COLUMBUS — Jack Nicklaus likes to talk and be talked about. But not like this. Not when the Golden Bear is getting tarnished by his words and behind-the-scenes workings.
The latest example of Nicklaus receiving negative feedback focuses on a breach of contract lawsuit brought May 13 in the Supreme Court of New York against the Upper Arlington native by Nicklaus Companies, LLC, which claims the 82-year-old golf legend failed to provide services and property through a deal for which he was paid $145 million in 2007.
The lawsuit, also aimed at GBI Investors (formerly known as Golden Bear International), claims the contracted deal also includes the right to GBI’s collection of trademark registrations related to Nicklaus’ name and signature, including the “Golden Bear” nickname.
Nicklaus also is accused of helping design golf courses and offering commercial endorsements, but not on behalf of Nicklaus Companies, LLC.
The suit also alleges Nicklaus endangered marketing agreements by, among other actions, negotiating with the PIF Saudi Investment Fund that bankrolls the LIV Golf Invitational Series – the same series that has gotten LIV commissioner Greg Norman and LIV supporter Phil Mickelson into hot water.
Nicklaus said in a recent interview with the Firepit Collective website that he chose not to accept a lucrative offer to help administrate LIV Golf.
“I was offered something in excess of $100 million by the Saudis, to do the job probably similar to the one that Greg is doing,” Nicklaus said. “I turned it down. Once verbally, once in writing. I said, ‘Guys, I have to stay with the PGA Tour. I helped start the PGA Tour.’ ”
Nicklaus Companies, LLC, sees it differently, claiming in the lawsuit that it convinced Nicklaus to abandon the idea of working with the Saudis.
“Fortunately for Nicklaus Companies — and Mr. Nicklaus — the Company was eventually able to convince Mr. Nicklaus to stop exploring a deal for the endorsement of the Saudi-backed league,” the suit reads. “The Company essentially saved Mr. Nicklaus from himself by extricating him from a controversial project that could have not only tarnished his legacy and reputation, but severely damaged the Nicklaus Companies’ name, brands and business.”
Nicklaus released a statement through his organization: “The claims made by (Nicklaus Companies executive chairman) Howard Milstein are untrue. Our relationship has been a difficult one, at best. I have little doubt about the outcome, but I don’t intend to make this a public spectacle, if it can be avoided.”
It cannot be avoided, not when Nicklaus already has put himself on public display by diving into the polarized political discourse of the day. He openly endorsed Donald Trump during the 2020 election and continues to speak out in defense of the former president.
In the same Firepit Collective interview, Nicklaus blamed “cancel culture” for the PGA’s decision to move its championship from Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, to Southern Hills in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
“Donald Trump may be a lot of things, but he loves golf and he loves this country,” Nicklaus said. “He’s a student of the game and a formidable figure in the game. What he does in the future of golf will depend on what the cancel culture will allow him to do.”
Let’s be clear, Nicklaus has every right to endorse Trump or any other politician, sports figure or celebrity he sees fit. And the public has every right to disagree with him. Nicklaus’ off-the-course comments deserve no more or less scrutiny than LeBron James’ tweets, but when you opt to stray from “Shut up and dribble” — or in Jack’s case “Shut up and putt” – you risk losing allegiance and benefit of the doubt.
When that happens, legacy enters the equation. It’s never too late to lose favor with fans who loved the golfer until he blew his horn for a particular government party.
In some ways, then, any hit to Nicklaus’ reputation is as much about him being right or left as it is him being right or wrong. But it is easy to conflate the two, especially when the correct answers seem so obvious.
Like, common sense says Nicklaus should not have come within sniffing distance of LIV Golf, given the Saudis’ horrific record on human rights. But the lawsuit suggests that something — Money? Ego? Un-wokeness? — drove the Bear to brush against a thorn bush he had no business being near.
Then again, how much is Nicklaus even concerned that his legacy may languish? My guess is he is not too worried, given that his core fans likely already side with him on non-golf issues or simply don’t care about such things.
Still, how wise is it to go public with thoughts that could/should remain private? I know, I know, the media pushes sports figures for their opinions, then criticizes when those opinions don’t line up with current culture. But my sense is that Nicklaus’ issue is more about Jack being Jack.
Like I started off, Nicklaus likes to talk, which has always been appreciated. Few athletes have been as accommodating with the media. But my hunch is — and I admit I am painting with a broad brush — that Nicklaus is falling prey to the aging process by which the verbal filter falters as we grow old. Also, because of his status, Nicklaus may be so used to hearing “yes” that hearing “don’t do that” does not compute.
Regardless, the Golden Bear’s words and actions are jeopardizing his beloved status. He remains the greatest champion in golf history. He remains a humanitarian, supporting and funding multiple charitable organizations. But he is alienating some, and perhaps many, who never needed to separate the player from the politician. And now they do.
