The legal controversy between LIV Golf (LIV) and the PGA Tour (Tour)—two leagues for elite men’s golfers—could reshape professional golf. It could also spark lasting questions about the exclusivity of professional sports leagues’ relationships with their athletes. The controversy began in 2022, when LIV Golf was launched. Funded by the Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (PIF) and its $676 billion in assets, LIV recruited some of the Tour’s top golfers. LIV offered more lucrative compensation and guaranteed payments. In response, the Tour suspended and fined golfers who joined LIV. The Tour reasoned that those golfers signed membership contracts with the Tour, and those contracts stated the Tour must grant permission before they can join another league. On August 3, 2022, a prominent golfer, Phil Mickelson, and ten other suspended golfers sued the PGA Tour in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.1 They alleged the PGA Tour has violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act2 by adopting membership and competition rules that deny opportunities for non-PGA Tour play. As the golfers see it, the PGA Tour maintains an illegal monopsony by possessing too much control over where elite golfers can market their services.3 That same day, three of the plaintiffs, Talor Gooch, Hudson Swafford, and Matt Jones, sought a temporary restraining order that would have permitted them to play in the Tour’s FedEx Cup Playoffs, a three-tournament competition.4 The golfers argued playing in the FedEx Cup was crucial for earning Official World Golf Ranking points, which are unavailable in LIV play, and they would suffer irreparable harm if denied entry. In an opinion dated August 10, 2022, District Judge Beth Labson Freeman was not persuaded, finding the golfers failed to show any harm, reparable or irreparable. She stressed LIV offered “large upfront payments” and other monetary value that eclipsed what the golfers earned on the Tour and, in a blow to a potential finding of irreparable harm, LIV’s own expert acknowledged a calculation to financially compensate for the rankings impact.5 As the summer of 2023 approaches, the case is nowhere near a resolution. An initial trial date of January 8, 2024, has been postponed to May 17, 2024, and could face further delays due to disputes over pretrial discovery. The delay is disappointing for LIV, which argues it can’t viably compete for elite golfers while the Tour (allegedly) suppresses competition.6 The parties have changed considerably too. LIV joined as a plaintiff, and all but three of the golfers—Jones, Peter Uihlein, and Bryson DeChambeau—dismissed their claims against the Tour. The Tour, meanwhile, filed a counterclaim against LIV for tortious interference with contract, alleging the league induced Tour golfers to breach their contracts. The Tour also brought counterclaims against the PIF and its governor, Yasir Othman Al-Rumayyan, who the Tour contends is calling LIV’s shots. (Al-Rumayyan holds the rank of “minister” in the Saudi government and is called by the honorific “His Excellency” in Saudi Arabia, and in U.S. court documents.) Judge Freeman ordered the PIF and Al-Rumayyan to comply with subpoenas in New York. They currently seek an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, insisting they enjoy sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.7 The UNH Sports Law Review panel on this dispute features a dynamic group of speakers with important and varied insights.
