Blog Post by Adrian Jubran, Junior Associate
Introduction
With leagues functioning internationally and athletes taking part in worldwide labor markets, professional sports have progressively developed into a global business.[1] New competitors and alternative leagues are putting existing models of sports governance to the test as professional competition continues to spread.[2] A notable illustration of how globalization may upend established institutional systems is the rise of LIV Golf, a rival to the PGA Tour, which is primarily backed by Saudi Arabia’s governmental investment fund.[3]
Although the legal disputes between LIV Golf and the PGA Tour have been litigated largely within the United States, their implications are far-reaching.[4] The regulation of globally mobile athletes by domestically based sports organizations highlights the increased tension between domestically grounded regimes and the changing landscape of modern professional sports.[5] This post explores the legal ramifications of the LIV-PGA conflict rather than the business success or failure of either organization. It examines how LIV golfers’ antitrust lawsuits and the ensuing modifications to player eligibility demonstrate how competition law shapes sports governance as new competitors continue to enter the marketplace.[6]
LIV Golf’s Entry and the PGA Tour’s Response
The traditional structure of elite men’s golf was significantly altered by LIV Golf’s entry into the professional market. There are other leagues across the world, such as the DP World Tour and the Asian Tour; the PGA Tour had no problem coexisting alongside these. The PGA Tour objected to LIV Golf because LIV directly competed with the PGA Tour’s business model, player-exclusivity rules, and market power, whereas the DP World Tour and Asian Tour operate as complementary tours within an established international governance framework. By offering lucrative guaranteed contracts and a global tournament schedule, LIV aimed to draw in top-ranked players.[7] The Tour’s governance paradigm, which had previously exerted centralized control over player participation, scheduling, and sponsorship, was greatly challenged by this.[8]
The Tour responded by enforcing eligibility and player participation rules that prohibit Tour members from participating in LIV-sanctioned events.[9] The Tour suspended or banned players who switched to LIV, citing the necessity to maintain its organizational integrity and its contractual responsibilities to sponsors and broadcast partners. These regulations served as a means of preserving league unity and preventing the professional golf calendar from being fragmented.[10]
The friction that can occur when new market entrants threaten well-established organizations was further highlighted by the execution of these limits.[11] When a league’s governance procedures are used to restrict player mobility or remove competitors, they will be questioned. The PGA Tour’s response to this situation set the stage for legal challenges, which raised questions about how far a league’s governance can extend in an increasingly competitive and globalized sports environment.[12]
Antitrust Litigation by Liv-Affiliated Golfers
Following the PGA Tour’s enforcement of its participation restrictions, several LIV-affiliated golfers initiated antitrust litigation challenging the Tour’s governance practice.[13] Phil Mickelson was among the most prominent, who, along with others, alleged the PGA Tour’s suspensions constituted unlawful restraints of trade designed to exclude a competing league.[14]
Although this litigation arose in U.S. courts, the dispute carried significant international implications. Professional golf operates within a global labor market, with players competing in tournaments across the world and earning income from international sponsorships and endorsements.[15] The Tour’s eligibility rules, therefore, had effects beyond the United States, influencing the ability of internationally competing athletes to participate freely in global events. The legitimacy of the Tour’s actions was not decided by the courts as they were unable to decide on the merits.[16] The underlying legal issues remain unsolved since courts refused to provide preliminary injunctions. The case brought to light the limitations of using only domestic competition law to settle conflicts in international markets.[17]
The case also highlighted the tension between territorially based legal systems and the expanding global scope of professional sports governance.
