Roundtable: Our Writers Discuss Phil Mickelson Saga, Off-Record Interviews, What's Next

Phil Mickelson's comments about the Saudi golf league, and his subsequent statement, have the golf world reeling. Our writers weigh in on the controversy, how to handle off-the-record interviews and where Phil should go from here.

It’s been less than a week since the excerpt from Alan Shipnuck’s upcoming Phil Mickelson biography was first published, and Mickelson has been embroiled in controversy ever since. His comments about the upstart Saudi league – from admitting his own involvement, to acknowledging Saud atrocities and brushing them aside in order to gain leverage on the PGA Tour – have left Mickelson reeling. He has lost sponsors, and in a statement released Tuesday, said he would be taking time away from golf to re-evaluate. We convened a roundtable of our writers to assess how Phil got here, and what his next moves should be.

What has most surprised you about the Mickelson saga so far?

Bob Harig: The strong rhetoric. It’s one thing to criticize the Tour. It’s quite another to be so rancorous about it. “Obnoxious greed.” Going scorched earth on media rights. Phil might have some legitimate gripes but it sure seemed to be over the top. Especially when you consider the platform the Tour has provided him for 30 years.

Mike Purkey: That there’s a saga in the first place. This never should have happened. Mickelson has always considered himself the smartest guy in the room but his track record says he’s the dumbest smart guy in golf. He thought if he convinced enough players that the Tour was withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of what should be their money, they would revolt and threaten to leave the Tour. He thought he could play both ends and wound up the only one who got squeezed. He’s supposed to be smarter than that.

Alex Miceli: That he was arrogant enough to say these comments to a reporter. You figure he knows better, but he needed to feed his ego.

Jeff Ritter: Every Mickelson story over the past week has packed a surprise. The Tour's "obnoxious greed." The Saudi bombshell. Even his statement Tuesday was stunningly light on apologies or contrition. He just keeps digging himself into a deeper hole. 

Gary Van Sickle: It's shocking that Phil's comments prompted the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. I didn't know he had that kind of juice. 

Is money the only reason Mickelson decided to engage with the Saudis? Or is there something bigger?

Miceli: Like Greg Norman, Mickelson has always felt the PGA Tour was hiding information from the players. He feels the need to stick it to the Tour, so while money is important, the ability to say he took the Tour down is a big part of his motivation.

Van Sickle: It's money and all that goes with it -- endorsement deals, TV opportunities, branding. Phil is looking at not being as competitive on the PGA Tour (despite that miracle PGA Championships last year) and while he can win a bunch on the senior circuit, the money there is maybe one-third of the PGA Tour and the prestige and exposure is one-tenth. The Saudi golf league could've been, or still could be, worth tens of millions to Phil, maybe even $100 million over a year or two. No matter how rich you are, $100 mil will get your attention.

Purkey: He wants us to believe it was something bigger, that professional golf is fundamentally broken and he’s the only one to save it. It’s grandiose thinking at the very least, pathological at worst. Or was it just a ruse? The bottom line is the bottom line – he was trying to get as much money as possible for himself as quickly as possible.

Ritter: I think Phil enjoyed the opportunity to pressure the Tour into making some changes, but there are too many zeros in the rumored dollar figures to assume anything else was Phil's main motivator.

Harig: It’s the main reason but not the only reason. Phil has long believed that the star players are shunned at the expense of the rank and file. And he clearly has thought the Tour is not as transparent as it needs to be. But let’s be honest: the kind of money being discussed… it’s hard to look past it as a big reason.

Mickelson’s comments directly led to Dustin Johnson and Bryson DeChambeau publicly pledging fealty to the PGA Tour, and taking themselves out of the Saudi rumors. Rory McIlroy declared the SGL "dead in the water." The Saudi league has clearly had a bad week. Is there any way this rival golf league can continue?

Miceli: Absolutely. They have billions. If they are committed to spend it and are willing to wait it out they will not only continue, they will eventually win.

Van Sickle: Maybe. League czar Greg Norman has to cough up details -- dates, sites, purses -- and start playing. As soon as your Billy Horschel-types see Padraig Harrington and Adam Scott cashing $20 million in winner's checks, they might change their tunes. But the league's only chance is to quit yapping and start playing.

Harig: Patience is the key. LIV Golf and the Saudi backers have an endless supply of money if they see fit to continue. Some aspects of what they want to do are intriguing. Some guys will want to cash in. If it ever gets started, they can take their time luring more players. 

Ritter: It was recently reported that LIV Golf injected $300 million into the Asian Tour. Has it been spent? I think we're still early in the Saudi/PGA Tour showdown.

Purkey: Not unless the Saudis are content with Mickelson, Ian Poulter, Lee Westwood, Adam Scott, Henrik Stenson and Jason Kokrak. All but Kokrak are beyond their prime and it’s difficult to see how the Saudis could spend millions of dollars on something no one will watch.

