By Tushar Bhaduri

Money talks and, more often than not, it is louder than principles. Also, it has a tendency to chase those who need it the least.

These two theories can be vindicated by two recent events in the world of sport – the shock merger between the golfing establishment, represented by the PGA Tour and the DP World Tour, and the erstwhile rebel LIV Tour, bankrolled by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, and the discussions over the International Cricket Council’s revenue distribution model for the 2024-27 cycle. According to ESPNCricinfo, 94 Associate members will share $67.16 million over four years, which is just under 30% of the $231 million that would go to the Indian cricket board.

In both instances, the rich are fighting to find ways to get richer, and when fighting doesn’t help, they join their erstwhile rivals citing ‘the good of the game’.

The PGA Tour had called LIV all kinds of names, and commissioner Jay Monahan had even tried to dissuade members from jumping ship with the now-infamous question: have you ever had to apologise for being a member of the PGA Tour? The role of Saudi citizens in the 9/11 terror attacks was also brought up. That Monahan was fighting a losing battle was evident as several of his players, including some marquee names, found the temptation of hundreds of millions of dollars as a signing fee, guaranteed cheques – bigger than what the PGA Tour could offer – from no-cut restricted field events played over 54 holes, and generally more money for less work, too hard to resist.

Also read: Ringside view by Tushar Bhaduri: WTC: IPL workload, late departure could hurt India

The PGA Tour hiked the prize money of its own tournaments and fielded its big guns – including Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy – to dissuade potential leavers and also entered into an expensive legal battle with LIV. It makes the eventual truce and partnership between the two parties even harder to digest and a kick in the gut for those who chose to remain loyal to the PGA Tour, turning down huge sums as inducements.

Pragmatic view

However, if one takes an agnostic view of the deal, worked out behind the backs of the golfers of both camps, it benefits both groups of rich men. The PGA Tour and its European counterpart knew well that they couldn’t compete with a state awash with petrodollars. The hike in prize money and the lawsuits were also burning a hole in the bottom line. LIV, on the other hand, needed legitimacy as its tournaments were devoid of ranking points, and it wasn’t attracting spectators on the courses or on television. It was easier to buy out the opposition and get richer together.

It’s not the first time that the Saudis have used sport to raise their profile and tried to cast a positive image. Football, Formula One, boxing, and cricket have also seen similar attempts, but their foray into golf – one of the symbols of Western capitalistic elitism – is the most brazen one.

That the schism in the golfing world was not good for the sport was widely accepted, but it didn’t dilute the shock value when the agreement was announced.

It also has raised questions among US lawmakers over whether the deal creates a monopoly (golfers have hardly anywhere else to play), and whether an entity that aligns with the Saudi regime should continue to enjoy tax-exempt status. Potential issues over national security were also raised. Not that Monahan was unaware of these issues, but in his response to the skeptical lawmakers, he cited their inaction at the LIV threat and the lack of institutional support as reasons for going for the truce. A bit ironic as he tried to sell the deal to PGA Tour players as being for the good of the game.

Cricket at crossroads

As far as the cricket world is concerned, it is no secret that a few weaker boards are finding it increasingly difficult to prevent the exodus of their players to the several domestic leagues, turning their back on national duty. If the likes of New Zealand, West Indies, South Africa, and even England are having to deal with this trend, what hope do Associate Nations like Scotland and the Netherlands have?

There is a 10-team World Cup Qualifier starting in Harare shortly, from which only two will make it to the showpiece event in India starting in October. West Indies and Sri Lanka are the so-called ‘big teams’ in the fray, and some of the other sides will also have to deal with the unavailability of their key players, who will be playing for their English domestic teams at that time as their national boards can’t help them make ends meet. Many of the so-called lesser teams have registered upsets on the big stage, but with the system rigged against them, the status quo will remain, and cricket will not grow as a global game. However, this lack of new challengers may suit the established powers just fine.

Also read: Ringside view by Tushar Bhaduri: Divided by loyalties, united by Dhoni

With the lion’s share of the pie going to India, the other teams will have to deal with the fact that their players may weigh up their financial options. Already, there is talk of Indian Premier League franchisees offering annual contracts to players to appear in leagues around the world where they own teams. It puts international cricket, at all levels, depleted.

In more innocent times, sport was considered a trivial pursuit that really mattered. But as it became business, the purity of competition has been compromised as all stakeholders chase the almighty dollar. If sports administrators can’t look beyond the balance sheet, the term ‘survival of the fittest’ could well be altered to ‘survival of the richest’.