The legitimacy work of institutional disruption and maintenance: examining the rivalry between LIV golf and the professional golf association

ABSTRACT

Research Question

Research has shown those within sport organizations engage in legitimacy work when innovation is introduced and/or when current institutional arrangements are challenged. However, both legitimacy work and emotions have received limited attention within sport management research. This study sought to answer two questions: How do actors in dominant sport organizations frame messages to influence perceptions of legitimacy? And, how are messages crafted to evoke emotional responses from evaluators of new endeavors?

Research Methods

Using framing theory to guide the analysis, the researchers conducted emotional discourse analysis of 38 mainstream sport media articles to understand how PGA members framed messages to evoke emotional responses from audiences to influence how they perceived LIV Golf.

Results and Findings

The findings showed that the PGA framed itself as true golf and used emotional discourse to show how LIV Golf undermined the PGA’s conception. Actors suggested that LIV was eroding the legacy and traditions of golf, destroying the game, and negating the meritocratic structures of golf. The discourses within these themes were rife with emotional syntax that became a means of legitimacy work to maintain the dominant positioning of the PGA.

Implications

This research extends current understandings of legitimacy and institutional work within sport management by showing how emotion can be used as a means of legitimacy work to address/hinder institutional field dynamics, like innovation and competition. This work also shows how subjects of legitimacy work can change from the introduced practices to the introducing actor. Finally, this work shows how challenges can induce institutional evangelism.

KEYWORDS:

• Institutional work
• legitimacy work
• emotions
• framing
• institutional theory

Legitimacy has largely been understood as people’s perceptions of what are considered correct, desirable, and appropriate behaviors within a given setting (Suchman, 1995). Sport and other organizations tend to adopt operating structures and behaviors that align with expectations of various stakeholders and this, in turn, shields organizations from scrutiny while giving access to resources (broadly conceived) that are needed for survival (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008). Within sport and other industries, organizations must manage new challenges such as innovative product offerings or the emergence of rival organizations, that threaten to alter current institutional arrangements. Those challenges, regardless of utility, presents legitimacy concerns because new practices, structures, and approaches force interrogations of the properness of current institutional dynamics (Nite & Washington, 2017). As such, institutionalized actors, especially when they benefit from current institutional arrangements, will likely defend the current institutional arrangements via the process that has become known as institutional work.

Within the broader institutional work framework, legitimacy work has emerged as a distinct concept wherein actors focus more on influencing perceptions of institutions rather than focusing on institutional structures, practices, and dynamics. In this regard, legitimacy work tends to involve rhetoric and manipulation of discourse to sway opinions surrounding institutional issues (see Lefsrund et al., 2020; Nite, 2017; Nite & Nauright, 2020; Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010). When innovative institutional practices and structures are introduced, institutional defenders can influence perceptions through the manipulation of emotions (Creed et al., 2014), specifically through various forms of media (see Lefsrund et al., 2020; Nite, 2017). For instance, environmentalists produced emotionally charged media messages to garner public support as they pressured those in the logging industry to innovate logging practices in British Columbia (Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010). Despite the emergence of legitimacy work and the utility of emotion within, there is much we do not understand in this space.

Increasingly, institutional scholars have paid attention to the role of emotion within institutional processes (see Lok et al., 2017) and have called for greater attention to emotions within sport institutions (Nite & Edwards, 2021; Robertson et al., 2022). Institutionalists tend to focus on engrained structures of social interaction and tend to dehumanize institutionalization (Lok et al., 2017). However, institutions are human productions of collective taken-for-granted behaviors and structures (see Greenwood et al., 2008), and as such, it is important to understand how human emotion influences people’s adherence to or rejection of engrained institutions (Lok et al., 2017). Scholars have noted that ‘social emotions are likely to be particularly important in institutional processes [because they] are implicated in the ways people make sense of and participate in the interactions that underpin the shared enactment of institutional arrangements’ (Creed et al., 2014, p. 279). Further, emotion has been considered a defining feature of sport products as sport organizations often attempt to invoke emotions through marketing efforts (Kwak et al., 2011) as consumers are often emotionally attached to their favorite sport teams (Lee et al., 2018). To fully understand how actors can manipulate sport institutions and perceptions of legitimacy, scholars must account for the influence of human emotion. With this study, we seek to answer calls for developing better understanding of emotions and legitimacy work within sport management.

The purpose of this research is to examine how affiliates of dominant institutions frame media discourses to impact perceptions of legitimacy of emergent rivals. We build upon prior theorizations of legitimacy work to understand how sport actors craft messages that evoke emotional responses to influence perceptions of legitimacy. In doing so, we examine rivalry between the Professional Golf Association (PGA) and the newly founded golf league LIV Golf (LIV). Historically, the PGA has been the dominant governing body of golf and has hosted the PGA Tour as the primary professional golf league, especially within North America. Yet, in recent years, LIV has emerged as an alternative golf league and has drawn several high-profile professional golfers, such as Phil Mickelson and Dustin Johnson, to its league with large guaranteed contracts and reduced number of tournaments. LIV has been a source of controversy given its primary funding source and innovative approaches to golf competitions that deviate from traditional PGA tournament structures. As such, we focus, primarily, on how the PGA and its sympathizers framed various aspects of LIV to influence golf stakeholders’ perceptions of LIV’s legitimacy. Through emotional discourse analysis (Koschut, 2018), we highlight how organizations, practices, and structures can be framed to invoke emotional responses that were designed to influence perceptions of legitimacy.

Theory: legitimacy work and emotions

Legitimacy is a central concept of institutional theory and is the primary theoretical focus of this research. Deephouse et al. (2017) defined legitimacy as ‘the perceived appropriateness of an organization to a social system in terms of rules, values, norms, and definitions’ (p. 32). Organizations and other entities seek legitimacy to secure access to resources needed for survival (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Actions are evaluated by relevant audiences who make judgements on the properness of said actions (Deephouse et al., 2017) and can be influenced by concerted human actions, specifically institutional work (Hampel et al., 2017; Nite & Nauright, 2020). Institutional work has been defined as the ‘purposeful, reflective efforts of individuals and collective actors and networks of actors intended to shape a society’s ideas, beliefs, values, and assumptions’ (Lawrence & Phillips, 2019, p. 189) and draws upon the notion of embedded agency by explicating how actors are simultaneously influencers of and influenced by institutions (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2012).

