Penalties for LIV returnees shouldn’t be equal
Excellent article (“LIV defectors face uncertain shakeout,” May 4, GGP). I truly hope that the DP World Tour and PGA Tour provide a substantial cost to the LIV players wanting to rejoin their former tours. This cost should involve direct financial fines and as well as other penalties such as received by Brooks Koepka and Patrick Reed. I agree that not all penalties should be the same. The higher a player’s star power was and is should come with a higher cost in order to return. Those players who sued the PGA Tour should come with a likely different but more significant impact to them. Those eligible or close to being eligible for the PGA Tour Champions should have some requirements placed on them in order to play that tour.
I really hope Tyrrell Hatton, Jon Rahm and Harold Varner III would be willing to accept the conditions that the DP World Tour and PGA Tour place on these individuals in order to return. I understand that HV III is not a real big draw but I just liked him and would enjoy watching him play again. As for the other players who left for LIV, I really don’t care if they return. As for Phil Mickelson, I would be happy if he were left out in the cold.
Jim Mason
Freeport, Florida
LIV loathing serves no purpose
Just a few thoughts regarding player options when LIV is finished (“LIV defectors face uncertain shakeout,” May 4, GGP). First, I’ve never begrudged the guys who went to LIV. I always felt it was a personal decision and likely more money than most would have ever earned. I never understood the hate from golf fans. I believe it’s mostly jealousy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t PGA Tour players playing for millions more dollars now mostly because of LIV? They should be thankful.
I know there are differences from years ago when most of Europe’s greatest players left the European tour for the PGA Tour, but I don’t recall the Euro tour fining guys and not allowing them to play in their tournaments. The PGA Tour is the best tour in the world. It would be better with the best players from LIV.
There should be a way to bring them back without crazy penalties like the ones assessed to Brooks Koepka. They play golf for a living. LIV offered more money to play golf. I bet if most people were offered crazy money to do the same job for a different company, they would most certainly do it. The hate serves no purpose. I say get over yourself if you are a golf fan and stop crying because millionaires went to make more millions somewhere else. This too shall pass.
Lee Howard
Atlanta, Georgia
Appreciating punctuation precision
I read with interest John Hopkins’ footnote on the apostrophe at Royal Lytham & St Annes, now apparently elevated to one of the game’s great debates (“Open returns to Lytham, but not the apostrophe,” May 4, GGP).
Golf has always demanded precision and a certain devotion to rules; it is reassuring to know we now extend that same rigor to punctuation.
That said, the apostrophe itself has enjoyed only intermittent consistency over the past two centuries, and even now, scholars disagree on matters as basic as possession. Expecting uniformity from a seaside links seems, perhaps, ambitious.
If the club has managed to survive wind, weather, and the Open rota, I suspect it will also withstand a momentary uncertainty of ownership – grammatical or otherwise – and with rather less discussion than most matters deemed “great debates.”
David C. Penzone
Pensacola, Florida
Political arguments misplaced
I am writing to you regarding your recent article concerning the restoration of municipal golf courses like The Park and Cobbs Creek (“Divot: Praise for the 1 percent,” May 4, GGP).
I truly enjoyed reading about these projects and the revitalization of these community spaces. It is wonderful to see private citizens and organizations like the Tiger Woods and Jordan Spieth foundations stepping up to fund such meaningful initiatives. These stories highlight the best of the golf community and the positive impact these courses have on local youth and mentorship.
However, I felt that the decision to insert political commentary into the piece – specifically the criticism of “big-city mayors” and the defense of the tax status of the “1 percent” – took away from the core of the story. In my view, those topics have no place in an article about golf course restoration.
The reality is that many wealthy Americans do not pay a share of taxes proportionate to their income, often paying less than those earning significantly less. Bringing these complex political debates into the article felt unnecessary and, frankly, off-putting. The projects you described are great deeds that stand on their own merits; they don’t need to be used as a springboard for political arguments.
Thank you for the reporting on the courses themselves. I hope to see more focus on the growth of the game and its community benefits in the future.
Maurice Amiel
Coral Springs, Florida
Praise worth more than pocket change
You want to praise the 1 percent for their largesse in supplying $1 million each to refurbish a golf course, and that praise is of course worth more to them than the pocket change which they handed out (“Divot: Praise for the 1 percent,” May 4, GGP). And you suggest that perhaps the 1 percent should not be vilified for, as you say, “being successful.” Just to simplify, the rich these days pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than ever before due to the 40-year assault on the validity and need for taxes to operate government for the public good. (For reference, see the recent One Big Beautiful Bill.) The money saved on taxes to the mega-rich far, far exceeds the pittances they publicly want praise for in charitable giving (which I might point out is then used as a tax write-off).
The rich need no praise for performative public giving. And if anything, the public approbation is a minor inconvenience, as they are largely above the law.
Bill Barnes
Apalachicola, Florida
Global Golf Post welcomes reader comment. Write to executive editor Mike Cullity and provide your full name, city, state and country of residence. If your comment is selected for publication, GGP will contact you to verify the authenticity of the email and confirm your identity. We would not publish your email address. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and brevity.