What I Learned: Where the Limits Are in the PGA Tour's Beloved ‘Meritocracy’
Every Monday Alex Miceli will share what he learned from the previous week in golf.
“Meritocracy.” It’s a term that usually reserved for your freshman-year political science class, not part of a complex argument for the livelihood of the PGA Tour.
But that is exactly where the word is used, by the powers in Ponte Vedra Beach when talking about the positives in the PGA Tour and its distinct differences from other tours or leagues, i.e., LIV Golf. Meritocracy is a rallying cry.
Other executives from golf's majors have also picked up on the term, using it to explain their position or to outline the benefits of the term regarding their event.
The bottom line is that golf on the PGA Tour is the best in the world and everyone that plays on the PGA Tour has earned their spot.
But if you start peeling back the onion and see how meritocracy is really used on the PGA Tour, you see how term loses credibility and is in fact being misused for the Tour’s benefit—not for the benefit of the individual players.
A perfect exhibit are some of the sponsor’s exemptions at this week’s signature event, the Arnold Palmer Invitational.
The professional recipients are Nicolai Hojgaard, Shane Lowry, Adam Scott and Webb Simpson.
Hojgaard and Scott are inside the top 50 in the World Ranking and therefore easy selections. Lowry is 57th in the world and not in the top 100 in the FedEx Cup standings, but an argument can be made for the burly Irishman one as a past British Open champion and fan favorite, though that isn’t pure meritocracy.
Simpson is another matter. At 235th in the world and 151st in the FedEx Cup, the former U.S. Open champion has struggled for a while yet is playing in his second signature event this season. He was T39 at the weather-shortened AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am last month.
Where is the meritocracy in his selection?
Some would argue his close ties to Palmer, as Simpson was a recipient of the Arnold Palmer/Buddy Worsham Scholarship at Wake Forest, and his support of the Bay Hill event as significant reasons for an exemption.
But add in the important fact that Simpson is part of the PGA Tour Policy Board and then you have a different definition of meritocracy: nepotism.
Favoring a player not because of how they are playing, but because you can, is at best nepotism and at worst corruption.
While an argument can be made for both nepotism and corruption, the more appropriate term may be “commercial meritocracy,” which means it's not just about a player’s success inside the ropes, but additional benefits he has outside the ropes.
Is Simpson’s spot in the field compensation for his time on the board or his previous support of the event?
Since his game is seemingly in neutral, what else could it be?
Simpson is also one of 12 player partners with the Royal Bank of Canada, a company that is the title sponsor of two events on the PGA Tour, the RBC Heritage and RBC Canadian Open.
Exposing Simpson to television time with the RBC patch on his sleeve provides commercial exposure for RBC, a win-win for the PGA Tour and an important sponsor.
Simpson could also financially benefit if he makes a cut, making at worst last-place money in a $20 million signature event and, if lighting strikes, may show he belonged in the field. Though in nine career appearances at Bay Hill, Simpson has five missed cuts and a best finish of 24th.
This isn’t Simpson-bashing, since he is just a pawn in a bigger game that ultimately reveals how competitive decisions are not always decided by meritocracy, but by other factors.
Is it nepotism? That's a fair use of the term when the Tour makes favorable decisions without regard to merit.
In this case, Simpson is the recipient of such a decision, but not a merit-based one.