As institutional work has proven effective for explaining institutional processes, scholars have pointed to new areas of development that may further detail how actors influence institutions. Hampel et al. (2017) suggested scholars move beyond exploring the outcomes of institutional work (i.e. creation, maintenance, and disruption) and develop more insight into the ‘means’ of achieving institutional objectives. Consequently, the lived experiences of agency are receiving more attention, particularly how the humanized aspect of agency might influence institutions (Lok et al., 2017; Nite & Edwards, 2021). There is a contemporary shift to consider how institutional work is in relationship with other tenets of institutional theory, like logics and legitimacy (Hampel et al., 2017; Nite & Edwards, 2021).

Whereas institutional work focuses on actions that influence institutions and institutionalization, legitimacy work is distinct, as the focus is on influencing perceptions of the properness of institutions. This is an important distinction because the work that influences perceptions of legitimacy, although rooted in and drawing upon institutions, focuses on audience cognitions rather than the activities of institutional work that generally focus on embedding routines, developing regulatory structures, and crafting cognitive schema (see Hampel et al., 2017; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Nite et al., 2019). In effect, legitimacy work tends to be symbolic and focused on influencing actors rather than on institutions.

Although a relatively nascent concept, scholars have recognized various actions of legitimacy work. Research has shown that actors may purposefully obscure institutional processes through collusion and silencing dissenters (Nite & Nauright, 2020). Related, scholars have detailed how strategic alliances may also influence how others perceive the legitimacy of sport endeavors (Byun et al., 2021). Others have shown framing acts and/or actors as ‘exemplars’ or as ‘harmful’ may also influence perceptions of legitimacy (Nite, 2017; Nite & Nauright, 2020). Further, Lefsrund et al. (2020) explicated how symbolic text and imagery may be implemented to evoke emotional responses to influence perceptions of legitimacy. Indeed, legitimacy work seems to entail some manipulation of evaluators’ emotions. The work of Lefsrud and colleagues (2020) is particularly notable as it addressed the call for more research of symbols and emotions within institutional research (see Hampel et al., 2017). Their work provided evidence of the utility of connecting symbology with human responses to understand legitimation processes.

Emotions

Over the latter part of the 2010s, institutional scholars have recognized the impact of emotions within institutional processes (Lok et al., 2017; Voronov & Vince, 2012). Researching and understanding emotions is important because institutions are products of human activity and emotionality is a defining characteristic of being human (Hampel et al., 2017; Lok et al., 2017). Relevant to the current inquiry, legitimacy work may entail the invocation and manipulation of emotion to influence people’s perceptions of properness (Deephouse et al., 2017; Lok et al., 2017). Specifically, emotions may become part of organizational discourse (Koschut, 2018) and may be invoked to influence people’s perceptions of properness (Deephouse et al., 2017).

Emotions can be explicit in discourses with authors invoking words like ‘fear,’ ‘shame,’ or ‘anger.’ Emotions can also be loaded in words invoking negative connotations such as ‘genocide,’ ‘slavery,’ or ‘massacre.’ Additionally, emotions can be expressed in metaphors and analogies, as these phrases create a mental image/perception to reference that is connected to an emotional sentiment. Examples include, ‘Beacon of democracy,’ ‘heart of a lion,’ ‘early bird,’ or ‘He is the biggest fraud since Bernie Madoff.’ As such, ‘it is emotions that change mere strings of words into meaningful narratives that inform inspired practice’ (Lok et al., 2017, p. 595). Whereas people’s emotional evaluations may not fully encapsulate evaluations of legitimacy (Deephouse et al., 2017), they are indicative of how people respond to institutional initiatives and/or challenges to institutional processes (Lok et al., 2017). Considering legitimacy is largely a perception, it is important to understand how stakeholders’ perceptions are influenced by their emotional to challenge institutional field dynamics, like innovation and competition.

Focusing on emotions as integral to legitimacy work seems particularly relevant when new endeavors are introduced that challenge current institutional structures and especially when those challenges are somewhat controversial. Emotions provide insight into people’s values and how they make sense of the world (Creed et al., 2014; Voronov & Vince, 2012). When new endeavors are introduced that conflict or even challenge people’s values, they will likely experience emotional responses that will impact their perceptions of the properness of the endeavor (Voronov & Vince, 2012). Entities may then take actions to manipulate people’s emotions to garner a targeted evaluation of the legitimacy of an endeavor. Often, these actions entail discursive work where an entity may frame messaging around the endeavor to influence people’s attitudes (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009).

To better understand how discourses may be framed to evoke emotions that influence perceptions of legitimacy, we examine the rivalry between members of LIV Golf and members of the PGA. In the following section, we provide an overview of this rivalry. To study this rivalry, we draw upon framing theory and critical discourse analysis to show how PGA members crafted their messages to evoke negative emotions regarding the emergence of LIV Golf.

The PGA and LIV golf

Our study of legitimacy work was situated within the context of professional golf. The two focal organizations of interest are the Professional Golf Association (PGA) and LIV Golf (LIV). Our research focused men’s golf as LIV Golf at the time of this writing was exclusively a men’s tour with no female equivalent. It is also important to note that the PGA Tour and LIV announced their merger in June of 2023 (after this research had been completed). The PGA of America was founded in 1916 with 35 charter members (History of the PGA, n.d.). Currently, the organization describes itself as ‘one of the world’s largest sports organizations, composed of PGA Professionals who work daily to grow interest and participation in the game of golf’ (PGA of America, n.d., para. 1). PGA professionals include people working at local golf clubs and touring professional golfers. The PGA is the host organization of the PGA Tour (sponsor title: FedEx Cup) which consists of 47 tournament events that culminates with a Tour Championship tournament. Professional golfers accumulate points throughout the tour season based on how they finish in the different tournaments they play (About us, n.d.). Further, the PGA of America is affiliated with the European Tour (current sponsor title: DP World Tour) that hosts professional golf events throughout the world (What is the DP World Tour?, 2019). In recent years, the PGA Tour and the European Tour (DP World Tour) have developed a close working alliance and have collaborated on popular golf competitions such as the Ryder Cup (Carter, 2020). The PGA provides payment to golfers based on how they place within tournaments (the amounts vary depending on the tournament) and the winner of the 2022 FedEx Cup (Rory McIlroy) earned $18 million (Payday at East Lake, 2022). The typical PGA tournament event is 72 holes played out in four rounds over four days (typically Thursday-Sunday) with a ‘cut’ after 36 holes that eliminates approximately half of the field who are not within a certain number of strokes of the lead, and, until very recently, PGA tournaments have not provided guaranteed payments to golfers.

