Is More Exclusivity the Right Play for the PGA Tour? Check Back After 2024
ORLANDO, Fla. — The most unexpected thing happened here Wednesday at the Arnold Palmer Invitational.
Greg Norman finally got a win. Kinda, sorta.
At least, that’s how it felt. Changes to the PGA Tour’s 2024 schedule, first reported by Golfweek, include turning all of the tour’s new elevated events into limited-field events with 70-80 players and no 36-hole cut.
Where have I heard that before? I remember two things from the ‘90s—Bill Clinton, the babe-magnet President, and Norman, who struck out twice in attempts to start his own world golf tour.
Strike One: In 1994, Norman announced that he was starting a world tour with eight tournaments, no cuts and $25 million in total purses for the world’s top-30 players. It was a so-called Super Tour. The 1994 Players Championship (which Norman won) had a total purse of only $2.5 million. But under pressure, the players who planned to jump ship with Norman disappeared.
Strike Two: In 1997, Norman proposed a world tour with 40 events, 200 players and $200 million in prize money. PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem warned that defectors would not be allowed back to the Tour. Norman’s swing set broke in half a second time.
The new-and-improved 2024 PGA Tour schedule sounds a lot like Norman’s ill-fated Super Tour. Piles of money for a select few. But it won’t benefit Norman. He’s the commissioner of rival LIV Golf, which pretty much caused these changes. This is what Alanis Morissette meant when she sang, “Isn’t it ironic?”
Here are some things worth noting about the new PGA Super Tour:
The unkindest cut: The main arguments against LIV players earning Official World Golf Ranking points for their tournaments are the small size of their fields (48), the lack of a 36-hole cut and the lack of a qualifying method to play on the tour.
When the PGA Tour turns its elevated events into no-cut events with 70-man fields—approximately one-third of its schedule will feature limited fields and no cuts, not that much different than LIV. If LIV’s lack of 36-hole cuts is so bad, why is the PGA Tour doing the same thing?
Beyond that, eliminating 50 to 75 players in elevated events who normally would have had 120- or 144-man fields eliminates 300 to 1,000 playing opportunities for those who are outside looking in at The Elevators (players who qualify for elevated-event fields).
The argument in favor of no cuts is making sure big names don’t miss the weekend. Although that sense of urgency on Friday has always, always, had big appeal on the meritocracy that is the PGA Tour.
“You ask Mastercard or whoever it is to pay $20 million for a golf event, they want to see the stars on the weekend,” said Rory McIlroy, one of the golf’s brightest stars. “They want a guarantee that the stars are there. So if that’s what needs to happen, then that’s what happens.”
McIlroy is right. Except that doesn’t explain how the PGA Tour managed to reach its current pinnacle despite not doing that all these years.
Ditto Max Homa, who joked that he got tired of having one of his buddies continually ask him if McIlroy, his buddy’s favorite player, was going to play on a given week. “It’s just like Rory said about Tom Brady, when he turns on a Bucs game, he knows he’s going to get to watch Tom Brady play football.”
That glass is half-full (of something): Homa believes the Super Tour limited-field events will help the non-elevated events because the players who don’t qualify for them, those who rank No. 70 and below, will (be forced to) play in more non-elevated events.
“The Tour had a problem in the sense that the top-50 players were playing against each other only 30 percent of the time week-in and week-out,” Homa said. “That was a deficiency. It’s not a good look that the only time you saw the best players in the world teeing it up against each other was the Players and the majors.
“It dilutes the other 42 weeks we play. A lot of weeks, you’re just hoping for a phenomenal leaderboard. Everyone out here is a tremendous golfer but we know fans have attached themselves to Rory, Jon Rahm, Scottie Scheffler, Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas. They’re household names, most of us are not.”
Homa makes an excellent point. That half-full glass looks half-empty from a different angle, however. Any tournament that isn’t elevated looks like a downgrade from the elevated events—like AAA baseball next to Major League Baseball. And even if everyone ranked from No. 71 through No. 141 signs up to play an event, that’s not going to sell tickets. If the current tour setup dilutes how many stars play on a given week, the new system guarantees stars for the 16 elite events and all-but-guarantees few or no stars for the unwashed non-elevated events. Is that a good trade-off? Maybe, maybe not.
Partially exempt, meet partially destroyed: One major perk for a player who wins a PGA Tour event is a two-year exemption (three years for a select few biggies). In the world of 2024 Tour golf, that will no longer be an unlimited exemption. A player who wins this season (2022-23) will still have to rank among the top 50 in FedEx Cup points to qualify for the lucrative elevated-event fields. His exemption is not a blanket. Players who win a ’24 tournament, however, will be exempt into elevated events for the rest of that year. Hence the new phrase, “partially exempt.” It’s not unlike comedian Jerry Seinfeld’s bit about the rental car company not having a car for him despite his reservation. “I know why we have reservations,” the car agent tells him. Seinfeld replies, “I don’t think you do. If you did, I’d have a car.”
Winners will still be exempt for non-elevated events, of course.
Closing time: On the surface, the new changes seem to make the PGA Tour into more of a closed shop. It may look like a money-grab by the players who are already the richest of the rich. That’s not necessarily untrue. When Deane Beman was commissioner and turned the PGA Tour from a shoestring into a billion-dollar baby, he ran the Tour from an equitable standpoint. The rules were for everyone, including the superstars, although the Tour would fudge a little for them.
Because of LIV threat, the PGA Tour has turned 180 degrees and is being run by, and for, the top players. They are now seen as the most important commodity, the overriding value, and the Tour is rearranging itself for them. And, to be more concise, for television, which is where all the stupid-big money numbers come from.
“The playoffs used to be 125 to 70 to 30 and this year they went from 70 to 50 to 30,” McIlroy said. “I’m all about rewarding good play. I want to give everyone a fair shake at this. There are ways to play into (elevated events). It’s just trying to get the top guys versus the hot guys. That creates a really compelling product.
“But you don’t have to wait an entire year for your good play to get the opportunity. You play well for two or three weeks, you’re in a designated event. If you keep playing well, you stay in them.”
The best finish in golf this year may have been last weekend’s Honda Classic, where Chris Kirk held off rookie Eric Cole in a thrilling playoff, with Monday qualifier Ryan Gerard in the hunt until the last few holes. Under the 2024 plan, none of those players would’ve gotten into an elevated Honda Classic field. But they might have advanced to the next elevated event with their finish. Still, PGA Tour 2.0 largely assures that such a potential Cinderella story will not happen in an elevated tournament.
McIlroy makes it sound as if it will be easy for a player to move up from AAA ball to Elevated Events, as easy as a fifth-place finish perhaps. Of course, that’s a fifth-place finish in a full field of 144 or more players. Not so easy.
Everything about this plan goes back to the response that stops any complaints about the PGA Tour’s structure: Just play better. You think the Tour is going to be a closed shop? Just play better, you can break through.
This whole reformation package is TV driven and LIV driven. When Tour player Patrick Cantlay talks, I listen. He is smart and usually succinct.
“In general, if a company or a product doesn’t have competition, the incentive to innovate is low,” he said. “With competition, it makes everyone look to see how they can make their product better. I think this accomplishes that. It’s going to make the Tour stronger and put an emphasis on those (elevated) weeks.”
I don’t disagree with Professor Cantlay. Capitalism wins out in the end. The Tour will definitely field a stronger product more often. Will that eventually lead to a smaller product? Fewer golfers chasing professional golf?
Check back after 2024, when golf may look surprisingly like a business model proposed in 1994.
No smirking, please.