LIV Golf 1.0 'Failed To Create A Product That Enough Golf Fans Truly Cared About'

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, we look back on LIV Golf '1.0'...

A significant chapter in LIV Golf's book closed on Sunday in Indianapolis, when the league's fifth season drew to a close after just 12 of the 14 scheduled events.

Whether it's the final chapter in LIV Golf remains to be seen but genuine uncertainty remains over the circuit's future.

LIV fractured the men's game in 2022 and was a real threat to the PGA Tour at times, but the withdrawal of the Saudi PIF this year could be extremely tough to overcome.

Whatever happens, LIV Golf 2.0 will look very different, and arguably less impressive, compared to the renegade tour fronted by Greg Norman and backed by Saudi billions that looked like it would change the men's game forever.

So, if LIV does end, or even if it remains, what successes and failures can we reflect on from its five seasons?

Our tour experts have their say, and let us know yours in the comments section below the article...

Jonny Leighfield

Let's start on a positive note. The events in South Africa and Australia were unquestionable triumphs.

Although the DP World Tour has been visiting the two for years now, it hasn't felt like there have ever been quite the energy or intensity as the LIV tournaments.

LIV's trips to South Africa and Australia showed what was possible and has to have made the DP World Tour think seriously about the missed opportunities it left on the table as well as the potential to build moving forward.

Something else I feel LIV got right was shotgun starts. But only in rounds one and two. I don't think they worked at the weekend when a touch more clarity is needed in terms of the storyline.

It might be an unpopular opinion, but I'd say tour golf could really improve by making all smaller-field events shotgun starts on Thursday and Friday only. It concentrates the action into a tighter window and leads to several other positives as a result.

However, tournaments would have to be limited in terms of their size to make it work, otherwise you're left with a morning and afternoon shotgun start which probably doesn't make much difference.

Either way, LIV's penchant to try new things and throw a load of fresh ideas at the wall to see what stuck could well affect the game positively going forward.

On the flip side, LIV made so many mistakes since its inception, but the biggest error of all - in my eyes - related to the wildly excessive prize purses.

At least partially, it was what led to the Saudi PIF's exit and has led to a negative knock-on effect in the rest of pro golf. Signature Events on the PGA Tour were not really what the game needed in the US, and that then affected the other circuits around the world as well.

Away from money, the promotion and relegation systems were borderline farcical at times. A proper widespread pyramid would have given the league so much more legitimacy from the start, but the money and contracts on offer appeared to prevent a meritocratic operation being formed.

And lastly, the music being played on course. I understand LIV wanted/want to create a more relaxed and enjoyable environment for its players and fans, but this is still elite-level sport by the way.

It almost cheapens the product when any kind of loud music is being blared out while someone is trying to concentrate.

I am on board with the sport taking itself a little less seriously at times, but LIV went too far in many aspects and I felt it lost sight of certain fundamentals which could have been corrected.

Paul Higham

I don’t think many people would argue that having more big golf events around the world is a bad thing, right?

Those scenes in Australia and South Africa were great, UK events are always well supported and it’s never a bad thing to see Valderrama in action.

Some didn’t have that same spark but LIV does seem to have piqued more of a global interest from the PGA Tour and that should be applauded.

Some of the broadcasting technology was top notch too, especially the 'any shot any time' feature and some of the drone shot tracer use.

Of course, LIV events had a limited field with unlimited funds and the costs are wildly prohibitive going forward, but they were good while they lasted.

I was never a fan of the shotgun start, especially for the weekend - I don’t really like a two-tee start on other tours either as golf courses are designed to be played 1-18.

There’s also something about the final round with the leaders going out last, sleeping on the lead and then having to tackle the course, in the right order, and feel that pressure building. It’s just not the same with players scrambling around all over the course.

The team format also didn’t really work – apart from the Team Championship, it was very much an afterthought in the rest of the tournaments behind the individual event. That team atmosphere and togetherness was obviously good for the players so you have to say for them it was great, but for those watching it left us all a little cold and confused.

Off the course, I don’t think the initial combative, abrasive approach from Greg Norman did LIV any favors in the long run.

