It Was an Occam's Razor Moment With Monahan

“His involvement has made the prospect of reunification very real,” Monahan said of Trump after the second meeting in the White House.

The new watchword of these discussions is reunification, and seemingly, it’s what drives the PGA Tour's efforts. The fans want to see it, so the Tour has adopted it.

Point of fact, the two Tours have never been unified, so the phrase "reunification" is the wrong expression. The fact is that the fans want it, so the Tour runs with it.

This begs the question, how many events where the best players play together are enough to fulfill the needs of the fans?

A similar question was posed to Monahan on Tuesday, but he was unwilling to answer.

In 1971 and 1972, the best players of their generation, Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer played in 30 tournaments together, with Nicklaus playing in 37 total and Palmer 46.

Unlike today, when the season starts in January and ends in early September, back in the early 70s, the season began in January and ended in December.

So, on average, the two faced off 15 times a year, or 11 times if you don’t count majors.

In 2025, if you add the four majors, eight signature events, and the three FedEx Cup playoff events, the total number of significant events the best players played in is 15.

So, while having the best players play against each other sounds nice, it is not really anything new compared to what has been occurring for the last 50 years of professional golf.

Another head scratcher came in the form of a compliment to the Public Investment Fund and its Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan

“When you're in the midst of complex negotiations, particularly when you may be near a breakthrough, there are ebbs and flows in the discussion,” Monahan said. “The most important thing is the mutual respect that we've built over the last couple of years.”

Not sure fans are interested in mutual respect between the parties.

Also, may be near a breakthrough, is an odd phrase, either they are, or they aren’t, ebbs or flows aside.

“We appreciate Yasir's innovative vision, and we can see a future where we welcome him on to our board and work together to move the global game forward,” Monahan continued in his comments about the PIF. “As part of our negotiations, we believe there's room to integrate important aspects of LIV Golf into the PGA Tour platform. We're doing everything that we can to bring the two sides together.”

In a perfect world, negotiations would happen quickly.

But when negotiations are on the precipice of two years, the two sides are clearly not doing everything you can do to get a deal done.

“That said, we will not do so in a way that diminishes the strength of our platform or the very real momentum we have with our fans and our partners,” Monahan continued. “So, while we've removed some hurdles, others remain. But like our fans, we still share the same sense of urgency to get to a resolution.”

Does any of this make sense?

Whatever the sticking points are, they seem cemented in stone and adding and subtracting hurdles, seems counterproductive to getting a deal done, and contrary to working together.

“Our team is fully committed to reunification,” Monahan concluded. “The only deal that we would regret is one that compromises the essence of what makes the game of golf and the PGA Tour so exceptional.”

The definition of Occam’s razor is that the simplest explanation is usually the best.

The simplest explanation for Monahan’s comments is that a deal is still far from fruition.

While they say the two sides are working hard on a deal, an almost two-year negotiation will hardly produce an agreement, but instead create a negotiation mired in minutiae.

But the Tour wants something the PIF has, money, or in this case, an investment.

Monahan’s only specific comment on the negotiations was the board seat for Yasir.

The money for a board seat is important to the Tour, which Yasir may find worthwhile, but so far has not been willing to take the seat for the money.

Either way, an end is preferable, with or without a deal and everyone seems to agree with that.

And that’s the simplest explanation, money for a board seat and the rest is just unnecessary.