From Litigation to Governance Adjustment
As tensions between the Tour and LIV persisted, representatives of the competing organizations reportedly engaged in discussions involving federal officials, including meetings at the White House, aimed at addressing regulatory and antitrust concerns surrounding professional golf’s evolving structure.[18] These developments reflected a broader recognition that the dispute implicated not only private organizations governance, but also competition policy considerations with international dimensions.[19]
The shift to negotiations between the parties demonstrated that even without a definitive ruling on the merits, litigation can affect governance outcomes. Institutional reform was encouraged by the possibility of ongoing legal action as well as economic uncertainty faced from new competitors.[20] Stakeholders were more concerned with balancing league governance with the reality of a globalized professional sports market with new entrants than settling with the conflict only through legal recourse.
Subsequent changes in player eligibility further illustrate this dynamic. Very recently, the Tour announced a temporary Returning Member Program which created a defined pathway for select former LIV Golf competitors to regain membership, provided they meet specific criteria and agreed to stipulated conditions.[21] Under this new program, five-time major champion Brooks Koepka successfully applied for reinstatement and is slated to compete in the upcoming 2026 PGA Tour season.[22] This shift reflects how legal pressure, institutional negotiation, and competitive market forces can influence governance practices within professional sports and ultimately try to put a band-aid on this multi-year battle.
Conclusion
While the Tour’s conditional reinstatement framework reflects significant progress towards reconciling league authority with competitive pressure in a global market, it also suggests that further legal and institutional refinement may be necessary to fully resolve the antitrust and governance concerns that have shaped this landscape. As professional sports continue to operate within global markets, disputes like the LIV Golf–PGA Tour conflict highlight the limits of territorially bounded legal regimes in addressing transnational competition. The case underscores the growing need for governance frameworks that account for the international scope of modern professional sports.
[1] James A.R. Nafziger, The Future of International Sports Law, 42 Willamette L. Rev. 861, 864 (2006).
[2] Chris Chen, How American Sports Leagues Can Respond to the Rise of Sovereign Wealth Funds, 11 Emory Corp. Governance & Accountability Rev. 305, 311 (2024).
[3] Id. at 307.
[4] Rex Hoggard, Senate Subcommittee Releases Report on how PIF- Tour Negotiations Have Wider Effect, NBC Sports (Apr. 11, 2025, 2:59 PM), https://www.nbcsports.com/golf/news/senate-subcommittee-releases-report-on-how-pif-tour-negotiations-have-wider-effect.
[5] Nafziger, supra note 1, at 861-64.
[6] Chen, supra note 2, at 334-35.
[7] Id. at 307.
[8] Id.
[9] Alex Miceli, The PGA Tour Banned Members Who Left for LIV Golf, Now Non-Members Can Be Banned, Too, Sports Illustrated (Feb. 1, 2023), https://www.si.com/golf/news/pga-tour-liv-golf-non-members-can-be-banned.
[10] Id.
[11] Joe Lipper, (W)hole in One: Why Both the PGA Tour and LIV Golf Should Wish for a Mulligan, 62 Houston L. Rev. 705, 717-18 (2024).
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Nafziger, supra note 1, at 864.
[16] Janie McCauley, Federal Judge Denies LIV Golfers’ Bid for PGA Tour Postseason, AP News (Aug. 9, 2022, 9:42 PM), https://apnews.com/article/sports-california-golf-san-jose-phil-mickelson-14b5b8140032b745d42d087735454958.
[17] Lipper, supra note 11, at 717-18.
[18] Lauren Hirsch, Alan Blinder, Kate Kelly & Sharon LaFraniere, Seeking Golf Deal, Trump Meets with Tiger Woods and Saudi Wealth Fund Chief, N.Y. Times (Feb. 20, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/us/politics/trump-tiger-woods-liv-golf.html.
[19] Lipper, supra note 11, at 726-27.
[20] Id. at 716-22.
[21] Rex Hoggard, PGA Tour Creates “Elite” Returning Member Program; Brooks Koepka Returning at Farmers, Golf Channel (Jan. 12, 2026, 1:45 PM), https://www.golfchannel.com/pga-tour/news/pga-tour-creates-elite-returning-member-program-brooks-koepka-returning-at-farmers.
[22] Id.