LIV Golf emerged in the Fall of 2021 as an alternative league for professional golfers. LIV is funded by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and is being led by Greg Norman, a former professional golfer who had been trying to develop an alternative tour to rival the PGA since the mid-1990s (Dethier, 2022). LIV has the stated mission ‘to modernize and supercharge the game of professional golf through expanded opportunities for both players and fans alike’ (Who we are, n.d., para 1). LIV has touted some revolutionary structural diversions from traditional PGA events. These include shorter durations of competitions (three days, 54 holes), team events within each tournament, guaranteed payments to all participating golfers, fewer golfers per tournament, defined golf seasons, and no cuts during tournaments (How it works, n.d.). Further, LIV offered other perks such as chartered flights to tournaments for golfers and their teams (Zimmer, 2022). The LIV season is comprised of seven regular season tournaments that culminate with a four-day, four-round event that crowns an individual champion who receives $18 million and team champion with first place earning $16 million. Indeed, one of the primary features of LIV has been the amount of money the league offers players. As a New York Times article noted, ‘The LIV Golf events are the richest tournaments in golf history … The winner’s share at each stop is $4 million, and the last-place finisher is guaranteed $120,000. And that is on top of the appearance fees and signing-on payouts individual players have accepted’ (Panja & Das, 2022, para 6–7).

However, LIV’s emergence was met with substantial backlash from the PGA and other members of the golf and broader sport communities. Specifically, LIV has been heavily criticized as being anti-competitive because of the guaranteed payouts to its golfers. In fact, many PGA affiliates and supporters have labeled defection to the LIV tour as a money grab by players (Panja & Das, 2022). An anonymous player suggested, ‘ … these guys wanted a quick money grab to go play in an exhibition’ and were hurting the sport of golf by playing in LIV events (Schlabach, 2022, para. 28). Others have criticized LIV’s 54-hole, no-cut format which is distinct from the PGA Tour’s 72-hole with cuts after the first 36 holes offering (Saul, 2022). Tiger Woods even stated, ‘I don’t understand it … What is the incentive to practice and earn it in the dirt?’ (Harig, 2022c, paras. 3 & 7). Further, LIV has been criticized for its reliance on funding from the Public Investment Fund which is directly tied the Saudi Arabian royal family (Warren, 2022). Critics argue that the Saudis’ investment in LIV is a form of ‘sport-washing’ that is meant to distract the public from the nefarious acts committed by Saudi Arabian royals. Sport washing has been defined as ‘a means by which a country can deflect audiences’ attention away from less favorable perceptions of a country via a program of investment in sport’ (Chadwick, 2022, p. 696). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family have been accused of nefarious actions for many years. Specifically, in recent years, the state and royal family of Saudi Arabia was accused of and condemned by leaders of the United Nations for the torturous murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi (Khashoggi killing, 2019). Some have also condemned Saudi Arabia’s attack on Yemen and accused the Saudis of committing war crimes by bombing civilian homes and other targets such as hospitals (Lee et al., 2022).

Despite the substantial criticism of LIV, numerous high-profile players and members of the mainstream golf and sport community have joined LIV Golf. Notably, LIV has attracted multiple major champions¹ including: Phil Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Bryson DeChambeau, Brooks Koepka, Patrick Reed, and Sergio Garcia, among other well-known professional golfers (Rivera, 2022). LIV golfers have pointed to various reasons for leaving the PGA Tour to join LIV, such as increased payouts and more favorable tournament schedules (Rivera, 2022). For instance, Phil Mickelson was allegedly offered $200 million, which was more than double his entire PGA Tour career earnings (Cannizzaro, 2022; Rivera, 2022). Whereas the money was cited as an important factor, Cameron Smith (winner of the 2022 Open Championship) also stated that LIV’s tournament schedule was one of the main factors in his decision to join LIV (Priest, 2022). Regardless of each player’s individual reasoning, LIV has provided an alternative and lucrative professional golf option for professional golfers. Ultimately, the PGA Tour suspended golfers who participated and became affiliated with LIV Golf and its tournaments (Schlabach, 2022). The backlash to LIV is unsurprising considering challenges to current institutional arrangements are typically met with resistance as people and organizations figure out how to manage the implications of the challenges (Nite & Washington, 2017).

We consider the rivalry between the PGA (and its supporters) and LIV as struggle of legitimacy. Whereas we are not privy to internal dialogs, the public messaging from members and advocates for both entities seems to center around arguments regarding the properness of professional golf competition structures, treatment of players, and who should be considered the primary purveyor of professional golf. A distinct feature of the legitimacy struggles between the PGA and LIV has been the noticeable emotionality of messaging from PGA advocates. In an interview with Golf Digest regarding LIV golfers playing in a normal PGA event, professional golfer Billy Horschel stated ‘There are mixed feelings out here. Some guys don’t think the LIV guys should be here … When they said they wanted to play less golf. It’s pretty hypocritical to come over here … ’ (Huggan, 2022, para. 6 & 9). As our research focuses on understanding how dominant sport governing bodies and affiliated actors respond to newly introduced practices and organizing structures, we examined the public messaging of the PGA and its advocates, focusing on how messages were comprised of emotionality to influence perceptions of legitimacy from golf stakeholders such as players, fans, corporate sponsors, and television networks. Our work was guided by two broad research questions:

RQ1: How do affiliates of dominant sport organizations frame messages to influence stakeholders’ perceptions of an emergent rival’s legitimacy?