In his statement, Mickelson claimed he made his remarks to Shipnuck off the record. Do you buy that explanation? How do you handle on-the-record vs. off-the-record discussions in your own interviews, and have you ever had a misunderstanding that angered a source?

Harig: This is real world not Journalism 101. I have every reason to believe Alan handled this by the book. Phil never said it was off the record. He probably did not say so after the fact. That gives Alan every right to go with it. 

But here’s where the real world enters. I read those words and can’t believe he would say that on the record. Especially the Saudi stuff. It just makes no sense. So my thought is Phil believes he was just riffing. And that’s all on him.

This sort of thing has happened numerous times. Do you let him off the hook? No. But you make it clear what he said was on the record. If he pushes back, you need to explain that you want to use parts or all or some version. If it waters it down? So be it. At least if you want to ever have a relationship with him or trust of others.

But here is the bottom line with Phil: he is well versed in media dealings. He should have made it clear the conversation was off the record if he didn’t want it used. 

Van Sickle: I've never had a problem. Also never had anyone claim I misquoted them or taken comments out of context. If you're an athlete hanging out with a journalist, you should probably assume the "microphone" is always on. Just in case you say something too good not to use.

Purkey: In my experience, off the record must be explicit and agreed upon by both parties. Which is why I’ve never had a problem. Some journalists play fast and loose with off-the-record and so do sources. No one ever got into trouble for saying “this is off the record” loud enough for both parties to hear it.

Miceli: Yes, even Phil Mickelson can’t be this stupid. He’s known Shipnuck for years. It makes no sense for Mickelson to say these things on the record.

Ritter: Shipnuck and Mickelson know each other well -- they're both West Coasters who arrived on the pro golf scene at about the same time. I worked with Alan for about a decade, and I'm certain he made clear to Phil that he was writing a book. And then Phil unexpectedly called him, looking to talk about this one issue. Phil probably hung up feeling great that he got to air it out, only to be horrified a few months later once he saw how his words appeared on the page. If you're going off the record, it needs to be made clear at the start of a conversation, and if it was made clear, Shipnuck would certainly not use it. Phil's been around long enough to know the rules of the game, as well. 

Also in his statement, Mickelson mentions "pressure and stress" of the past 10 years "slowly affecting me at a deeper level." And that he "desperately needs some time away." What do you think all that means?

Van Sickle: Translation: I said some dumb things but instead of admitting the magnitude of my blunder, I'm going to lay low and let it blow over until the Masters, where I will unfortunately not have time to take questions from the media.

Harig: That is difficult to figure out. Money issues? Family issues? It’s just speculating, really.

Ritter: I don't know what it means, but he's giving himself some time away from the course to sort it out.

Miceli: It’s what they call in contract law, puffery. It’s Mickelson being Mickelson.

Purkey: Obviously, something is happening in his life that we don’t know about, which has led him to take action this drastic. Does it necessitate him putting his hands on a lot of money very quickly? Those are certainly the whispers. Ironically, he’s going to lose a great deal of money as a result, when sponsors start falling like dominoes and all his off-the-course income dries up. Some are suggesting it was not his decision to take "time away" from the Tour, which does not announce suspensions.

Has Mickelson burned his bridges with the PGA Tour and his fellow players? Where does he go from here?

Harig: He can start by directing an apology to the PGA Tour and commissioner Jay Monahan. He had not done that. He can perhaps explain his motives in measured times. Take ownership of what was right and wrong. And then get back to playing golf and moving on. And if he wants to join the new league, go ahead. Will that be enough? Only time will tell. 

Purkey: If you’ll notice in his statement, he said not one word about apologizing or making amends with the Tour and the players. He is approaching pariah status, if he’s not already there. Which means no Ryder Cup captaincy and no television job. If the Saudi league is dead, so is Mickelson’s career.

Ritter: His fellow players should be thrilled -- the PGA Tour is reportedly overhauling its fall schedule to be more player-friendly, adding prize money to its purses and boosting the PIP bonus, among other changes. Much of that stems from the threat of the rival Saudi league, so the players should thank Phil for his role in that. As for fans, everyone loves a comeback story, and Phil is unquestionably a fan favorite. If he returns at Augusta, I'd expect him to be cheered louder than ever. 

Van Sickle: They aren't burnt bridges but they are bridges over troubled waters. Phil's anti-Tour comments may actually benefit his fellow players if the Tour responds, as some rumors say, with increased purses and some inventive fall events, possibly including team events such as what the Super League was planning. If every PGA Tour event bumps its first prize from a little over $1 mill to $2.5 mill, it won't be an accident. It'll be because of the Super League and, in his own way, Phil. Was Phil simply being greedy? When it's someone else, it's greedy. When it's you, it's a "business decision." Eye of the beholder.

Miceli: Yes. Time heals all, if you let it. The question is, will Mickelson let it?