Spuzz Technically, yes, but in reality, that concept disappeared ages ago, when the big name sponsors started paying big money. The players are rich as long as the sponsors pay for outside the ropes commitments.
Fowler has done jack shit his entire career and he could live off what he has now, and then some, from Puma alone.
I think that you're selling Fowler short - yes, his recent play has been disappointing, but he has some significant achievements as a professional golfer, from earning his tour card through Q-school, to winning 5 events on the PGA Tour (and 2 more on the European Tour), representing the US on multiple Ryder and Presidents Cup teams, contending at several majors. He's been very successful at bringing money in through sponsorship (and probably more successful in that area than on the golf course), but he's made a pretty good living from his achievements on the golf course too.
(Info taken from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickie_Fowler)
Most players have to earn the right to continue to play on Tour each year, but successful players end up earning significant exemptions, to the point where someone like Fowler whose level of play has dropped off will still have full playing rights for several years - any Tour win gives a 2-year exemption (or longer for multiple wins or victories in the most important tournaments), there are additional exemptions for players in the top 25 and top 50 of the career money list - and other ways to be able to play in events in addition to this (injury exemptions, sponsor invites, etc.) To give an extreme example, if Tiger Woods had been so significantly affected by his injuries after winning the US Open in 2008 that he was incapable of making a cut, he would have been fully exempt on the PGA Tour through the 2015 season (5 years for the US Open win, 2 additional years from his position on the career earnings list).