RQ2: How are messages crafted to evoke emotional responses from evaluators of new endeavors?

Method

This study was guided by framing theory (Frederick et al., 2021; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009) and used emotional discourse analysis (EDA) (Koschut, 2018) to examine how affiliates of the PGA sought to establish particular frames laden with emotion to influence perceptions of legitimacy. Framing is a sociological approach for examining how perception is dictated by informational schemes that inform interpretive processes (Frederick et al., 2021). A frame ‘unifies information into a package that can influence audiences’ (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009, p. 19). In this regard, framing theory is concerned with how frames are packaged, constructed, and understood to characterize issues. Gross and D’ambrosio (2004) found that framing affected emotional responses, though this relationship was partially dependent on predispositions of the viewer. One intriguing area of framing research focuses on the relatively irrational nature of individuals and situations where multiple frames are brought into opposition (Spiegler, 2014). De Vreese (2005) explained framing as a process that consists of the frame building by the presenter and then the frame setting with the audience and its effects on processing. Hence, a critical aspect of framing is making sense of how media frames inform interpretative processes based upon what information is shared, emphasized, or excluded.

Scholars implementing framing theory are particularly concerned with frame building, which examines how frames become established in societal discourse and how these frames become manipulated by dominant actors within various settings to win a frame contest (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). These framing contests can have a winner with one frame becoming dominant or can see offsetting effects that lead to an overall neutral response to the framing (Druckman, 2004; Kaplan, 2008). The purpose of exploring frame building is to understand how particular entities engage in a frame contest. In a frame contest, ‘one interpretative package might gain influence because it resonates with popular culture or a series of events, fits with media routines or practices, and/or is heavily sponsored by elites’ (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). This notion of a frame contest finds connection to our investigation of legitimacy work. Like legitimacy work, a frame contest is about influence and how different actors engage in particular tactics to maintain or establish a legitimate position. Thus, we used framing theory as a foundational aspect of our methodological approach for examining how dominant sport organizations frame messages to influence perceptions of legitimacy and craft messages to evoke emotional responses from evaluators of new endeavors.

Data collection

In alignment with framing theory (Tewksbury et al., 2000), we focused on major/mainstream and primarily U.S. based sport news outlets (Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Golf Channel, Golf.com, etc.), to examine how dominant sport organizations frame messages to influence perceptions of legitimacy (see Table 1). To answer the research questions, our inclusion and exclusion criteria included the following: (a) Mainstream sport news media articles, (b) Sport news media articles that centered the commentary of key PGA actors, (c) Sport news media articles that discussed LIV, (d) Sport news media articles that contrasted PGA and LIV and used PGA actors’ commentary to do so. We intentionally focused on outlets (i.e. Golf Monthly, Sport Illustrated, New York Times, ESPN, The Athletic, LA Times, etc.) because of their influence upon societal discourses and perceptions of an issue (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009).

Table 1. Articles included in Emotional Discourse Analysis.

Doc #	Title	Source
1	Weekly Read: PGA Tour Players Offer Opinions on LIV Golf Invitational Possibilities	Sports Illustrated
2	Tiger Woods Restates Support for PGA Tour, Has ‘A Lot of Disagreement’ With Phil Mickelson, LIV Golf	Sports Illustrated
3	Dustin Johnson Headlines Field for Inaugural LIV Golf Tournament	Sports Illustrated
4	LIV Golf Received 170 Entries for First Event, Including 19 of World's Top 100	Sports Illustrated
5	Padraig Harrington Believes Outrage Over LIV Golf, Saudi Money, Will Dissipate: ‘Time Will Pass’	Sports Illustrated
6	Former PGA Tour Players Now With LIV Have Memberships Revoked for Next Season	Sports Illustrated
7	Federal judge denies LIV golfers bid for PGA Tour postseason	Associated Press
8	Saudi money, blockbuster names and a unique format: everything you need to know about the LIV Golf series	CNN
9	LIV Golf Invitational Series to consist of eight events, offer $255 million in purses	ESPN
10	PGA Tour suspends all players taking part in first LIV Golf tournament	ESPN
11	Source: Bryson DeChambeau joining LIV Golf Invitational Series	ESPN
12	Billy Horschel blasts ‘hypocrites’ playing LIV Golf series, accuses some of ‘lying’	ESPN
13	Tiger Woods turned down offer in ‘neighborhood’ of $700-$800 million when approached to join LIV Golf, Greg Norman says	ESPN
14	LIV Golf players suing the PGA Tour ‘frustrating,’ says Scottie Scheffler, No. 1-ranked player in the world	ESPN
15	Phil Mickelson: LIV Golf a ‘force that's not going away’	ESPN
16	DP World Tour sends memo warning its players against playing LIV Golf events	Golf Channel
17	As LIV Golf dominates current conversation, fate of fall slate more important for many	Golf Channel
18	Rickie Fowler says he's considering playing in Saudi-backed LIV Golf series	Golf Digest
19	Nick Faldo not interested in LIV Golf, knows he and Greg Norman have no interest in each other	Golf Digest
20	Two more players bail from lawsuit against PGA Tour, but LIV Golf added to complaint	Golf Digest
21	Rory McIlroy can't stop, won't stop daggering LIV Golf lawyers	Golf Digest
22	Trevor Immelman Describes ‘Pretty Frustrating’ LIV Golf Uncertainty	Golf Monthly
23	'Yeah, you can’t compare those': Justin Thomas shuts down Talor Gooch's comments about LIV Golf and Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup	Golf Week
24	‘Most exciting golf TV ever’: Greg Norman’s rumored tour is talking a big game	Golf.com
25	11 burning questions about the future of LIV Golf and the PGA Tour	Golf.com
26	‘Everybody, it feels like, is against us’: LIV tension surfacing at Open Championship	Golf.com
27	‘Complete bulls – ’: Pro calls out LIV golfers’ hollow justifications for leaving PGA Tour	Golf.com
28	‘Brutally difficult’: Trevor Immelman talks Presidents Cup headaches caused by LIV Golf	Golf.com
29	‘They don’t count’: What Davis Love III thinks LIV Golf is missing	Golf.com
30	LIV Golf’s response to PGA Tour’s changes? One sentence – for now.	Golf.com
31	Could LIV Golf and the PGA Tour make peace? Don’t count on it	Golf.com
32	‘First time I have felt betrayal’: Rory McIlroy opens up on LIV defections	Golf.com
33	‘This Is Uncomfortable’: Saudi Arabia Upends Genteel World of Pro Golf	New York Times
34	One Golfer Not Welcome at the British Open? Greg Norman.	New York Times
35	LIV Golf players ineligible for PGA Tour membership renewal	Reuters
36	Matt Fitzpatrick dishes on LIV Golf, critiques FedEx Cup Playoffs ahead of BMW Championship: ‘I don't think it's fair’	USA Today
37	'If Rory was born in the United States, I'd vote him for president': Will Zalatoris dishes on LIV Golf, his U.S. Open close call, Tiger Woods, and tons more	USA Today
38	Golf at St. Andrews is real, which is why it has no room for Greg Norman	Washington Post

