Jay Monahan’s fourth press conference as Commissioner featured five COVD-19 questions, four Premier Golf League questions, three on the new TV deal, and one combo TV/PGL question.

It was a surprising focus on the proposed league at the PGA Tour’s signature event, especially after the powerful statement made by a new TV deal that locks in PGA Tour golf with three enormous media companies through 2030 (and four if you include Discovery’s previously announced GOLFTV for international streaming rights).

You have to sympathize a bit with Monahan and friends after signing such a massive deal, only to have the PGL get so much attention. However, AP’s Doug Ferguson question early on, and Monahan’s open-ended answer, that might have prompted a few of the follow-ups.

The question:

 Q. So much chatter the first few months of the year have been on this Premier Golf League. I'm just curious how many of the top players have you spoken to, can you characterize the feedback you've gotten, and can you say one way or another if a player verbally pledges support of this new league, would they be no longer TOUR members immediately?

An immediate ban seems harsh, but also perfectly logical if the PGL is a legitimate threat to luring PGA Tour players away. Here was Monahan’s reply to that component:

If a player pledged -- you and I have a long history of hypotheticals and me not answering hypotheticals, but I would just tell you that we're encouraged by the response that our players have had in our discussions. I think that the value that we provide to our players, to our tournaments, to our fans, the news that we've just talked about, securing $12 billion in revenue through 2030, the strength and security and foundation of this TOUR has never been stronger, so that's what we're focused on. We're focused on the excellence that we want to continue to achieve with our players, and our commitment is always one to listen and to respond. That's a bridge we would cross when we get there, but going back to my earlier comments, this is a player-led organization, 51 years running. Our governance system has been driven by our players and our board, and we have regulations in place that allow us to protect the interests of our media partners, our sponsors and all of our constituents, and if we got to that point in time, we would take measures to vigilantly protect this business model.

That all seems sensible given the existential threat posed by the Premier Golf League. The league could siphon top players and expose PGA Tour schedule bloat that so many top players have acknowledged in recent weeks. Furthermore, the PGL’s “team concept” goes against PGA Tour regulations preventing players from having a financial interest in other players. Therefore, taking decisive action against early adopters seems warranted on Monahan and the Policy Board’s part.

Yet, the reluctance to go public with a ban policy prompts questions about the possible reasoning:

A) Gives the PGL legitimacy. Coming out with an unprecedented ban focused on one particular Tour certainly validates the PGL. Monahan’s stance of just waiting for a player to leave is probably the wise strategy. Unless a large group of players joins forces at once.

(B) Contradicts Rory. Rory McIlroy’s recent praise of independent contractor life, as opposed to a league requiring full participation, would suddenly sound less realistic under such a PGL ban. Particularly if a precedent is set that could be applied to other existing tours. Restraint of trade could be claimed.

C) Bad optics. Protecting the PGA Tour and its beneficiaries should not create a bad look, but the world is a funny place when it comes to perception. If a few top players or legends are threatened, they might get in a public war that benefits no one. Cutting off a long time star for good, while protecting the Tour, could also upset fans of that player.

Circling back to point A, why should Monahan take a tough public stance when no player has publicly committed? After all, the Tour’s board has been working to button up existing regulations related to competing tours.

In a January 24, 2020 memo to the PGA Tour Policy Board, Monahan explained his concerns to the board saying, “our current Regulations prevent players from taking actions that would cause TOUR harm (reputational or otherwise), as the Private Equity Golf structure would undoubtedly do.”

He went on to explain two more proposed regulation changes to ensure players “give their best efforts and to prevent free riding on the goodwill amassed in the PGA Tour brand.”

 The board was expected to ratify an action last week that “further crystallizes such intention and corresponding prohibitions.” However, a PGA Tour spokesperson would not confirm whether that vote was taken at least week’s Policy Board meeting.

There may also be more legal and financial ramifications not visible on the surface. Or, this tug-of-war could be a simple conundrum that has Monahan erring on the side of caution: there are big egos, massive dollars and too many sensitivities to take a tougher public stance that may already have been addressed in PGA Tour regulations.

The full press conference:

PGA TOUR commissioner Jay Monahan addresses the media @THEPLAYERSChamp. https://t.co/oqBJdz2oV0

— PGA TOUR (@PGATOUR) March 10, 2020