Scott O'Neil Said The World Of Golf Is Better With LIV In It... But Is He Right?

'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 week, it's all about LIV Golf.

From the moment LIV Golf became a reality, there have been those who support it and those who wish it would disappear as abruptly as it seemingly arrived.

But until recent days, the chances of LIV Golf becoming a thing of the past seemed extremely unlikely. Then came the reports.

Monday Q Info claimed a "bombshell announcement" was coming. The Financial Times said the Saudi PIF was planning to withdraw its financial support at the end of the year.

A story from The Telegraph noted LIV executives were being summoned for an emergency meeting. Could the end really be near for LIV Golf?

LIV's CEO Scott O'Neil said absolutely not. The defiant chief insisted the team-based circuit would plough on regardless and boasted it is in a "wonderful position."

Speaking on LIV Golf's Mexico City TV broadcast last week, O'Neil admitted there would likely be some kind of "structural change" to come but vowed to see the breakaway league into its new era.

O'Neil also indirectly asked critics whether they felt LIV had been good for the sport overall. He felt it had.

O'Neil said: "I know there's some people rooting against LIV Golf. I understand that, okay. But is golf better without LIV Golf? Should all the best events in the world be in the Continental US? Is that right?

"Should we be targeting 60-year-old men, or should we put some focus on the global game? Should we put some focus on this next generation of fans?

"If I am a PGA Tour player, I want LIV to survive. These prize purses are pretty good. Competition is good for business.

"If I'm a television network, I'd love LIV Golf to survive. It's good television. If I'm a reporter, it certainly makes the news a little more spicy, or has occasionally.

"If you're a fan, you want more golf around the world. If you're outside the US, we are outside the saturated market and we're in markets that are dying for this kind of action. So I think there's a lot more to gain with LIV Golf here than LIV Golf gone."

It's a well-made argument, certainly. But is O'Neil correct in his assessment? Is the world of pro golf really better with LIV as a key part of it?

Four of Golf Monthly's tour experts have shared their view (and you can express yours in the comments box below).

Elliott Heath

EH: I think O'Neil is correct on many fronts that the golfing world is better off with LIV in it. LIV Golf has been amazing for the players, both its own and those on other tours, who are making more money than ever before.

LIV forced the PGA Tour to make huge changes, and many of them are for the better, so it has ultimately been good for the legacy US circuit which has ridden out the storm very well.

It has been good for markets like Adelaide, Hong Kong and South Africa, too, as well as the Asian Tour and the elevated International Series, whose players have benefitted from the Saudi money trickling down.

LIV has also been very good for the four men's Majors, which were elevated as the only weeks where all of the best players played against the best.

EH: But I do not believe LIV has been good for fans. The fact is the sport has been fractured, and no matter the type of argument you hear, that is a huge negative.

Big events from the PGA Tour have been missing many top players and big characters, and I personally continually think ‘What if?’ in regards to many pros.

While LIV has been good for almost all circuits, I think it has damaged the DP World Tour, which has faced an aggressive and richer rival in the 'global' scene. The European circuit has lost a lot of its legends and top players to LIV as well as venues like Valderrama.

So has LIV Golf made the game better? I would say yes, but I think the game can now move forward without it if it does not find new financiers as - despite forcing good change within the sport - it has not grown a big enough fanbase or shown it can be sustainable without the Saudi billions.

Nick Bonfield

NB: I strongly disagree with Scott O'Neil and I suspect if he were answering objectively, he'd say the same thing.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I enjoy all men's professional golf aside from the majors less than I used to before the Saudi-backed circuit arrived.

The DP World Tour has some extremely average fields for a large portion of the year, meaning I don't watch it from February all the way through to June; I dislike the PGA Tour's Signature Events, which only came out in response to LIV as a means of placating those who stayed put; and I've only ever watched an hour of LIV since its inception in 2022.

NB: While I appreciate some people do enjoy it, and the television coverage is far superior to the other tours mentioned here, I have no interest in it at all.

The fact it's billions of dollars in the hole, the viewing figures are modest at best and the team element hasn't caught on at all suggest it's very much been a failed venture.

The only people who have benefitted in the world of golf are fans in places like Australia and South Africa, the past-their-best players who lined their pockets and the agents who facilitated the moves.

I can't see a cogent argument for the golf world being better off with LIV in it.

Jonny Leighfield

JL: I see what O'Neil is saying, but I don't think he's ultimately correct in saying pro golf is better with LIV around. The best players in the world are not playing together very often at all, and that is certainly not a good thing.

Has LIV Golf been good for other areas of the game in driving up tournament purses? For the players, absolutely, but I have concerns over the financial sustainability of the game in that regard.

Has LIV aimed golf at a younger audience? Yes, and that in itself is a good thing, but certain aspects of its set-up feels beyond forced and unnatural and could arguably be shutting off a different demographic - so is that actually any better?

JL: Ultimately, I don't think pro golf is better with LIV in existence as I would prefer a more unified game.

However.

LIV has highlighted some extremely important factors which need addressing moving forward if the sport is to thrive as it can. The sport's potential is massive, but it won't grow if it never leaves the United States.

Yes, there is a lot of capital floating around in the US, to say the least. But the game doesn't end there and that insular view is not helping anyone but a select few.

JL: Focusing purely on the game of golf, look how good LIV Golf Australia and LIV Golf South Africa were, for example. Why could the DP World Tour not have made that happen? What is it missing?

Without going into too much detail on other areas of potential improvement, the PGA Tour should take a long, hard look at itself in terms of how it runs its events as well. The broadcast at certain times is woeful and it does nothing to disrupt the sleepy narrative that some fans cannot stand.

But, to answer the over-arching question here, I don't agree with O'Neil that pro golf is better off with LIV in it. What I would say is, those who run the game at its highest level need to take this chapter in history as a shock to the system and change for good or golf will continue to shoot itself in the foot for decades to come.

Matt Cradock

MC: In all honesty, I'm not LIV's biggest fan and if I were to weigh out the positives and negatives, I would say the latter edges it.

Yes, the circuit has done some good. The taking on of a more worldwide schedule is the main stand out and, even though the DP World Tour also does this, it doesn't possess the star power of players attending the events like LIV does.

LIV's broadcast has also been a big plus, while the tournaments are very well put on, showing what's possible at a golf event.

MC: Overall, though, I don't think the golf world would be hit too hard if LIV wasn't in it.

Purses have inflated massively - to near unsustainable levels might I add - since its arrival on the pro golf scene, while the team aspect, in my opinion, really hasn't taken off and is more of a hindrance than help.

It might appeal to a younger demographic, but the unseriousness of it, such as music blaring out, low viewership numbers, sickening amounts of cash and a victim complex when it came to the OWGR and playing in PGA and DP World Tour events means that, for me, it wouldn't be the end of the golf world if LIV wasn't in it.

What do you think? Is pro golf better off with LIV as a part of it? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments box below.