Here are the full details and context around the call for Public Investment Fund (PIF) to consider joining forces with the DP World Tour/European Tour (or broadly with European‑based golf) following the costly struggles of LIV Golf (which PIF backs).
Background: LIV Golf, PIF and the fractured golf landscape
In 2022, LIV Golf launched backed by the Saudi PIF. It marked a major challenge to the established tours (like the PGA Tour and the European Tour) by offering large contracts, team formats and alternative scheduling.
The European Tour (now called the DP World Tour) and the PGA Tour had previously aligned in a “strategic alliance” but had been wary of completely aligning with LIV/PIF from the start.
Many commentators observe that LIV has struggled to become a fully viable, globally disruptive circuit in the way its backers initially hoped — due to issues such as TV‑rights distribution, player commitment, market acceptance and integration with the global golf ecosystem (i.e., major championships, world rankings, Ryder Cup eligibility).
What are the “costly failures” of LIV Golf that are referenced?
Some key points:
The PIF reportedly announced it would reduce its percentage of international investments (from ~30% to ~18‑20%) which raised questions over how much longer it would sustain heavy spending into ventures like LIV Golf.
The European (DP World) Tour is believed by some insiders to have suffered from not aligning more forcefully with the PIF/LIV venture when the time was ripe. For example, one commentary article said the European Tour “could end up being a costly decision” by not collaborating with the Saudi backers.
The fractured landscape means top players are split among tours, making it harder for one tour to present the “best” field regularly; which impacts commercial value, media rights, sponsorship, global growth. The academic research frames this as a “jurisdictional contest” in professional golf.
Why is there a call for PIF to join forces with the European Tour/DP World Tour?
From the European Tour/DPT side, there is recognition that aligning with a well‑funded investor like PIF (and thereby integrating or collaborating with the LIV‑style venture) could strengthen their commercial model, global reach and ensure they aren’t sidelined. For instance, DP World Tour CEO Guy Kinnings has noted that PIF would be “very good partners”.
From PIF’s perspective, the failure or under‑achievement of LIV in some respects (relative to huge investment and lofty ambitions) may signal that rather than operating entirely separately, it may be more beneficial to partner with an established tour that has global legitimacy (majors, world ranking integration, Ryder Cup, etc.).
A combined/partnered tour or more unified model promises: stronger fields, more predictable commercial product, rationalised scheduling, less duplication, fewer conflicts among tours, and potentially higher global growth. This is echoed in strategic commentaries.
What has happened so far in attempts at alignment/unification?
In June 2023, the PGA Tour, DP World Tour (European Tour), and PIF announced a framework agreement intended to combine commercial operations of the tours and integrate the PIF’s golf‑assets (which include LIV) into a broader structure.
Despite that, by 2025 the deal was still unresolved, and multiple sources show that the PGA Tour has rejected a recent PIF offer of US$1.5 billion on conditions that would allow LIV to continue as is. The PGA Tour’s stance has been that the top players must be together on one premier circuit.
Meanwhile, the European (DP World) Tour remains in a strategic alliance with the PGA Tour (including “underpinning” funding support) rather than fully merging with LIV/PIF alone. For example, the DP World Tour admits the PGA Tour is providing “underpin” funding in return for investments in European Tour Productions.
Implications and stakes
For PIF: If they join forces or invest deeply into the European Tour/DP World Tour (or a unified global tour), they may achieve a stronger return on their investment (via global media rights, brand reach, influence) than in a standalone LIV model that may struggle to break out.
For the European Tour/DP World Tour: They gain stronger financial backing, might secure more influence in the global landscape, and avoid being diminished in a world where the PGA Tour is dominant or one merged global product emerges.
For players/fans: A more unified model means better fields (top players playing more often together), clearer pathways for global events/majors, and potentially better commercial value (higher prize funds, sponsorships, broadcast deals).
On the flip side: There are concerns about governance, control (PIF being a sovereign fund tied to Saudi Arabia), legal/regulatory issues (antitrust, national broadcast rights), and preserving the sport’s integrity/tradition. The U.S. Senate has probed PIF’s role in golf.
Why the sense of urgency now?
Because the cost of fragmentation is mounting: with tours competing for players, events, media rights, sponsors, and have overlapping schedules, the value of the product erodes.
Because big investments (like from PIF into LIV) need returns, and the question is whether LIV alone can deliver the global scale and legitimacy of the majors/tour‑ecosystem without alignment.
Because other options are narrowing: the European Tour may prefer not to be a “feeder” or subordinate tour to the PGA Tour; aligning with PIF gives them more leverage. The commentary cited earlier warns that the European Tour’s current model “could end up being a costly decision” if they don’t act.
Current status & what’s next
There is no final deal yet between PIF, PGA Tour, and the European Tour/DP World Tour that completely resolves the landscape. The framework exists but much detail remains outstanding.
Negotiations continue. Some of the sticking points: how LIV remains (if at all) in the unified product, who controls governance and board seats, how prize funds/sponsorships are shared, how players from different tours are integrated.
The European Tour/DP World Tour is likely to push for a deeper role rather than being a second‑fiddle to the PGA Tour, so alignment with PIF may give them better bargaining position.
For PIF and LIV: The struggle is to secure media rights, prestige, and player participation at the highest level (majors, world rankings). Failures or under‑performance in those areas increase the incentive to strike a partnership.
For the broader sport: A more unified tour model is being increasingly seen as “inevitable” by senior executives (e.g., DP World Tour’s outgoing CEO Keith Pelley said as much).