Listen to the article
Golf legend Jack Nicklaus has been awarded £37 million in a defamation lawsuit after a Florida jury determined that his former business associates spread false information that damaged his reputation. The 18-time major champion sued Nicklaus Companies for falsely claiming he had secretly negotiated a £560 million deal to become the face of the Saudi-backed LIV Golf League.
The verdict comes after a two-week trial in which the 85-year-old Nicklaus contested statements made by officials from Nicklaus Companies during a previous lawsuit in New York. According to the Palm Beach Post, the jury concluded that the company had actively disseminated false information that subjected Nicklaus to “ridicule, hatred, mistrust or contempt.”
Nicklaus stepped down from his executive role at the company in 2017, a decade after merging his previous firm, Golden Bear International, with the group owned by billionaire banker Howard Milstein. While the court ruled against Nicklaus Companies, it absolved Milstein and executive Andrew O’Brien of personal liability.
During the trial, Nicklaus testified that company officials had implied he no longer possessed the mental capacity to handle his business affairs and was suffering from dementia. These allegations, coupled with the claims about Saudi negotiations, formed the core of his defamation case.
Court documents revealed that Nicklaus was approached in 2021 about potentially taking a leadership role with Golf Saudi during a meeting originally scheduled to discuss designing a golf course in Saudi Arabia. According to his attorneys, a Nicklaus Companies official had actually asked him to meet with Golf Saudi representatives.
Crucially, the documents stated that “according to Nicklaus, he had no interest in the offer and declined because he felt the PGA Tour was an important part of his legacy, and if the PGA was not in favour of a new league, he did not want to be involved.”
Eugene Stearns, Nicklaus’ lawyer, emphasized during closing arguments that the company had fabricated the narrative. “These are the people who planted a story. The story is a lie… what they wanted to create in the minds of the public is that Jack Nicklaus is an old guy who sold out to the Saudis,” Stearns told the jury.
The attorney also rejected claims that Nicklaus Companies executives had intervened to prevent Nicklaus from joining LIV Golf. “The fact is no one intervened to save Jack Nicklaus from himself,” Stearns said. “The fact is, he did not need saving. It’s a lie.”
Speaking to ESPN following the verdict, Stearns highlighted the vindication for his client: “I think what was important was the dispute that arose 3½ years ago when the company told the world that Jack was selling out the PGA Tour for the Saudi golf, when it was not true. So, we’re happy that Jack’s been vindicated.”
The case has drawn significant attention in the golf world, where LIV Golf has created major disruption by luring top players away from the PGA Tour with massive financial offers. Nicklaus’ loyalty to the PGA Tour, which he helped establish, has been a consistent theme in his public statements.
In a 2022 interview with the Fire Pit Collective website, Nicklaus had openly addressed Saudi interest in his services: “I was offered something in excess of $100 million (£75m) by the Saudis to do the job, probably similar to the one that Greg [Norman, then LIV Golf chief executive] is doing. 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.'”
The verdict represents not only a substantial financial award for Nicklaus but also a significant restoration of his reputation as one of golf’s most respected figures. Throughout his storied career, Nicklaus has won six Masters tournaments, three Open Championships, and numerous other accolades that have cemented his status as one of the sport’s greatest players.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
16 Comments
Interesting that Nicklaus was awarded such a substantial settlement over these false claims. It’s good to see the legal system holding the Nicklaus Companies accountable for spreading misinformation that damaged his reputation.
Agreed, the jury’s decision sends a clear message that fabricating stories can have serious consequences, even for high-profile figures like Nicklaus.
This case highlights the importance of verifying claims, especially when it comes to prominent public figures. Spreading unsubstantiated rumors can be very damaging, as the Nicklaus Companies found out.
Absolutely. Responsible journalism and due diligence are crucial to prevent the dissemination of false information that can unfairly tarnish someone’s reputation.
£37 million is a significant settlement, indicating the jury believed the Nicklaus Companies’ actions were egregious. It will be interesting to see if this case sets a precedent for similar situations involving defamation in the future.
Given the high-profile nature of this case, it could have wider implications for how companies and individuals handle public statements and allegations. Clearly, the legal system takes defamation seriously.
This settlement is a significant victory for Nicklaus and a clear rebuke of the Nicklaus Companies’ actions. It’s a reminder that even powerful entities can be held accountable for spreading false information.
Absolutely. The jury’s decision demonstrates that the legal system is willing to protect individuals from reputational harm, even when the accused party is a prominent business entity.
The details of this case highlight the importance of verifying information and being transparent, especially when it comes to high-profile figures and their business dealings. Spreading unsubstantiated claims can have serious consequences.
Agreed. This settlement sends a strong message that the courts take defamation seriously and will not tolerate companies or individuals making false statements that damage someone’s reputation and standing.
The jury’s decision in favor of Nicklaus seems well-justified based on the details provided. False claims that undermine someone’s credibility and standing should not be tolerated, regardless of the parties involved.
Absolutely. Nicklaus is a respected figure in the golf world, and he deserved to have the record set straight. This ruling upholds the importance of protecting individual reputations from unsubstantiated attacks.
This case underscores the need for transparency and accountability in the business world. Companies should be cautious about making claims, especially those that could damage someone’s reputation and career.
Agreed. Spreading misinformation, even if unintentional, can have severe consequences. It’s a good reminder for all businesses to prioritize accuracy and ethical practices.
It’s encouraging to see the legal system taking strong action against the dissemination of false information, especially when it comes to high-profile individuals like Jack Nicklaus. This case sets an important precedent.
Agreed. In today’s media landscape, where misinformation can spread rapidly, it’s crucial that there are consequences for those who deliberately or carelessly damage someone’s reputation through untruthful claims.