Our approach began with a Google News search of ‘LIV golf’ and selected sport news media articles dating back to the ‘early whispers’ of a competing golf organization (i.e. LIV) in October of 2021 until October 2022. Considering our initial searches returned thousands of articles, we were stringent with the following inclusion/exclusion criteria to address our theoretical questions. We excluded articles that we considered to be commentary from non-PGA affiliated affiliates. To clarify, we excluded commentary articles from golf pundits who were not touring PGA members or members of the PGA or LIV executive teams. Given the context of the rivalry between PGA and LIV, we sought to only collect discourses from stakeholders who were either members or executive leaders of the PGA and would feel the need to maintain the historical and contemporary standing of the PGA. Consequently, we only selected sport news media articles that centered on or interviewed key PGA actors, like PGA golfers, the Commissioner, Senior Vice Presidents, CEOs of PGA affiliated tours, etc. Given our focus upon legitimacy work, we excluded news media articles from less influential actors, such as blogging sites, because our inquiry focused more upon how a dominant governing body would potentially use dominant media outlets to engage and hopefully win the framing contest (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). Next, we identified duplicate articles in the sample as Associated Press releases were found to be republished by numerous outlets. Once the duplicates and commentary articles were removed, we scrutinized each article for duplicate quotes from PGA and LIV affiliates. Finally, we removed articles that we perceived as exclusively descriptive of facts and happenings in professional golf. For instance, and whereas we consulted various ‘timeline articles’ (e.g. Zak, 2022) to educate ourselves on the events leading up to the creation of LIV, articles of this nature were excluded because we did not view them as framed messages designed to evoke emotion. Based upon our research questions, methodology, and sampling techniques, our study included 38 sport news media articles which we viewed as speaking directly to the theoretical topics of this inquiry.

Analysis

We used Koschut’s model of emotion discourse analysis (EDA) to examine how discourses evoke emotional responses from evaluators of new endeavors. EDA is an extension of discourse analysis (DA) (see Keaton, 2021; Sveinson et al., 2021), and like DA, EDA requires researchers to move beyond surface level interpretations of text and language to account for deeper complexities of how language is used to maintain or challenge hegemonic systems and power. EDA perceives ‘emotions as socially constructed representations of meaning that are linked to conceptions of identity and power’ (Koschut, 2018, p. 278). Thus, EDA considers how particular syntax, words, and phrases are strategically paired to evoke an emotional sentiment and examines the intent of the sentiment. A critical aspect of EDA is centering how emotions are informed by identity and sociocultural structures (Koschut, 2018). Thus, our analysis was attuned to whose discourses we examined (i.e. prominent PGA affiliates) and attuned to the socio-cultural structures of their discourses (i.e. rivalry with LIV). Koschut’s conceptual EDA model (2018) has three criteria: (1) selecting appropriate texts, (2) demonstrating what type of emotional meanings are linked to particular discourses (emotion potential of texts), and (3) contextualizing the intent and purpose of the discourse (emotionalization effects of texts). We used this structure in conjunction with our research methodology (framing) and theoretical framework (legitimacy work) to address the research questions.

Data were analyzed through a multi-step process that commenced with detailed critical readings which entailed the development of descriptive comments and concept codes to analyze how each sport news media article engaged in the framing. Using Koschut’s (2018) conceptual model of EDA, we used the discourse tool, Situated Meaning (Gee, 2014) to consider the emotional potential of texts. Situated Meaning is a discourse tool that is used when listeners or readers, ‘have to figure out – guess – what a [speaker] means based on what else has been said and other aspects of the context’ (Gee, 2014, p. 158). Consequently, when analyzing the emotional potential of texts (Koschut, 2018), we were critically attuned to how particular words appeared out of place or unnecessary, but then transitioned to questioning how particular language was relevant to the broader contextual issues between the PGA and LIV. We then debriefed how emotional meaning was covertly and overtly presented in discourses and transitioned to considering the purpose of these discourses, which is level three of EDA. Finally, we engaged the iterative process of merging categories to solidify themes, which led to the authors establishing three themes – legacy and tradition, destroying the game, and golf is a meritocracy – with clear emotional discourses. These three themes supported the frame building efforts of the PGA to proverbially win the frame contest to maintain the PGA as true golf (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009).

Findings

Framing the PGA tour as true golf

There was one overarching frame capturing the legitimacy work of PGA tour members and executives. The PGA and affiliated members framed themselves as true golf, meaning any other golf association is an improper and illegitimate organization. Their frame building efforts were layered with emotional discourses captured in three themes arguing LIVs illegitimacy while also defending the PGA the dominant actor: (a) The legacy and traditions of the PGA are sacred, (b) LIV is destroying the game, and (c) golf’s meritocratic structures are the norm. In each theme, prominent PGA stakeholders sought to delegitimize LIV through emotional appeal, rather than rationality. The use of emotion discourses to frame the PGA as true golf is succinctly captured in commentary from CBS Sports Chairman Sean McManus, as he avowed to be uninterested in LIV because he is focused on ‘put[ting] out the best golf product in the world.’ Thus, the notion of true golf is the overarching frame we identified that is built on the three subthemes we describe in detail.

