Opinion & Analysis
The Case Against a World Golf Tour
In late 1994, the No. 2-ranked player in the world, Greg Norman, dropped a bombshell on the golf world. In partnership with Fox, Norman announced that beginning in 1995 there would be a new tour on the block. The eight-event schedule, boasting a total purse of $25 million plus a $50,000 travel stipend and a $1 million bonus to the player of the year, was Norman’s attempt to globalize the game; he called it the World Golf Tour (WGT). At least that was the claim.
Criticism of the WGT was almost instant for several reasons, namely that Norman was trying to steal the top-30 players in the world (plus another 10 who would be offered sponsor’s exemptions) and his proposed event schedules were going to be in direct conflict with the PGA Tour. The other major criticism was that Norman was greedy because of the large purses he was claiming, as well as the shared TV revenue the players on the WGT would get. Remember, the largest first-place prize for a tournament in 1994 was $540,000 at the Tour Championship. The WGT, as it was going to be set up, would guarantee any player a minimum of $290,000 per year based on the last place earnings of $30,000 guaranteed (first-place prize for all eight events would be $600,000), plus the travel expenses and the TV revenue sharing. In 1994, that was a nice prospect. In a November 17th, 1994 article for the Washington Post, Thomas Boswell, wrote the following:
The WGT’s For-Stars-Only format would strip bare the fields of established events such as the Kemper Open and detract from major events such as the U.S. Open. It’s no accident the WGT plans events for the weeks before the four majors.
Potentially, the World Golf Tour — if it ever really comes into existence — could throw golf into an ugly Balkanized era of tennis-like chaos. Think of the strikes in baseball and hockey; then think of golf, ripped by litigation and bad blood between rival groups of players. Think of the Federal Trade Commission, jumping all over the PGA Tour on restraint of trade issues. Thanks, Greg. You’re a buddy.
The news of the WGT didn’t settle well with many players either. In another article for the Los Angeles Times from 1997, Ron Sirak quoted Norman: “’Everybody I’ve spoken to — Nick Price, Fred Couples, Jose Maria Olazabal — all the responses have been extremely positive,” Norman said. Within days, however, it was clear than no one was rushing to jump on the Norman bandwagon. Finchem had made it clear that anyone playing on the World Tour would be walking away from the PGA Tour. It will likely always remain unclear what Norman’s exact intentions were, but was it clear is that his attempt was poorly timed and Tim Finchem wasn’t having it. The tour never kicked off thanks to various legal battles and threats from the PGA Tour to suspend any player who teed it up in a WGT event. By 1997, Finchem had announced the birth of the World Golf Championship series sporting a $4 million prize pool, a full $1 million more than Norman promised with his WGT.
The question is, 23 years removed from Norman’s attempt at globalizing golf, where do we stand? Have the WGC events made men’s golf a more global game? We have two major golf tours competing week after week for eyeballs and rapidly increasing prize pools. The 2017 U.S. Open boasted a $12 million pot with more than $2 million going to brandishing bomber Brooks Koepka (his winnings alone were more than the entire prize pool for the 1994 Masters) after he made Erin Hills look like a municipal par-3. The European Tour has bolstered its prize money, revitalized tournaments like the Irish Open, Spanish Open and Italian Open, and yet the total Race to Dubai prize purse is only half of the first place bonus for the winner of the PGA Tour’s FedEx Cup. It’s also $2.5 million less than it was in 2009, when the Race to Dubai replaced Order of Merit.
Rumblings of the need for a World Golf Tour have been circulating for a few years. Recently, it was brought up on the No Laying Up podcast in an interview with Rory McIlroy. Soly asked Rory a series of questions and they came to the topic of new storylines in the game. The following exchange happened:
Rory: You’ve got storylines from everywhere, ‘This young Spanish kid’, ‘This young Japanese kid’, you’re always going to have the strength in America because of just the numbers that play here and the system and it’s always going to be great, but it’s such a global game now. You know, even the PGA Tour now expanding to Asia, going to these places, you know it’s … World Tour. It’s happening one day I think.
Soly: Well, you walked right into that one. What do you think of the possibilities of that? How would that look? Are you in support of it?
Rory: I think it has to happen. You know, as time goes on, just to have all these tours competing against each other. Having to change dates and this and that, it’s counterproductive. I think everyone has to come together and say, ‘Alright, this is what we have to do’….I mean, jeez, I don’t know what the solution is.
Right, the problem is that we don’t really know what the solution would be or what it might look like, or at least nothing has been proposed. But part of the reason we don’t know the solution is because we don’t know the problem. So, what’s the actual problem?
