LIV Golf have been dealt another blow in their legal dispute with the PGA Tour, after a request to split their ongoing counterclaim into two separate cases was denied.
Since forming in the summer of 2022, LIV have found themselves locked in a battle with the PGA Tour. Following the Saudi-backed series maiden event 10 months ago, the PGA Tour made the decision to ban any player who chose to tee it up on breakaway circuit.
Since then relations between the two rivals have turned ugly, as their ongoing turned into a legal one with both filing lawsuits against each other in court.
Following an antitrust complaint made by LIV Golf against the PGA Tour, the latter has claimed Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (PIF) and Yasir Al-Rumayyan hold evidence - including emails from players and broadcasters - that could aid their defence and their counterclaim against Greg Norman and co.
LIV however believe that the lawsuit should be split into two separate cases, in a bid to speed up the initial complaint. Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the request though in a four-page order at U.S. District Court Northern District of California on Wednesday.
Judge Freeman said: "The Court notes that the Tour has shown that its counterclaims and Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims will likely involve overlapping facts and evidence. Where an overlap of factual issues exists between the claims, courts are reluctant to bifurcate the proceedings.”
The decision is the latest blow the breakaway circuit has faced in recent weeks. This comes after the DP World Tour won its own legal battle against LIV Golf last Thursday. Sport Resolutions confirmed the decision from the Wentworth-based circuit to impose financial sanctions and tournament suspensions against LIV members had been upheld.
Sport Resolutions said in a statement: "The appeal panel ultimately found that the appellants committed serious breaches of the code of behaviour of the DPWT regulations by playing in the LIV Golf Invitational (London) and LIV Portland events respectively, despite their release requests having been refused.
"The appeals were dismissed and each of the appellants were ordered to pay the fine of £100,000 originally imposed."
