This U.S. Open Has the Largest Purse in Major Championship History, But That's Nothing to Brag About
LOS ANGELES — When hearing Wednesday that the purse for the 123rd U.S. Open is $20 million—a record for major championship golf—you must wonder what lunatic made that decision.
And then wonder: is this best for the game and/or even sustainable?
A history of the U.S. Open purse is illuminating.
Fifty years ago in 1973, when Johnny Miller won the national open at Oakmont Country Club after shooting 63 in the final round, the golden boy from California pocketed $35,000 from a purse of $219,400.
Just seven years ago, in 2016, the U.S. Open purse was half of this year's, at $10 million.
Adjusted for inflation, the 1973 purse is $1,502,826 and the 2016 purse is $12,671,589 in today's dollars.
Why raise the purse exponentially higher than inflation?
“I think in general for us, we want this to be big,” USGA CEO Mike Whan said. “We want this to be big for you. We want this to be big for the fans. We want this to be big for the players. We have to find the right balance of bigness.”
Whan sounded more like a carnival barker than the CEO of a major sports property.
Yet he is running a business and his business is dependent largely on a successful U.S. Open, since the Open funds most everything the USGA does during the year, from holding other championships to turfgrass research, plus many programs and projects in between.
But does the purse need to move that high this quickly, a 100% jump in just seven years?
“It wouldn't stop me from playing a major, but at the same time the major championships basically rent the talent for a week from the PGA Tour, and you could argue from LIV and wherever, DP World Tour and wherever else,” Rory McIlroy said two weeks ago at the Memorial when asked if he'd play if major purses leveled or declined.
“So, the major championships aren't going to be the product that they are without the top players in the world. So, would that mean that I would, or anyone would go to the lengths of not playing a major championship to make a point? No.”
But McIlroy would ask for a reasonable conversation with the governing bodies and the people that run the majors and try to come up with a solution.
Not sure what solution could be found when one or more majors can’t financially sustain an arms race.
Whan said in his press conference on Wednesday at the Los Angeles Country Club that they were pretty full from a partnership perspective, having limited partners and only adding new ones as others go away.
Translation: the money now coming into USGA coffers is relatively set and new money is not likely on the horizon.
“We have a business just like you have a business, and if you're going to spend more on a purse you're going to spend less on other things, and we made that choice,” Whan said. “A year ago or maybe two years ago we announced essentially doubling the purse on the U.S. Women's Open, and we knew that was a choice and we had to come up with some solutions.”
Today, Whan and his executive committee seemingly feel great about the purse and size of the event.
And while Whan understands the purses can be relative, to be big they must understand what else is going on in the world.
“We're not in a chase to be the biggest check, but we want to make sure that the money and the opportunity here, whether they're a Tour player, college player, amateur, how they got here, that's still part of the bigness, and we believe it is,” Whan said.
Now the question is, when does the level of financial commitment become unsustainable and will they be able to back down when it does?
Majors are the most precious commodity in professional golf, needing to be cherished and not financially overtaxed by bloated purses.
Players have enough money and an $18 million purse should have been enough for 2023.
Just think what an additional $2 million could have done for one of the numerous programs the USGA funds.