Is the problem that there are too many options for players? That’s going to be a hard sell. Is the problem that it’s too hard for players to schedule the “best” events because so many great events conflict with others or fall in the sixth or seventh week of a playing stretch? Again, that’s a hard sell. Maybe the problem is that there are two really strong tours that the fans don’t get to see the top-30 or top-50 players more than eight times in a season? Or a little further, that the top-30 or top-50 or top-100 don’t get to compete against the other 29, 49, or 99 guys as often as they’d like. If that’s the problem, and it’s the only problem I can see that might need attention, then I think there is another solution, or multiple parts to a solution that could make a whole.
Rory goes on to say that he thinks the PGA Tour will eventually have to buy the European Tour. That’s an option, but before we do that, let’s take a look at the schedules of the PGA and European Tour by the numbers, because when you place the schedules next to one another, you realize that, yes, the PGA Tour trumps the European Tour in many ways, but I don’t know if that’s such a bad thing.
PGA Tour 2016-17 Schedule: By the Numbers
- Tournaments: 51
- Total purse of all tournaments: $358,800,000.00
- Total purse without Majors: $315,550,000.00
- Total purse without WGC Events and Majors: $276,800,000
- FedEx Cup Prize Pool: $25,000,000
- Weekends with dual events (events opposite WGC or Major): 4
European Tour 2017 Schedule: By the Numbers
- Tournaments: 48
- Total purse of all tournaments: $188,000,000.00*
- Total purse without Majors: $145,000,000.00
- Total purse without WGC Events and Majors: $105,000,000.00
- Race to Dubai Prize Pool: $5,800,000.00
- Weekends with dual events (one of those is the Australian Open/Alfred Dunhill): 3
*Currency converted to USD for easy comparison
It’s not surprising to see the prize pool for the PGA Tour nearly triple the European Tour without the dual events. But does that mean the tours should be combined? I understand where someone like Rory feels that it’s bound to happen or that it needs to happen, but such a solution as a World Tour will come at the expense of established tours. It’s like building a pyramid. If you create a new layer on top, all you’re doing is making it more difficult to grind out and make a living at the lower level because the money will rise to the top and the climb to the top is a little bit higher. The developmental tours, such as the Web.com Tour, PGA Tour Latin America, Sunshine Tour, Challenge Tour, and Japan Golf Tour will all suffer. The players on those tours already struggle to make a living if they aren’t rattling off top-10s week after week, and stacking another layer on top of that will only make it more difficult for those tours to survive. Let’s take a look at those developmental tours by the numbers.
Japan Golf Tour (2017)
- Tournaments: 27
- Total Purse of All Tournaments (converted from Japanese Yen): $76,000,000
- Total Purse of All Tournaments NOT Including the Majors: $32,300,000
Web.com Tour (2017)
- Tournaments: 26
- Total Purse of All Tournaments (not including Q-School): $17,800,000
- Winner’s Share: ~$100,000-120,000
PGA Tour Australasia Schedule By The Numbers (2017)
- Tournaments: 18
- Total Purse of All Tournaments: $16,800,000
- Total Purse of All Tournaments NOT Including the World Cup of Golf: $8,800,000
Mackenzie Tour (2017)
- Tournaments: 13
- Total Purse of All Tournaments: $2,245,000
- Winner’s Share: ~$31,000
PGA Tour Latin America (2017)
- Tournaments: 20
- Total Purse of All Tournaments: $3,365,000
- Winner’s Share: ~$31,000
The combined prize pool for all of those developmental tours above (factoring in the majors on Japan Golf Tour) is less than the prize pool available on the European Tour without counting the majors ($116,000,000 for all of them).
I’m not saying there aren’t some broken cogs in the current model, but a World Tour would only exacerbate those issues. And what’s to be gained? That 40 percent of the players who try and play a global schedule get a few extra weeks off here and there? That they can earn more money over fewer events? In a world where golf is growing in fewer countries than it’s declining, it’s a slippery slope.
As it stands now in men’s golf, the European Tour is strong enough to not be considered a developmental tour. They are even experimenting with format, which seems such an obvious thing to do I can’t imagine why it isn’t happening more often. The prize pools are large enough and the course rotation is exotic enough that many players solely play the European Tour. The PGA Tour isn’t necessarily the only option to earn a superstar-living in the game. The more logical solution seems to be to simply expand the WGC series. These events are always a joy to watch and produce great drama (unless D.J. wins by four shots). Instead of playing four (as they did in 2017), expand to seven or eight. With eight WGC events plus the four majors, that’s 12 events one could consider “global” events. They already play one WGC in China and one in Mexico. Give us two more in Europe and another in Australia at Royal Melbourne and we’re set. In fact, why can’t the Australian Open be converted to a WGC?
The PGA Tour could swap three or four of their smaller tournaments like TPC Deere Run, Montreux, and Puerto Rico, and the European Tour would only have to cut two or three and they could run dual events. Or, instead of scrapping any, just play dual events. I get it, that’s a lot of work for tournament and tour officials, but creating a new tour is going to be no small feat either.