Being a disruptor is fine but players were encouraged to burn bridges, the online LIV fans went into overdrive bashing the PGA Tour and DP World Tour, and all that butting heads turned a lot of would-be fans off.

Also, the business side of things took far too long to try and start turning into a sustainable money-maker.

Year after year of huge spending and huge losses could only continue if the Saudi PIF continued to bankroll it, and that was always risky.

If LIV leaders had been more focused on turning a profit, the league would be in much better shape to attract outside investment right now.

Elliott Heath

Like Jonny, I'll start with the positives.

LIV definitely identified some underserved markets in Australia and South Africa.

It also found some very bright young talents, like David Puig, Caleb Surratt and Josele Ballester, and its link-up with the Asian Tour was a smart move. The International Series offered a good alternative for its players and Asia-based pros to compete in strong fields with OWGR points and pathways into Majors.

LIV also exposed some shortcomings in the pro game. A shorter, more condensed round was more watchable and the on-site experience was definitely more fun for spectators.

It had a younger, more balanced customer in terms of gender, too, so that can be considered a win compared to the PGA Tour's older male audience. Its broadcasts, on the whole, were impressive and innovative as well.

I also give LIV major credit for bringing Anthony Kim back. His return to pro golf was truly inspiring and his Adelaide victory was undoubtedly the tour's biggest moment for me.

So, what did LIV Golf get wrong? I have a fair few notes.

Firstly, it failed to create a product that enough golf fans truly cared about.

Yes, it has plenty of fans, but not enough people felt like they needed to tune in to watch the on-course action. LIV is often in the news, on back pages and the main story on golf websites, but the articles, videos and talking points are rarely about what happened on the course.

That's because its events felt like exhibitions. They underestimated the value of a 36-hole cut and their players were far too comfortable. Golf fans love history and tradition, and the alternative that LIV offered them was not compelling enough.

Instead of grinding for a pay check like on other tours, its golfers were playing with music blaring without the worry of going home on Friday evening empty handed. It certainly felt like the players were having far too much fun, when elite golf should be incredibly stressful and demanding.

Many of its players had already been handed tens of millions and they didn't even have to make the cut to earn more cash. LIV was, as Eugenio Chacarra said after leaving, all about money.

I don't think it got the team format right, either. Yes, fans love team golf - as witnessed in the Ryder, Solheim, Presidents, Walker and Curtis Cups - but LIV didn't lean into team golf enough.

The aforementioned events are only about team golf, whereas LIV's was a bolt-on. Had it only been team golf, and with a match play format, it could have been far more entertaining.

LIV also overestimated the value of star players.

It thought buying Dustin Johnson, Phil Mickelson, Brooks Koepka and other recognizable names would instantly make people watch its events. That simply wasn't the case - certainly due to some of the points raised above.

It's the same with Bryson DeChambeau. He is one of the biggest stars in the sport but more people watch him on YouTube than in LIV Golf.

Why would people want to watch Dustin Johnson playing for guaranteed money in a brand new event that didn't have world ranking points when they could watch Rory McIlroy vs Justin Thomas on the other channel playing in a historic national open that had genuine implications (my example is the RBC Canadian Open)?

It also failed to crack America, the biggest golfing market in the world.

LIV's real success came internationally in Australia, South Africa, Korea, Hong Kong and the UK. The PGA Tour is such a huge force in America, and ultimately it was too big of a competitor for LIV to overcome.

Another area the tour failed in was obtaining world ranking points for the first four full seasons. It led to its players dropping out of Majors and largely becoming irrelevant in the biggest moments.

It also did not prepare its top stars well enough for the Majors. Whether this was due to the course difficulty, weaker fields, lack of cuts or the more relaxed nature, it failed to create a strong enough competitive environment for its best players to flourish at the Majors and build on their reputations.

Yes, Brooks Koepka and Bryson DeChambeau won Majors while signed to LIV and there are plenty of examples of strong performances from its players, but on the whole, they did not perform well enough on the grandest stages.

What do you make of our comments? And what do you think LIV got right and/or wrong? Join the conversation below.