Legacy and tradition

To maintain the legitimacy of the PGA, stakeholders drew upon what the PGA has meant and should continue to mean to the golf community by focusing on legacy and tradition. These discourses framed those participating in LIV as actors wrongly and unjustly disrupting the history of the governing body and falling out of line with institutionalized practices. For example, Tiger Woods discussed how LIV is harming the legacy of the PGA and how doing so is disrespectful to long standing traditions. He shares:

I just think what Jack (Nicklaus) and Arnold (Palmer) have done in starting the Tour and breaking away from the PGA of America and creating our Tour (in 1968) … I just think there's a legacy to that … I understand different viewpoints, but I believe in legacies. I believe in major championships. I believe in big events, comparisons to historical figures in the past. (Harig, 2022b)

Woods stated ‘legacy’ multiple times in an effort to communicate the sacredness of the PGA. Legacy is loaded with emotional syntax as it speaks to culture, commitment, and time (Koschut, 2018) and is framing the PGA as true golf because legacies have a story, history, and ‘historical figures of the past’ attached to it. In this regard, the PGA is the true institution in golf that was built upon American ideals of meritocracy. Additionally, there was an ‘us v. them’ component to his framing of PGA as true golf rooted in legacy and tradition. For example, he follows the above quote with, ‘But you have to go out there and earn it. You’ve got to go out there and play for it.’ Through the discourse tool of Situated Meaning (Gee, 2014), what Woods was really saying is that the tradition and history of PGA (us) is to ‘earn it’ and ‘play for it’, and, unlike LIV (them), our legacy is built upon ‘not [being] guaranteed’ [financial success] ‘up front’. Hence, the purpose of the us versus them discourse was to remind the organizational field of the traditions and legacies of the PGA that should substantiate their status in the field as true golf.

When actors in the organizational field refused to uphold the ‘legacy’ of the PGA by participating in LIV, they were positioned as being ‘defectors’ and ‘ … a field of guys who weren’t really going to make a proper tour’. Matt Kuchar, a PGA golfer, used these loaded emotional discourses to delegitimize LIV and those who perceive LIV as a more prosperous financial opportunity. He asserted:

I couldn’t really see who was going to follow suit with what happened to Phil … but if they [LIV] actually pulled off two or three events that went smoothly and a guy actually was cashing a $4 million check at the end of the week, I could see there being defectors for sure … Now I think the fear is if they do get started and if it does go smoothly, I think they’ll probably get some defectors. (Harig, 2022a)

A ‘defector’ is an individual who has abandoned their country, which carries the emotional connotation of being unpatriotic. In our current socio-political context, being perceived as a ‘defector’ has negative social, economic, and cultural repercussions. Therefore, the figurative weight packed into the discourse of ‘defector’ transitions to being a good citizen by maintaining PGA legacies and traditions. Lastly, Kuchar’s discursive framing of the PGA as true golf was less about protecting the sport from expansion and more about re-legitimizing the status quo of the PGA in the organizational field, as his discourses attempt to position earning a ‘$4 million check’ as a negative outcome, when it is only negative because it challenges the legacy and traditions of the PGA.

The PGA Tour Commissioner, Jay Monahan, used emotional discourses to frame the PGA as true golf by centering legacy and tradition. His emotional discourses drew upon the legacy of the PGA to argue PGA golfers as achieving their ‘dreams’ and as actors affiliated with a ‘preeminent organization in the world of professional golf’. There is an emotion meaning attached to his discourse of ‘dream’ and ‘preeminent organization’, as he states in a memo to the Tour’s membership:

These players have made their choice for their own financial-based reasons … That expectation disrespects you, our fans and our partners. You have made a different choice, which is to abide by the Tournament Regulations you agreed to when you accomplished the dream of earning a PGA TOUR card and – more importantly – to compete as part of the preeminent organization in the world of professional golf. (Schlabach, 2022)

When considering the emotionalization effect (Koschut, 2018) of ‘dream’, it seems the purpose was to remind PGA golfers who are considering participating in LIV, that they are currently living out their ‘dream’. Meaning, their goal of attaining a PGA Tour card has been achieved and, they are affiliated with the greatest (‘preeminent’) golf organization in the world. Hence, Monahan used emotion discourses rooted in legacy to attempt to remind the organizational field who is true golf, as PGA golfers never dreamt of playing for a competing governing body.

Destroying the game

Discourses from prominent PGA stakeholders framed LIV as destroying true golf. Their discourses sought to not only delegitimize LIV as an improper golf association, but specifically frame them as actors who are ‘fractur[ing] the game’. Rory McIlory, a four-time major PGA tour champion, shared:

It’s a shame that it’s going to fracture the game. If the general public are confused about who is playing where and what tournaments this week [or] ‘Oh, he plays there and he doesn’t get into these events’ it just becomes so confusing. (Schlabach, 2022)

McIlory’s usage of ‘fracture’ was an emotional discourse attempting to position LIV as breaking, damaging, or tearing apart the sport. Additionally, his use of ‘confusion’ built upon this notion of destroying golf, as ‘confusion’ is an explicit negative term to reaffirm how LIV is ‘fractur[ing] the game’. Essentially, the emotionalizing effect (Koschut, 2018) of these discourses were attempts to not only maintain normative practices, but to argue that LIV will create chaos and disorder because the public is unaware of which events to follow – which would destroy the game. More importantly, his use of ‘shame’ was another explicitly negative emotion discourse that attempts to instill guilt upon those who support LIV, as those who participate in LIV should feel guilty (or ‘shameful’) about what they are upholding (see also Creed et al., 2014).

