other hand, would stay in line with the Biden administration. Under this regime, the DOJ was reportedly reluctant to restrict competition in other industries.
“I don’t think the DOJ will be comfortable with the combination of those two,” one expert told The Athletic.
Only the courts, not a president, can decide whether a merger is illegal, but administrations can influence whether a deal is challenged.
Once a settlement is presented, the DOJ begins examining whether there are any antitrust violations.
