[Photo: LIV Golf]
Whatever your position on LIV Golf, it is increasingly difficult to argue its arrival hasn’t been positive for professional golf in Australia.
LIV Golf Adelaide delivered something Australian golf had been searching for: scale, relevance and genuine mainstream theatre. More than 400,000 people attended across four years, major international players returned to Australia and, through Ripper GC, Australian fans had a home team. Not to mention a great boost for the South Australian economy.
For a country that produces extraordinary players, boasts some of the world’s best courses and has a huge participation base, Australia’s position on the international professional calendar had been steadily diminishing.
LIV changed that equation.
It also created something Australian golf hadn’t enjoyed for years: leverage.
Competition forced the established tours to respond. Prizemoney increased, tournament structures changed and players gained greater influence. Most importantly for Australia, another organisation was prepared to invest heavily in bringing elite professional golf here.
But professional golf continues to change rapidly.
Golf Australia’s alignment with the PGA Tour and DP World Tour has raised questions, particularly given its evolving relationship with LIV. Yet CEO James Sutherland and his board should be judged fairly.
If the PGA Tour presented Golf Australia with a credible opportunity to elevate the Australian Open, increase prizemoney and strengthen international pathways, what should Sutherland have done?
Take the opportunity, or wait and hope something better emerged?
Questions still remain around Golf Australia’s PGA Tour agreement. How long does it run? How much money is actually being committed? What guarantees exist around player participation? And what has Australian golf committed in return?
RELATED: LIV Golf has filed for bankruptcy, but what does that really mean?
The Presidents Cup is undoubtedly valuable, but it should also be remembered that government pays substantially to bring the event here. Sources have suggested the 2028 edition will cost the Victorian taxpayer circa $20 million. That shouldn’t automatically be characterised as direct
PGA Tour investment into Australian golf. Far from it – Australia is paying a significant price for the privilege of hosting it. Ironically the eveny will be run by Tennis Australia.
Australian golf doesn’t hold the commercial chips of the AFL, NRL or cricket. It cannot manufacture billion-dollar broadcast deals, guarantee the world’s top 20 players will come here every summer or create unlimited sponsorship dollars.
Sometimes taking a good deal when it is available is simply smart business.
The question isn’t necessarily whether Golf Australia made the wrong decision. It’s whether Australian golf can continue to play both sides of the fence, maintaining a strong relationship with the PGA Tour and DP World Tour while continuing to embrace and take funds from LIV and Ripper GC with the MY Golf partnership.
And, perhaps more importantly, will the PGA Tour ultimately allow Golf Australia to do that?
And that question has become more interesting because LIV itself is changing.
LIV Golf 1.0 has effectively entered the restructuring stage it needed to go through if it was ever going to develop into a sustainable long-term business model. The extraordinary spending of its establishment phase successfully disrupted professional golf, but disruption alone doesn’t create sustainability.
The next phase, LIV 2.0, needs to.
The recently announced additional $250 USD million commitment suggests LIV’s owners aren’t preparing to quietly disappear. Sources are telling us that figure could reach as high as $600-750m USD when the funding round finishes, and maybe higher But money alone won’t determine whether LIV 2.0 succeeds.
Its success will ultimately depend on the players and the playing field. To date, golfers are the most overpaid athletes on the planet but with the golf business model stretched across all tours, that will change. It needs to.
LIV needs the players people genuinely want to watch, competing against a field deep enough to create sporting credibility and compelling competition. Get that right and the product has every chance. Get it wrong and no amount of money will solve the fundamental problem.
And if LIV 2.0 does get off the ground successfully, Adelaide will remain its marquee global event and be the first choice when they are putting pins in the map.
But perhaps the bigger point is that Australian golf needs LIV.
It needs an organisation prepared to invest in bringing world-class players to this country. It needs competition in the professional golf market. And it needs a product capable of taking golf to an audience traditional tournament golf has often struggled to reach.
LIV Adelaide has demonstrated that there is a substantial under-40 audience attracted to golf presented differently, the teams, music, atmosphere, shorter format and festival-style experience. They may not all be traditional golf fans, and that’s precisely the point.
Golf in Australia should want those people inside the gates. Traditional golf is far from a spectator friendly sport.
The challenge for our sport isn’t simply looking after the audience it already has. It’s creating the next one. If LIV can introduce tens of thousands of younger Australians to professional golf, create new fans and ultimately encourage more people to engage with the game, Australian golf is better for it.
That doesn’t mean everything about LIV 1.0 worked. Clearly it didn’t, which is why the restructuring and evolution towards a more sustainable LIV 2.0 is so important.
But Australia should want it to succeed.
Strong Australian Opens (men’s and women’s) and a thriving LIV Adelaide are good for the Australian golf fan.
The game in this country is better with LIV as part of it, and Australian golf should be hoping LIV 2.0 succeeds.
Their PGA Tour alignment may prove inspired. Equally, if LIV 2.0 succeeds, we may need to play both sides equally. Our partners should know that.
Australian golf is arguably strongest when two powerful organisations want our market rather than one.
This shouldn’t be about whether LIV wins or the PGA Tour wins.
The only result that really matters is whether Australian golf wins, and on that, time will tell.
