Edition No. 52 | February 2, 2024

Hey,

Thank you for reading the Normal Sporter. It is such fun to write — to follow my whims and inklings wherever they lead and to collect my thoughts from the week in golf in one consolidated space.

Two things before we get rolling today.

1. We still have some Normal Sport 3 physical books for sale. You can buy one here.

2. I had lunch this week with the founder of Grip Drip, a small shop golf grip company that makes some amazing products. It was a reminder that people are hustling everywhere, and it was an inspiration to me to hear from someone who created something out of nothing. A type of magic.

Here a few thoughts I had on golf this week.

11 Thoughts on This Week

1. This quote from Spieth on the Tour’s deal with SSG stood out.

Q. Jordan, on June 6 when they announced the framework agreement, the understanding was that it would be a possible PIF deal in that situation and they were talking $300 million or somewhere around that neighborhood. Now that you got $1.5 billion and another $1.5 billion possibly in your pocket if you guys want it, why do you need to do the PIF deal?

JORDAN SPIETH: “I don't think that it's needed.”

The full answer was more nuanced than that — he talked about the positive long-term aspects of reunification — but my first response to this quote was …

I know Spieth is in a difficult position as a player director because he can’t be running around publicly hollering about how much the Tour needs the PIF right now, but to me … the Tour (unfortunately) very much needs the PIF right now.

There was a line that stood out to me in the PGA Tour’s press release this week about its massive deal with SSG.

… nearly 200 PGA Tour members will have the opportunity to become equity holders in this new company. PGA Tour Enterprises is also considering participation by future PGA Tour players that would allow them to benefit from the business’s commercial growth.

The details will be interesting, but on the face of it, the SSG deal seems to be a great deal for current players. My question is what it means for future players. The Caleb Surratts. The Gordon Sargents. I do not know what happens with them or if this deal makes it less difficult for LIV to pick them off for its league (which it already did with Surratt).

The potential upshot here for LIV — again, depending on the details — is that eventually the 200 members get cycled through and new stars emerge for LIV to pluck (of course depending on how much equity is being handed out, this could take decades). The SSG deal is a stopgap. An excellent stopgap. But I’m not positive that you’re winning the long-term war with what went down on Wednesday.

2. A PGA Tour-PIF deal seems far away, doesn’t it. Or it does to me. But somebody sent me a clip this week of Webb — who is also a player director for the Tour — talking about the deal. It starts at 2:30 on this podcast.

The way he framed it was an order of operations thing. First, the Tour had to get the SSG deal done. Then it could focus on PIF. This makes sense. The Tour is now operating from a position of greater strength. But I don’t think it necessarily means the Tour should move forward without PIF.

I guess the counter to that is that plenty of large businesses coexist in various industries. But the market size in most industries (think the streaming wars between Netflix, Disney, Hulu and others) is so much bigger than it is for [checks notes] regular season professional golf.

I go back to what I wrote a few weeks ago. Do you think more people care about and follow the Dallas Cowboys (theoretically valued at ~$9 billion) or the PGA Tour (actually valued at $12 billion)? It’s a real question.

And while you could argue (and I probably would argue) that more disposable income cares about the PGA Tour, you’re operating in a risky space with the majors ahead of you and LIV surrounding you on all sides.

That may be a $12 billion space right now, but is it a $12 billion space if Hovland, Ludvig and Xander (for example) exit stage right? As Joel Beall noted, the Tour is in an impossible position.

3. Somewhat related to all of this: I got a text this week from somebody that said something like, “It’s all a mess. Tiger thinks it’s 2005. Cantlay thinks he’s a banker!” For some reason that phrasing just destroyed me. Cantlay thinks he’s a banker. Maybe I’m punchy from a weird week, but man, got me good.

4. Where does SSG consider PIF more of a threat: Inside the moat (literally inside the moat in Ponte Vedra) or outside of it? The outside threat is obvious: Writing checks to top five players for nine figures.

Risks inside the moat? They’re maybe less obvious, but last week’s news about Yasir being sued for $74 million for alleged kidnapping is instructive.

These are not risks the folks who operate SSG enjoy taking on.

This is your proposed chairman? Kidnapping?!

They are not risks anyone deploying $3 billion enjoys taking on.

However, everyone is also in a difficult spot here because of 1. LIV (see Beall article above) and 2. The June 6 deal kinda sorta normalized doing business with folks who are accustomed to all kinds of nefarious activities. Alleged kidnapping might not be the most difficult thing you have to navigate.

5. To recap the last two years: The players … lost value (DJ, Rahm, Brooks etc.) … received more money … and retained control.

And while I think it sounds good for players to be incentivized with equity to grow the PGA Tour, it sound equally bad to me for them to continue to control that business.

