LIV and let die?

The Saudi Public Investment Fund's decision to pull funding from LIV Golf from the upstart LIV Golf tour has left the league's future and that of its players - including 11 who sued the PGA Tour in San Jose federal court - uncertain.

"LIV golfers are going to discover that cashing out is easier than cashing back in," said Jodi S. Balsam, a professor at Brooklyn Law School who once worked as an in-house counsel for the National Football League.

"The PGA Tour is within its rights to establish pathways back to the [PGA Tour] for those golfers that are conditional and onerous," she continued, noting that golfers unilaterally announced in 2022 that they were leaving the tour for LIV. "They have ongoing obligations to the players that did not defect."

The lawsuit was effectively resolved in 2023 after the individual players withdrew, LIV Golf replaced them as plaintiff, and the parties announced a proposed merger that ultimately never materialized.

"They just dismissed their case and called it a settlement," said Elliot R. Peters, a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP who represented the PGA Tour during the antitrust case.

William V. Roppolo, a partner with Baker & McKenzie LLP who represented star golfer Phil Mickelson before he withdrew from the complaint, said the PGA Tour "retains broad discretion to determine who is eligible to participate and on what terms" as long as they do not discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex and national origin.

"In that context, the Tour would be well within its rights to consider prior conduct that it reasonably views as harmful to its business, including participation in rival leagues or litigation that imposed substantial costs and disruption," he added.

It has been widely reported, lawyers noted, that the PGA Tour spent roughly $50 million defending against the lawsuit by the players and LIV.

"Who is paying the tour's legal fees? It's the players who remained loyal," Balsam said.

Attorneys said they expect the PGA to drive a hard bargain with any players seeking to rejoin the league.

Brooks Koepka, a five-time major champion, rejoined the tour earlier this year, before the Saudi fund pulled its funding from LIV, after agreeing to significant financial penalties. Patrick Reed, who won the 2018 Masters, also left LIV in January and is playing on the DP World Tour in Europe in the hopes of regaining his PGA Tour card.

But it may be more complicated for lesser players, especially those who sued the PGA. And in several cases, golfers still have contracts with LIV - which is seeking alternative funding to continue next year.

LIV contracts for some leading players, such as two-time Major champion Bryson DeChambeau, expire at the end of 2026 - although DeChambeau joined the antitrust suit, perhaps complicating his outlook.

But other prominent players, such as Jon Rahm, have contracts that extend beyond the current season - making it tricky for the PGA Tour to speak with them.

"The PGA Tour has to be very careful about what it's saying and offering to players who are still under contract with LIV," Balsam said, adding that they will want to avoid a new LIV lawsuit accusing them of interfering with its contracts.

During negotiations with players who can return, Roppolo said the PGA Tour must be careful to avoid measures that appear "punitive and exclusionary."

"While the Tour may believe it was significantly harmed by the prior dispute and has emerged in a strong position, the legal question would ultimately focus on whether any restrictions imposed are pro-competitive, rather than an effort to foreclose competition or deter participation in the market," he added.

Balsam said the PGA Tour may be best advised to wait for LIV Golf "to sink back to earth" to avoid legal complications, not to mention any frustration from its golfers who remained loyal.

But she said the world of sports "gravitates toward monopoly," so that sponsors and fans can watch the best golfers in a single league. "That's what makes a sports entertainment product compelling," Balsam said.

The PGA Tour will reunify, she added, but "it's not going to happen overnight, and they have to thread this needle very carefully."

No SEC 'gag rule' - what happens now?

The Securities and Exchange Commission's decision to rescind its 1972 'no admit, no deny' settlement policy Monday requiring individual and corporate defendants not to deny allegations when reaching settlements avoided the question of whether the rule violated the First Amendment.

"The SEC doesn't address it at all," said Jonathan E. Richman, a partner with Brown Rudnick LLP, of the Trump administration rule. "It gives four reasons, all of which are policy reasons and none of which are constitutional."

"The SEC didn't feel it needed to deal with that issue, because it didn't like the policy of 'no admit, no deny,'" he added.

A future commission, under a different administration, could change the policy, but Richman said it would be very difficult for a 2029-era SEC to punish those who denied allegations in a settlement agreement.

Margaret A. "Peggy" Little, senior litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance who represents petitioner Michael J. Powell, said she still hopes the Supreme Court grants review.

"A Supreme Court decision would not only be more definitive because of its lasting effect [but] a grant of NCLA's petition and a Supreme Court decision would provide much-needed legal clarity on such practices by any agency," she said.

Richman is skeptical that the justices will take the case because the new policy, which allows Powell and other defendants who signed settlement agreements to deny the SEC's allegations, moots their claims.

"It's too hypothetical or too abstract or both," he said.

Other lawyers were not so sure the justices would not take the case because Powell's settlement agreement is not void. Powell v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 25-1100 (S. Ct., filed Jan. 2, 2026).

The 1972 SEC policy allowed defendants to criticize the commission but not deny the specific allegations in a complaint. The provision became standard in settlements but drew opposition in recent years as a violation of the First Amendment from critics who described it as a "gag rule."

It drew criticism in recent years from entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Mark Cuban, both of whom had run afoul of the SEC, and they argued for its repeal.

Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP partner John W. Berry said the SEC's new policy would make settlements more likely.

"For many individuals being investigated by the SEC, part of the calculus in terms of deciding whether or not to settle had included that prohibition against denying the SEC's allegations," he said.

Lance Jasper, a partner with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, said the agency's decision to rescind the rule "gives both the SEC and settling parties more flexibility."

"In the short run, the change may complicate or delay some settlements as the SEC adjusts to resolving cases without the limitations of a decades-old rubric," he said. "Whether settlements are more likely will depend on whether the SEC changes its approach to other settlement terms, which would appear to be disfavored under the current administration."