Mark Hubbard, a PGA professional, perceived LIV as destroying the sanctity of golf. Rather than considering how the financial structure of LIV elevated the status of golfers, Hubbard and others evoked emotional discourses to frame LIV as destroying the game. He asserted:

There’s no way that tour (LIV) – 50 super-rich guys playing a 54-hole event – is growing the game. They’re people who have already made their money, they’re at the end of their career. That’s not growing the game. The Tour already does a good job. (Marksbury, 2022)

Hubbard argued that current LIV golfers are ‘rich guys’ who are playing less holes, as the PGA standard is 72 holes. His discourses in the above excerpt have two emotionalizing effects (see Koschut, 2018): (a) to frame LIV golfers as lazy players destroying true golf, and (b) to frame former PGA members who joined LIV as greedy ‘rich guys’ who are more focused on financial interests. Hubbard then concludes by stating, ‘The Tour already does a good job’. In this regard, drew upon broader institutionalized PGA ideals of hard work and meritocracy.

Lastly, although not explicitly stated, several PGA actors attempted to frame the LIV as a ‘sportwashing’ operation, which is when nations use sport to stoke nationalism and deflect from bringing attention to inhumane practices, human right issues, and other social inequities (Boykoff, 2022). Web Simpson, a PGA player, proclaimed:

But what I think they have to look at long term is what does that mean for their brand, right? What do they stand for in life? I’m not going to point a finger at anybody, but I also know there’s an awful lot of things that have been said about that group … Some guys are not looking at the source of the money. They are looking at the opportunity. And in this day and age, you can make an argument for that. But there’s a lot of unknowns. I feel like there is security on the PGA Tour, it’s going to be here for a long time. So, we’ll see. (Harig, 2022a).

Emotional syntax is evident in the two questions Simpson poses: How does aligning with LIV impact a golfers’ brand and how does the relationship inform their moral compass? Both questions appear to be broad sentiments of concern, but the issue of sportwashing is undergirding these questions, as he goes on to assert, ‘Some guys are not looking at the source of the money.’ Hence, Simpson’s discourses are attempting to win the framing contest by loosely reminding the institutional field of who is financially supporting LIV (i.e. Saudi Arabia) and covertly reminding the field of what they are known for, as ‘there’s an awful lot of things have been said about that group’ (i.e. human rights violations). Essentially, the questions and covert messaging of ‘sportwashing’ build to Simpson articulating how LIV lacks ‘security’, as the PGA ‘[will] be here for a long time’. The use of ‘security’ is an emotional appeal to frame the PGA as stable, secure, true golf – in comparison to the ‘unknowns’ of LIV.

Golf is a meritocracy

The legitimacy work of PGA affiliates used emotional discourses to argue that their meritocratic structures were essential to maintaining true golf. These discourses assisted in the frame building efforts to legitimize the PGA as true golf and cast LIV as morally inept, thereby undermining the moral legitimacy of LIV (see Suchman, 1995). Meritocracy represents the fallacy of a ‘level playing field’, thus, people who ‘ … choose to break the rules’, are not upholding meritocracy and, instead, are a threat to it. Hence, those participating in LIV are golfers who break the rules and are not upholding PGA meritocratic values. This was especially noticed in comments from Martin Slumbers, a Chief Executive of the PGA Tour, who claimed LIV actors are ‘driven by money’ and ‘undermin[ing] the merit-based culture and spirit of open competition that makes golf so special’ (Bastable, 2022, para. 5). Additionally, his use of ‘undermines’ attempted to frame LIV as eroding and hurting the uniqueness of golf, which is the ‘spirit of meritocracy’. Slumbers stated:

I believe the model we’ve seen at Centurion and Pumpkin Ridge (LIV tournaments) is not in the best long-term interests of the sport as a whole and is entirely driven by money. We believe it undermines the merit-based culture and the spirit of open competition that makes golf so special. I would also like to say that in my opinion the continued commentary that this is about growing the game is just not credible and if anything, is harming the perception of our sport which we are working so hard to improve. (Bastable, 2022)

LIV tournaments at Centurion and Pumpkin Ridge were not structured upon meritocratic values, as these tournaments ensured all tournament golfers were adequately compensated (Panja & Das, 2022), not solely based upon ‘the cream […] ris[ing] to the top’. Hence, this structure demonstrates that golf does not have to continue to have meritocratic structures, but Slumbers uses emotional discourses to legitimize PGA structures and argues this (read: more equitable financial payouts) ‘is not in the best long-term interests of the sport’ because true golf has a spirit of meritocracy.

Discussion

Our research provides insight into how emotionally charged discourse can impact perceptions of legitimacy. Through EDA, we analyzed how PGA-affiliated actors crafted emotionally laden discourses in response to the emergence of LIV Golf. We interpreted the evoking of emotion as an instantiation of legitimacy work to defend and maintain the PGA’s position of dominance while also attacking the legitimacy of the emergent LIV Golf league. Despite the contextually bound aspects of our research, we address calls to better understand emotions within institutional studies, while also advancing understandings of legitimacy work within sport (see Nite & Edwards, 2021). Our work contributes to more nuanced perspectives of actor positioning and how emotion may be strategically manipulated by dominant sport entities. We also speak to the decoupling of legitimacy work and associated discourses from material practices.

Legitimacy work and emotions

The primary contribution of our research is extending theorizations of how emotions can be utilized within institutional work, specifically legitimacy work. We build on the notion that ‘people can strategically use emotions in others to advance certain institutional projects by appealing to the ethos of a particular audience whose support they want to elicit’ (Lok et al., 2017, p. 606). Sport management scholars have suggested emotions may be integral in garnering support for new policies (Lu & Heinze, 2020), creating social bonds (Pedras et al., 2020), and may sow seeds of distrust among stakeholders (Kihl & Richardson, 2009). Our research contributes by showing how sport entities can work to strategically manipulate emotions of stakeholders (in our case, players, fans, sponsors, and media affiliates) to both erode support for rivals and reify the legitimacy of dominant sport institutions. We theorize emotive framing as a form of legitimacy work, building on previous institutional work research in sport management (see Nite, 2017; Nite & Nauright, 2020). Specifically, Nite and Nauright (2020) outlined a process of legitimacy work in response to internal abuse scandals. Their work largely focused on material actions whereby university officials manipulated internal processes and collaborated with externalities to maintain universities’ perceived legitimacy. The current study builds upon this work to show how discourse and emotions may be strategically employed as legitimacy work. By framing LIV’s efforts as being harmful to golf and the PGA propping itself up as the protector of golf, PGA stakeholders used negative-laden discourse (i.e. defector) to discourage support for LIV. Thus, LIV would be deemed illegitimate at an emotional level.

