Legacy means jack shit to the overwhelming majority of Tour players that will jump ship, so it's a moot point.
Most of the ones are over 40, past their prime, with near zero chances of winning a major.
To them, the LIV tour has come along at just the right time.

As for Monahan (and one usual suspect here) and the attempt to bring politics into the mix, it's also a moot point.
IMO, Golfers are the second most vanilla athletes (after hockey players) to discuss it in public, so attempting to influence them with emotional political BS is a waste of time, and it makes them look desperate and lame at the same time.

    Shouldn’t even mention the Liv tour. This is the US Open, toughest test in golf . The liv guys are washed up.

    Legacy seems to be the market driver to the big bucks in golf.  If switching from the PGA Tour to LIV can wipeout an individual legacy, what does that really say? 

    Evidently according to a number of golfers and media, golf history can only be made on the big stage. 

    I remember back when The Open was considered their tournament and Americans had little to no interest in playing in it.  Then one Amerucan golfer showed up and then it is now a sought after tournament to play in.

    There imo is far too much effort, energy and time  putting down the LIV, the players who moved over, while tooting the PGA Tour as the greatest, one and only.  There is something going on and the PGA Tour appears to be running scared.  Heck yesterday some of announcers commented on changes (pip, etc) were not enough and not effective. They believe more changes to come, so the said.  Wonder what the thought og Q-school entry fees almost doubling?

      World ranking points are only given to 72 hole tournaments. So even if the powers that be decided to give world ranking points to LIV Golf, they’d have to increase the tournaments to 72 holes and thus change their name to LXXII Golf. Doesn’t quite roll off the tongue so easily. Lol

        rsvman2 yep, if the numbers that are floating around out there are true, the guys would be crazy NOT to take it. If somebody walked up to you and told you for 1 year of work in the same profession, you would make more than the very best to ever do it has made in a 25 year career, don’t tell me you would say “no thanks, my legacy at xyz company is too important”

            DC300 yep, if the numbers that are floating around out there are true, the guys would be crazy NOT to take it. If somebody walked up to you and told you for 1 year of work in the same profession, you would make more than the very best to ever do it has made in a 25 year career, don’t tell me you would say “no thanks, my legacy at xyz company is too important”

            I'm sure there's many that feel that way, but there are many who don't. Most people have a line, but some may have no line.

            How many would take money from Putin to perform? Some took money to perform in South Africa during apartheid. You can't separate politics from any business (including the entertainment business) when human rights / atrocities are in the picture.

            It's the elephant in the room.

            And like it or not if you take money from LIV Golf, many will look at it that you are condoning human rights violations and atrocities committed by Saudi Arabia.

            Those who take money from a country trying to deflect it's dark human rights image in an attempt to sportswash it away, can't dismiss it with political ignorance and look the other way and expect no criticism.

                Martee If switching from the PGA Tour to LIV can wipeout an individual legacy, what does that really say?

                My memories of Brett Favre are that he played too long. My memories of Pete Rose are his gambling scandal. I wonder how I'll remember Lefty. It's not that I hold a grudge. I can recall Favre and Rose success stories, but it's got that "yeah, but" asterisk. Mark McGuire?

                    DC300 I agree. Legacy may be important to certain individuals, but for most people, the only legacy they'll have is whatever they leave for their children. Otherwise, they should be living their life, not someone else's idea of how they should live unless they've chosen to model themselves after someone else.

                    There are some universal and individual ethics that make turning down opportunities of a lifetime understandable. But none of the ethics pushed by the PGA Tour in an attempt to shame and cancel players is universal. They are applicable to Saudi Arabia, but not to other countries for some reason, both to the PGA Tour and to some individuals. I'm not going to call the ones that chose not to take the money either noble or stupid, it's their life and their choice.

                        sdandrea1 It's an individual thing. I have nothing but good memories about Brett Favre and Pete Rose. Rose broke the rules and I understand why people hold that against him, but I don't. The same for Tiger and his infidelity to his family. To me his legacy is as a player, not as a role model. My Mark McGuire memories aren't fond because I believe his biggest accomplishments were made through cheating the system. It's funny that he is the one I don't remember fondly since he's the only one of these that played for a team I love(d).

                            sdandrea1

                            Exactly. It would be disingenuous for top professional athletes to say legacy means nothing to them. Legacies positive or negative last forever. The money may not.

                            History will judge legacies. In baseball those who took steroids and got caught their legacies will suffer. It'll be known as the steroid era because of that.

                            And history will judge the legacies of the golfers who chose to play LIV Golf. LIV golfers won't be able to escape the scrutiny of their decision.

                            Just as I can't see a day when steroid use will be considered acceptable, taking sportswashing money won't be acceptable as well. In both cases legacies are tarnished.

                              johnnydoom

                              I get it and agree. McGuire was a hero of sorts to me as I watched in awe. Tiger as well. His comebacks and dominance were epic. I just got so disappointed in those guys in their fall from grace that it just stuck in my brain.

                                I'm sure once Phil lost his "legacy" (I guess it gets cancelled now) in about 5 minutes, it was pretty easy for everyone else to realize that they don't really even have a legacy to lose. Tiger and Jack needed to worry about theirs, but no one else really has one IMO.....at least not one worth what LIV golf pays.

                                  KCee I'm sure once Phil lost his "legacy" (I guess it gets cancelled now) in about 5 minutes, it was pretty easy for everyone else to realize that they don't really even have a legacy to lose. Tiger and Jack needed to worry about theirs, but no one else really has one IMO.....at least not one worth what LIV golf pays.

                                  I think the top PGA Tour guys who decided to stay on the PGA Tour and rejected the sportswashing money have kept their legacies intact. Some like McILroy, Thomas, Rahm, Spieth and Koepka etc. will be headed for the Hall of Fame.

                                  I'm sure their legacies had a huge influence on their decision.

                                      Sneakylong I'm curious. "You" think their legacy is important. But what if "they" don't care about their own legacy? Should they care because you do, or is it ok for them not to worry about their own legacy?

                                          And for all the whataboutism arguments made that the U.S. has an alliance with this or that country that has committed human rights atrocities and that somehow makes it acceptable for individuals to do the same.

                                          Countries including ours sometimes have to make strategic geopolitical alliances with countries with questionable human rights violations. We had an alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler for example.

                                          Individuals don't have to do that.

                                            Sneakylong whataboutism arguments

                                            AKA I'm going to point the figure at you for something I don't like, but please ignore the wrongdoings that I accept. I'm a bit sick of whataboutism as it's own excuse.

                                                johnnydoom I'm curious. "You" think their legacy is important. But what if "they" don't care about their own legacy? Should they care because you do, or is it ok for them not to worry about their own legacy?

                                                The percentage of top professional athletes who don't care about their legacy has to be extremely small. I think anyone in the public eye cares about their legacy. Unless they're a sociopath and even some of them probably care how they're viewed.

                                                Obviously with some of these players taking huge up front sportswashing money they're able to sleep at night with little regard to what people think.

                                                I think it's called having no conscience. History is littered with people who show little regard for their own integrity. Who choose money over character. Choosing money over morality is nothing new. But it's never viewed in a good light.