The Phil Mickelson Dilemma
How One of Golf’s Most Beloved Figures Fell Out This Week and Why He is No Longer One of My Favorites
“[The Saudis] are scary mother******* to get involved with … We know they killed [Washington Post reporter and U.S. resident Jamal] Khashoggi and have a horrible record on human rights. They execute people over there for being gay. Knowing all of this, why would I even consider it? Because this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape how the PGA Tour operates. They’ve been able to get by with manipulative, coercive, strong-arm tactics because we, the players, had no recourse. As nice a guy as [PGA Tour commissioner Jay Monahan] comes across as, unless you have leverage, he won’t do what’s right. And the Saudi money has finally given us that leverage. I’m not sure I even want [the SGL] to succeed, but just the idea of it is allowing us to get things done with the [PGA] Tour.” - Phil Mickelson via Alan Shipnuck, Firepit Collective (2022)
“It is the Tour’s obnoxious greed that has really opened the door for opportunities elsewhere” - Mickelson
I’ll never forget that 2004 Masters victory because of the way my parents reacted, screaming because their favorite golfer finally got over the hump. They were always massive Mickelson fans and loathed Tiger for much of what I can remember, particularly after 2009, despite my fandom at a young age. Starting around 2006 however, I started to become more of a Phil fan, progressively until I became in line with my parents. Although, an incredible shift has occurred over recent years in the popular and personal attitudes towards Tiger Woods. While this article is an illustration of one of the games most beloved figures fall from grace, I feel it particularly interesting to reference the resurgence of another man who suffered the biggest fall the game has ever seen.
Tiger has completely changed his personality since his dominating years in which he had numerous affairs which ruined his reputation. He was always seen as more of a competitor and had way more negative interactions with fans than Mickelson. Its no surprise one was more universally loved, the other more polarizing. But humans have a special attraction to comeback stories; Tiger’s story has been a comeback in more ways than one. The part I would like to highlight is his reputation. He has developed meaningful relationships with the new generation of Tour players and seems to have a new lease on life. I believe in forgiveness and that people can truly change, and I see it in Tiger Woods. Its part of the reason I have once again come to love Woods in his aging career.
Change has two sides. While everyone can change for the good, everyone can also change for the bad. Phil Mickelson was the second coming of Arnold Palmer in the game of golf. He had an “army” of adoring fans who flocked to him because of his friendly and respectful attitude. Phil’s iconic image was not his 2-inch vertical after winning the 2004 Masters, but simply a thumbs up. It became such a point of reference among fans that in recent years Mickelson himself posted videos on how many thumbs up he was going to attempt in a given round. When the spotlight was only on Phil during competition rounds, we only saw one side of him. Stories always came out about his excessive gambling and problems with taxes, but his joyous, loving attitude was the only one we ever saw, and I judge a man’s character on the way he treats others.
We should have seen the change coming from Mickelson. I believe the first true sign was the post-2014 Ryder Cup press conference where he infamously trashed Captain Tom Watson’s handling of the team in front of his face. The USA were humiliatingly defeated on foreign soil and Mickelson blamed Watson’s pairings and decision making, repeatedly praising the previous winning USA captain Paul Azinger, for his very different strategical approach. It was highly disrespectful to one of the games all time greats, in as public a setting as you could get. Mickelson later apologized but some amount of irreparable damage had been done, even if most people seemed to gloss over it in the years to come.
The beginning of the end was 2018 when Phil made a Twitter account and used it personally. He leaned into his middle-aged dad persona and even seemed to be teetering on the edge of crazy with the videos on his calves and obsession with “hitting bombs”. He went on fasts so significant that the only source of sustenance he was getting was a special coffee concoction. His teetering edge of insanity did lead to a miraculous victory at the PGA Championship last year at the age of 50, becoming the oldest golfer ever to win a major. Phil has always been known to be a bit indulgent, as I referenced earlier with his gambling. This led to his involvement with the newly created, Greg Norman led, Saudi backed, Super Golf League. The league was promising enormous contracts for the golfers and, the supposed key for Mickelson, complete ownership over their highlights and playing rights.
Right now, the PGA Tour owns all media rights to their players and restricts outside guests from profiting or in some cases even posting coverage from events. Mickelson has been at the center of multiple playing rights issues in his “The Match” appearances, where he claims Turner and himself were forced to pay the Tour $1 million per match. These practices led Mickelson to label the tours policies as “obnoxious greed”; Ironic, coming from the man who essentially just supported a dictatorial regime which kills dissidents all for the sake of money. Most other players quickly dispelled the idea of joining the Super Golf League, but some such as Dustin Johnson and Bryson DeChambeau seemed to be keeping their options open. Once the two of them announced their continued commitment to the PGA Tour, it left Phil Mickelson alone on an island of the top pros still possibly associated with the league.
Mickelson finally apologized last week for his involvement in crafting and associating with the league. His apology was as basic as it gets, and he continued to blame the tour for what he feels are unjust policies. I have no problem with Mickelson’s complaints over coverage rights, although I do believe they are miscalculated, but he explicitly said to Alan Shipnuck in an interview he was ok with looking past murder in an effort to stick one to the PGA Tour. The faults of the Tour do not make it acceptable to back the Saudi regime. On top of that, Mickelson has made $94,955,060 in career earnings on the PGA Tour which is 2nd all-time. It comes off as completely ungrateful for all the success the Tour has provided him. This stands in stark contrast with Wood’s reaction which was to say that the Tour has provided his legacy, and he wont turn on them.
I also question where Mickelson would be without the Tour promoting him? How would he be able to independently contract out his highlights and coverage in such a way that provides as much, if not more, viewership for him to grow his brand? The PGA Tour provides a streamlined look at the best golfers and what they do. As a moral question sure, some of the Tours restrictions may be overbearing, but in the end Mickelson has benefitted immensely from the policies the Tour has in place.
So as Woods has become one of my favorite golfer’s again, Mickelson has lost me. I do not dislike Phil, but I just do not see myself being excited or rooting for him again in the near future. I may not even get a chance however, as it seems Phil will be stepping away for some time. Phil will likely never have the chance at the on course redemption that Tiger did, as the PGA Championship victory seems ever so more like a gift from the golf gods to one of the game’s greats. While I do not hate the man, I do hate the actions, and I believe they are best illustrated by Rory McIlroy, in a moment somewhat poetically like Mickelson’s comments about Tom Watson. In an interview at the Genesis Invitational last weekend, McIlroy was as shockingly honest as only he can be;
“I don’t want to kick someone while he’s down obviously, but I thought [his comments] were naive, selfish, egotistical, and ignorant”