Considering a key differentiator of sport products is the emotions ascribed to them (Kwak et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2018), the actions of sport organizations seem particularly attuned to the broader impact of emotions in the evaluation of proper behavior. Our research suggests that dominant sport governing bodies may craft discourses to impact the different forms of legitimacy; pragmatic, moral, and cognitive (see Suchman, 1995). In their responses to the emergent LIV Golf, PGA affiliates used emotion to attack the legitimacy of the new league on each legitimacy front. The pragmatism of LIV Golf was undermined with emotion with the suggestion that it was hurting the game of golf. Related, the cognitive legitimacy was also emotionally attacked by suggesting that LIV was counter to the traditions and legacy of golf. The funding of LIV Golf and by suggesting defecting players were simply chasing money was meant to evoke negative emotions to trigger questions of the morality of the new endeavor. Our findings are applicable to scholars in various sport domains as we demonstrated how emotion can be weaponized to attack the legitimacy of a competing sport endeavor. Future research should seek to establish empirical relationships between emotional discourse and perceptions of legitimacy.

Actor positioning and emotions

Our research also intimates the differentiation of actor positioning and how actors in various roles may implement emotional discourse as legitimacy work. Specifically, our work also intimates how institutional challenges may be catalysts for the emergence of institutional evangelicals. Massa et al. (2017) defined evangelists as ‘members of key audiences who build a critical mass of support for new ways of doing things’ (p. 461). In this regard, emotion is an integral aspect of institutional evangelism as language may be manipulated to evoke emotional responses of audiences (Massa et al., 2017). Whereas Massa and colleagues connected evangelism with innovation and change (see also Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010), they also pointed toward the possibility of evangelism being used in institutional maintenance. We demonstrate the utility of this concept as our work suggests that attacks on current institutions may result in evangelism in defense of the current institutions. Our findings suggest that by using emotional discourses, like ‘driven by money’ and ‘betrayal’, to establish a sense of loyalty amongst institutional actors, the PGA was trying to dissuade professional golfers from joining LIV, rather than using rational arguments to remain a member of the PGA. This emotionally charged language seemed to send a message to fans and sponsors that LIV would hurt the sport.

Our work may be useful for those studying other pertinent sport issues such athlete activism or diversity and inclusion efforts, particularly given the increase of such efforts in sport are in relation with and to issues of violence such as anti-blackness (see Keaton & Cooper, 2022; Singer et al., 2022). For instance, Read and Lock (2022) detailed how the National Football League (NFL) sought to address player protests in a manner that would not damage the league’s image. Building on the findings of our study, the NFL could craft emotionally laden discourse to impact fan perceptions. Considering actor roles and identities were not the focus of our research, future research should interrogate how challenges to current institutional structures seem to sort members of the field into different positions such as institutional evangelicals.

Decoupling of legitimacy discourse from material practice

Finally, our research points to an interesting dynamic between emotional discourse and material practice. Considering the totality of our case, we proffer that emotionally charged legitimacy work can be targeted at both practice and actors. Our case suggests that the emotional discourse was aimed at those who introduced challenges into sport and less about the challenges themselves. PGA affiliates initially took umbrage with LIV’s innovative approaches to professional golf and framed messages to position LIV as antithetical to the institutionalized structures of golf. Yet, despite such emotional rhetoric, the PGA soon adopted similar innovations (e.g. guaranteed payments for top players, PGA-sponsored travel arrangements, and new competition formats; Blinder, 2022). At which point, the PGA’s framing shifted toward attacking LIV and defecting PGA members as being harmful to the sport of golf. Our work complements Nite and Washington’s (2017) research of television broadcasting in college sport. They intimated that the NCAA was concerned with both television as a technical challenge that might harm material practice, but their work also showed that control of television was a bigger concern (that is, the concern was not television as practice). We extend this work by showing that emotional discourse may be impactful in shaping perceptions of the legitimacy of new endeavors at the cognitive and moral level. Future research should provide a more nuanced account that specifically interrogates how emotion may impact legitimacy perceptions when material practices are decoupled from perceptions of those who introduce institutional challenges.

Conclusion

With the current study, we sought to further develop the tenets of legitimacy work by garnering a better understanding of how emotion may be incorporated into sport organizations’ efforts to influence perspectives of innovations introduced by rivals. We showed how members of a dominant sport organization crafted messages to evoke emotional responses that would impact perceptions of legitimacy. As such, we answered calls to better understand emotions and legitimacy work within sport management research (see Nite & Edwards, 2021). Our work points to new avenues of research that could add further contributions in this space. Specifically, future research could provide insights into the dynamism of impact versus intent. Our work focused on our perceptions of the intent of the messaging, but future work investigating the actual impacts of emotionally laden messages in regard to altering audience perceptions. Additionally, our study pointed to actor positioning as an important aspect of legitimacy work. However, an in-depth investigation of actor positioning was beyond the scope of the current work but would be an important extension as this would better delineate tactics implemented by defenders and challengers of current institutional arrangements.

Finally, it is important to note that after this research was completed, the PGA and LIV Golf announced their merger in June 2023 (see Draper, 2023). Indeed, as we noted in our detailing of the research context, the PGA had already taken steps to incorporate changes similar to those of LIV into some of their events. This lends further credence to our assertion that legitimacy work often entails framing messages to influence perceptions and that material practices may be less consequential in terms of legitimacy perceptions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The professional golf tournaments that are considered ‘major championships’ include: The PGA Championship, The Masters Tournament, The United States Open Championship, and The Open Championship (i.e. The British Open).