ST ANDREWS, SCOTLAND | Each Wednesday of Open week, Martin Slumbers, the chief executive of the R&A, holds a press conference to talk to visiting journalists about the upcoming Open, the speed of the greens, the quality of the field, the total purse, the latest news about distance control, new technology. It is stuff that has to be said, and it usually is without too much fanfare or controversy.
This year it was rather different. He chose to address the issue of the LIV Golf Invitational Series, the current elephant in golf’s room, head-on. He was clear, firm, outspoken, a Martin Slumbers very different from the quiet, thoughtful and very diplomatic Slumbers of previous years.
“We know the disruption that men’s professional golf is facing and the potential impact it could have on the structure of the game,” Slumbers began by saying. “We have been saying for some time now that our purpose of the R&A is to ensure that golf is thriving in 50 years’ time and that it remains strong at all levels, from grassroots through to the professional game. We have seen significant growth in the sport over recent years. … I firmly believe that the existing golf ecosystem has successfully provided stable pathways for golfers to enter the sport and develop and realise their potential. Professional golfers are entitled to choose where they want to play and accept the prize money that is offered to them. I have absolutely no issue with that at all.
“But there is no such thing as a free lunch. I believe the model we’ve seen at the Centurion and Pumpkin Ridge is not in the best long-term interests of the sport as a whole and is entirely driven by money. We believe it undermines the merit-based culture and the spirit of open competition that makes golf so special.
“I would also like to say that in my opinion the continued commentary that this is about growing the game is just not credible and, if anything, is harming the perception of our sport which we are working so hard to improve.”
Slumbers could not have been more forthright if he had wanted to be. There were times when he looked severe, as if he were saying words that he didn’t want to say. It must be noted that for the man who is normally so circumspect to be so outspoken was in itself worth noting.
“I believe the model we’ve seen at the Centurion and Pumpkin Ridge is not in the best long-term interests of the sport as a whole and is entirely driven by money. We believe it undermines the merit-based culture and the spirit of open competition that makes golf so special.” –Martin Slumbers
He explained that banning players from next year’s Open “… was not on our agenda. But what is one our agenda is that we will review our exemptions and qualifications criteria for the Open. … We reserve the right to make changes as our Open Championship Committee deems appropriate. Players have to earn their place in the Open, and that is fundamental to its ethos and its uniquely global appeal.”
Slumbers declined to answer whether he believed LIV events should be awarded world-ranking points, and he quickly shut down a question about it being a conflict of interest for him to be chief executive of the R&A and also a board member of the Official World Golf Ranking. He was asked what his reaction would be if the champion golfer on Sunday evening turned out to be one of the defectors to the LIV Golf Series. “Wouldn’t that in some ways be the R&A’s worst nightmare?”
“Whoever wins on Sunday is going to have their name carved in history,” he said. “And I will welcome them onto the 18th green. This is a golf tournament. The Open is about having the best players in the world playing, and I want to see who shoots the lowest score come Sunday night.”
Earlier in the week, Tiger Woods had given some words of support for the position the R&A had taken in disinviting LIV Golf CEO Greg Norman, a two-time Open champion, from attending the 150th Open and withdrawing an invitation to him to participate in the Champions’ Challenge, a four-hole celebrity competition that involved players such as Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Tiger Woods and Dame Laura Davies, at the start of the week. “I believe it is the right thing (to do),” Woods, the 2000 and 2005 Open champion at St Andrews, said. “The R&A obviously have their opinions and rulings and their decision. Greg has done some things that I don’t think are in the best interests of the game, and we’re coming back to probably the most historic and traditional place in our sport.”
Woods continued speaking words that must have been music to the ears of the R&A and everyone else who is opposed to the LIV Golf Series. “I know what the PGA Tour stands for and what we have done and what the (PGA) Tour has given us, the ability to chase after our careers and earn what we get and the trophies we have been able to play for and this history that has been a part of this game.”
Now in full flow, Woods was not to be stopped. It was striking how forcefully he was putting his position and endorsing the status quo in the professional game. There was no sitting on the fence here. “I know Greg tried to do this back in the early ’90s. It didn’t work then, and he’s trying to make it work now. I still don’t see how that is in the best interests of the game: what the European Tour and what the PGA Tour stands for and what they’ve done, and also all the professionals – all the governing bodies of the game and all the major championships, how they run it. I think they see it differently to what Greg sees it.”
If Woods had been hoping to curry favour with the game’s authorities, he could not have done a better job. To get him, the best and most widely known, perhaps the most admired, figure in the game to slap down Greg Norman in public when all golf is watching the build-up to the Open was priceless. No wonder a European Tour official said privately on Tuesday night: “What Tiger said was wonderful and much appreciated. We could not have written it better ourselves.”
As noted before in these columns, golf is in a civil war. Wars are made up of a series of battles. St Andrews is not far from the site of many bloody battles in Scottish history, one that has not exactly been known for being peaceful and passive but rather for being argumentative and combative. This particular battle, boosted by the entry into the fray of Woods, went the way of the game’s authorities.