Think about it like this: I create content for CBS Sports on a daily basis. I receive stock from CBS as part of my compensation. Great, some equity in the entity I am trying to add value to. Aligned incentives. But also putting me — the lowly content creator — in the decision-making seat of this massive organization, of which I am a tiny part of? Sounds like a bad idea.

I am told that these players will lean on the folks in the room that are smarter and more experienced in the world of business than them. But I remain dubious that they will, for example, ever be incentivized to vote to penalize slow play so that it actually improves the on-field product.

6. Have we ever actually had a discussion about how the SSG folks plan to grow this business and their investment?

I want to be optimistic about this, but …

All I’ll say is that growing an investment is always good for some parties. But it’s sometimes not great for all parties.

7. I finally finished Atomic Habits the other day. Good not great. Probably impossible for it not to be overhyped in my head given how late I am to reading it.

Regardless, that’s not the point. The point I was struck by the last paragraph in the book. A banger.

Hope declines with experience and is replaced by acceptance. The first time an opportunity arises, there is hope of what could be. Your expectation (cravings) is based solely on promise. The second time around your expectation is grounded in reality. You begin to understand how the process works and your hope is gradually traded for a more accurate prediction and acceptance of the likely outcome.

This is one reason we continually grasp for the latest get-rich-quick or weight-loss scheme. New plans offer hope because we don’t have any experiences to ground our expectations. New strategies seem more appealing than old ones because they can have unbounded hope.

As Aristotle noted, “Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope.” Perhaps this can be revised to “Youth is easily deceived because it only hopes.” There is no experience to root the expectation in. In the beginning, hope is all you have.

I boxed the whole thing and wrote MAJOR CHAMPIONSHIPS in the margin.

Of all the ways to construct a formula for winning a major championship, I think hope is the most underrated input. It’s a difficult thing to quantify, which is perhaps the entire point. To lose 29 in a row like Brian Harman did leading into last year’s Open and still maintain hope is a difficult thing.

I think this is why 22-year-olds winning majors often looks so … easy. Because in the beginning, hope is all you have.

8. Boy, this tweet upset some people.

Listen, I understand that Spieth was one of the great amateurs of the last 20 years and Purdy was a 7th round pick. He and Purdy did not have the same high school and college experience. Spieth is a three-time major winner and probably more accomplished five years ago than Purdy will be 10 years from now.

Howevah … it is true that when you watch Spieth — and even when you watched him at times back in 2015 or 2017 — you find yourself saying, “Is …. is this guy even good at golf?” which, to me, reflects the Purdy experience as well. That’s all I was saying.

And yes, the real comp for Spieth is Josh Allen, but this is a fun side comp. And no, there is nothing I won’t turn into a comp for Jordan Spieth.

9. A creator idea I think about all the time: What is obvious and normal to you, content creator or learner of things, is new and illuminating to someone who is not as far along your path or not as obsessed as you are. There is so much value to be found in that truth, and I forget it almost every day.

10. A thing I am constantly amazed by that got stirred up again this week: Being a fan of LIV Golf, the league. Rooting for a league! Oh, let me put aside my Toyota hat and McKesson t-shirt so I have room for my LIV Golf gear. The weirdest thing!

11. This will stun you (STUN you), but I appreciated what Rory said this week about allowing LIV players back with no consequences.

I don’t even know that I agree with it, but I thought it was admirable. Here’s why …

Always return to incentives. Who is the most incentivized to punish players for leaving? The biggest stars who stayed, right? They have the most to gain from creating hurdles to re-entry for the Brysons, DJs and Rahms. I don’t know what this would even look like, but any version of it would benefit the biggest stars on the PGA Tour to varying degrees.

And yet, Rory is basically saying, I’ll give that up to help end all of this.

That’s perhaps personally bad for Rory, but it’s definitely good for golf. Which again, is admirable.

Speaking honestly and candidly about a complex topic over a long arc of time is impossible. You’re always going to have to walk some things back, which is always going to make you look silly. This is why most sports stars don’t say anything meaningful or worthwhile, especially about complicated issues. It creates a burden of responsibility they don’t want to carry.

I think a lot of fans appreciate Rory because he’s both thoughtful and emotional. He’s … human. Not perfect, can’t see the future, gets stuff wrong, has bad takes but exudes humanity.

If you follow the narrative closely for a while, it’s something that you grow to appreciate about him because while you absolutely cannot see yourself in the easy 185 ball speed or the 68 after 68 after 68, you can see a reflection of your own thoughts, ideas and emotions about this messy last two years in one of the best to ever do it.

A lot of times, that’s all we’re looking for.

Somebody who, even if we don’t know them and they don’t know us, we feel like understands the places we’re coming from, the stories we tell ourselves and the ways in which we try to understand the world.