The US Government Delves Into PGA-LIV Merger

BLEAV PGA LIV Norman Monahan(1)
BLEAV Sports with Fred and The Fantastics
BLEAV Sports with Fred and The Fantastics
The US Government Delves Into PGA-LIV Merger

With so many details that have not yet come to light, the questions over the proposed merger of the PGA and LIV and the scope of how this would change the sports landscape have spurred several Federal investigations into the propriety of such a relationship. A bipartisan congressional hearing has been scheduled for July 11, with both golf organizations “requested” to appear, but they will likely be subpoenaed if they do not voluntarily attend. The Justice Dept has opened an investigation into whether or not any antitrust violations are occurring and if the joining of these two organizations is creating a monopoly. Will the government have a role in how, or if, this deal comes to pass?

Jay Monahan mentioned changing circumstances when he gave the reasons for his surprise decision reversal to join the LIV. It has been reported that he is suffering from ill health, the severity of which is unknown at this point. Could his concerns about his ability to carry on in his role as commissioner have been the catalyst for his about-face?

LIV CEO Greg Norman, one of those called to testify in front of Congress, initially disapproved of the agreement to join the two organizations. What part, if any, did he play in bringing this merger about? Will that have any bearing on what level of current responsibility will be attributed to him?

Is Saudia Arabia looking to mitigate its negative reputation by sports-washing and trying to rehabilitate its image on the world stage? Are there rules in sports regulating the acceptance of money from nations and governments that have autocratic rulers and dubious human rights practices? Haven’t some partnerships already occurred between other countries and sports organizations? Does a dire shortage of money justify taking funds from whatever source makes an offer? Would taking that money undercut the very groups being subjected to human rights violations in these countries, or would the promise of financial solvency and pay parity outweigh the morality? Are there any grey areas for these situations, or is it all black and white?

Email Fred, Art, Mark (and Matthew) with questions and comments at