***
While we’re at it, is there any reason why the PGA Championship can’t be played in Europe every three years? I know, I know, it’s run by the PGA of America, but come on, let’s not get hung up on titles. In 2017, the PGA Championship drew a 3.6 Nielsen rating for the final round, the lowest since the final round of the PGA Championship since 2008. It’s not a dead event — it’s still a major — but it doesn’t always feel like one.
Think about the possibility of having the PGA Championship in Europe. It could basically be played on the same rotation as the Open Championship. The PGA has been swapping venues with the U.S. Open for decades. Why can’t we have a PGA Championship at the home of golf? Troon? Or even better, let’s have one at in South Korea. Korean golf has been on the rise for a couple of decades now. Imagine you’re a 10-year-old kid from South Korea and Si Woo Kim is playing in the first PGA Championship ever held outside the United States at Nine Bridges on Jeju Island. You’re that kid and you get to witness Si Woo Kim become not only the first player to win a PGA Championship outside the U.S., but the first Korean player to win a major championship. Korean children would grow up wanting to win the PGA Championship, not The Masters. The PGA Championship needs a spark, take it overseas.
The other piece to this puzzle, and likely the root of the issue with many of the European players, is membership. The current requirements for membership to the PGA Tour are as follows: must play a minimum of 15 events on the PGA Tour (majors and WGC events count toward that number) and if you play less than 25 events on the PGA Tour then you must add an event you have never played to the schedule next year.
The European Tour, on the other hand, only requires you to play in five events to be eligible for the Race to Dubai. The requirements for the PGA Tour are more rigid than the European Tour, which isn’t surprising. But this has caused some problems for a few players in terms of the Ryder Cup eligibility, namely Paul Casey. Casey hasn’t played a Ryder Cup since 2008 despite likely being eligible for at least two of the last three because he wasn’t a member of the European Tour. In Rory’s conversation with the guys from No Laying Up, he hinted that membership and schedule were the biggest concerns. Paul Casey talked about similar things on a podcast with Alan Shipnuck back in the summer. A World Tour might help the membership squabble, but so would adding a few more WGC events and hosting them around the world, you know, actually making them “World” Golf Championships.
Golf is already a global game. As it stands now, we have two great tours that provide amazing playing opportunities for players, a developmental system that provides multiple tours on multiple continents. I’m normally one to say “out with the old and in with the new” as quick as anybody. It’s all too easy to get hung up on tradition and handicap your problem solving, but before we run wild with the idea of this shiny new World Tour concept, let’s make sure we’re not trying to solve vanity problems at the expense of the developmental tours.
I agree with what Thomas Boswell wrote 23 years ago and think it still applies today, “Potentially, the World Golf Tour — if it ever really comes into existence — could throw golf into an ugly Balkanized era of tennis-like chaos.” Rory mentioned that he thought golf could mimic the tennis model, maybe for the top-10 in the world, but we want players to become more recognized, not play in obscurity.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Ueven Golfbro
Jun 15, 2024 at 7:40 am
You write about World Golf Tour and even call it WGT without mentioning the game (WGT.com)? We’ve been playing for like ten years.
jim bob
Jun 6, 2022 at 9:44 pm
PGA of America has no reason to play in another country. 99% of it’s members are in the US. Will the Open Championship leave the UK and play in Germany or in Spain?
It’s idiotic to think moving the PGA Championship to Europe would be allowed.
Gregory Tosi
Nov 28, 2017 at 11:12 am
Nice article but you completely forgot to mention Africa, don’t you think the continent that produced Gary Player deserves a WGC event?
Adam Crawford
Nov 28, 2017 at 12:06 pm
That’s fair, no reason they can’t rotate.
DB
Nov 27, 2017 at 9:53 am
Let’s hope Rory is wrong (he is). I’m tired of people assuming everything needs to be bigger, more integrated, and global. Why do some people think it’s inherently good to scale everything up? It usually just makes things worse. More bureaucracy, more corruption, less personalized to local interests, etc.
CB
Nov 26, 2017 at 3:48 pm
Everything in the 90’s in Europe became the “Premier” league. That’s where this concept came from.
It would be the Premier league of golf. So it’s actually not a big deal, that the best of the best players in the world get to make the most amount of money playing at the highest levels for the highest stakes. And the 90’s was all about the globalization, so it went hand in hand that the wealthiest, most successful of the world would think of these things.
JW
Nov 27, 2017 at 5:41 pm
Good article. Agree that extending WGC would be a good option but only if most of tournaments were outside the US. 4 majors plus WGC means one per month which is ideal. Australian Open currently contracted to Sydney but making it A WGC event at Royal Melbourne would be brilliant. A number of sports have introduced National opens as part of a World Tour. Why not golf?