Money talks: Analysing the PGA Tour-LIV Golf jurisdictional contest via Western media narratives

Abstract

This paper analyses Western media narratives of the jurisdictional contest between LIV Golf, a novel upstart professional golf tour, and the long-established PGA Tour, generally understood to be the pinnacle of men's professional golf. In doing so, the paper seeks to answer two research questions: How do dominant incumbent sporting professions utilise the court of public opinion to defend their territory from encroachment by new rivals? What are the potential implications of such professions’ failure to successfully do so? Viewed through the lens of Abbott’s concept of ‘bump-chains’, this paper shines critical light on how the long-established and dominant PGA Tour and its partisan (but not full contingent of) members initially sought to defend their territory against encroachment by a new entrant to the profession of competitive golf, before capitulating and proposing a ‘merger’ with LIV Golf in June 2023, which as of July 2024, has still not materialised, nor the finer details even made public. Utilising a critical qualitative analysis of popular Western-centric news media sources, the paper argues that the PGA Tour adopted a three-fold set of defensive rhetorical manoeuvres to seek to de-professionalise LIV Golf and discredit it in the court of public opinion as a convincing rival to the incumbent profession. It concludes that the PGA Tour's rhetorical defence attempts and thus its position as a dominant superordinate were untenable in the face of the new entrant's reach and power. In doing so, the paper adds theoretical depth to our understanding of bump-chain attacks within the sporting arena, and also acts to highlight sporting jurisdictions’ vulnerabilities to encroachment by previously unconsidered entities. These findings bring implications for governing bodies and institutions in the sporting arena concerning the strength of their jurisdictional positions, extending beyond professional boundaries.