Tiger Woods has no firm answers on a deal with Saudis or his future as a player

News

Tiger Woods has no firm answers on a deal with Saudis or his future as a player

2024-12-04 00:59 Last Updated At：01:10

Tiger Woods could not offer much of a timetable Tuesday on PGA Tour negotiations with the Saudi backers of LIV Golf or his own future as a player.

Woods is the tournament host of the Hero World Challenge this week, and that's his only role at Albany Golf Club in the Bahamas. He has played the holiday tournament only once since 2019, missing this year while recovering from a sixth surgery on his lower back.

“I'm not tournament sharp yet, no. I'm still not there,” Woods said. “These are 20 of the best players in the world and I'm not sharp enough to compete against them at this level. So when I'm ready to compete and play at this level, then I will.”

A big part of his time is occupied by PGA Tour business matters. Woods was appointed to the PGA Tour board a year ago with no term limits, and he also is on the board of the commercial PGA Tour Enterprises.

There has been movement on negotiations for the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia to become a minority investor in PGA Tour Enterprises — the tour already has a $1.5 billion investment from Strategic Sports Group and a player equity program. PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan played in the Dunhill Links Championship on the European tour with the PIF governor, Yasir Al-Rumayyan.

Monahan also played golf with President-elect Donald Trump, who had said he could fix golf's mess in about 15 minutes.

“I think all of us who have been a part of this process would have thought it would have happened quicker than this,” Woods said.

He suggested any deal still would have required Justice Department approval.

“But things are very fluid, we’re still working through it, it’s happening daily,” Woods said. “From a policy board standpoint or from an enterprise standpoint, things are moving and they’re constructive.”

In the meantime, Bloomberg reported last week the European tour is talking with PIF separately, leading to suggestions of a shared schedule in which players from the European tour and LIV Golf could play on each circuit.

“We all want to get past this and to do what’s best for the tour and in trying to do that, there’s going to be ... some eggs are going to be knocked over and it’s going to be a little bit difficult at times,” Woods said. “But in the end we’re going to get a product that’s better for all the fans and all the players that are involved and get some peace that the game desperately needs.”

As for his own future, Woods was not certain. He was not asked if he planned to play in two weeks at the PNC Championship with his son, Charlie. It's a 36-hole event hosted by the PGA Tour Champions, so Woods could ride in a cart. He has played it each of the last four years.

He looked back at 2024 as a lost year, primarily because of his ailing back that began to spasm as the year went on.

Woods had set a goal of playing a big tournament once a month through the majors season, but that fell apart early when he missed The Players Championship in March. He set a Masters record by making his 24th consecutive cut, but then only played at the next three majors and was gone by the weekend at each of them.

He had a microdiscectomy in September to alleviate pain down his legs, but he had no idea how often he could play in 2025.

“Whether my commitment going forward is once a month, yeah, I could say that all over again,” Woods said. "But I truly don’t know. I’m just trying to rehab and still get stronger and better and feel better, really give myself the best chance I can going into next year.

“This year, I had to toss it away and I wasn’t as sharp as I needed to be and I didn’t play as much as I needed to going into the major championships and I didn’t play well at them,” he said. “Hopefully next year will be better. I’ll be physically stronger and better. I know the procedure helped and hopefully that I can then build upon that.”

AP golf: https://apnews.com/hub/golf

South Korea’s opposition parties submit a motion to impeach President Yoon over sudden martial law

2024-12-04 15:44 Last Updated At：15:51

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea’s opposition parties Wednesday submitted a motion to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol over the shocking and short-lived martial law that drew heavily armed troops to encircle parliament before lawmakers climbed walls to reenter the building and unanimously voted to lift his order.

Impeaching Yoon would require the support of two-thirds of parliament and at least six justices of the nine-member Constitutional Court would have to support it to remove him from office. The motion, submitted jointly by the main opposition Democratic Party and five smaller opposition parties, could be put to a vote as early as Friday.

Yoon’s senior advisers and secretaries offered to resign collectively and his Cabinet members, including Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, were also facing calls to step down, as the nation struggled to make sense of what appeared to be a poorly-thought-out stunt.

In his speech announcing the abrupt order Tuesday night, Yoon vowed to eliminate “anti-state” forces and continued to criticize parliament’s attempts to impeach key government officials and senior prosecutors. But martial law lasted only about six hours, as the National Assembly voted to overrule Yoon and the declaration was formally lifted around 4:30 a.m. during a Cabinet meeting.

The liberal opposition Democratic Party, which holds a majority in the 300-seat parliament, said Wednesday that its lawmakers decided to call on Yoon to quit immediately or they would take steps to impeach him.

“President Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law declaration was a clear violation of the constitution. It didn’t abide by any requirements to declare it,” the Democratic Party said in a statement. “His martial law declaration was originally invalid and a grave violation of the constitution. It was a grave act of rebellion and provides perfect grounds for his impeachment.”

Impeaching him would require support from 200 of the National Assembly's 300 members. The Democratic Party and other small opposition parties together have 192 seats. But the rejection of Yoon’s martial law declaration in a 190-0 vote included the votes of 18 lawmakers from Yoon’s ruling People Power Party, according to National Assembly officials.

The leader of the People Power Party, Han Dong-hun, who has long ties with Yoon dating to their days as prosecutors, criticized Yoon’s martial law declaration as “unconstitutional.”

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, seen as a potential presidential hopeful for the People Power Party, said Yoon’s martial law declaration went against the “fundamental spirit of democracy” and that the deployment of troops to the National Assembly was an act that violated the separation of powers.

“Right now, the most urgent task is a thorough investigation. Through this, we must clearly hold accountable those who participated in destroying democracy,” Oh said in a televised statement.

If Yoon is impeached, he’ll be stripped of his constitutional powers until the Constitutional Court rules. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the No. 2 position in the South Korean government, would take over his presidential responsibilities. As calls mounted for Yoon’s Cabinet to resign, Han issued a public message pleading for patience and calling for Cabinet members to “fulfill your duties even after this moment.”

The Constitutional Court has only six justices following three retirements, which is one below the minimum seven needed to handle a presidential impeachment case, requiring lawmakers to speed up the process of naming new justices.

Yoon’s martial law declaration, the first of its kind in more than 40 years, harkened to South Korea’s past military-backed governments when authorities occasionally proclaimed martial law and other decrees that allowed them to station combat soldiers, tanks and armored vehicles on streets or at public places like schools to prevent anti-government demonstrations. Such scenes of military intervention had not been seen since South Korea achieved a genuine democracy in the late 1980s until Tuesday night.

After Yoon’s declaration, troops carrying full battle gear, including assault rifles, tried to keep protesters away from the National Assembly as military helicopters flew overhead and landed nearby. One soldier pointed his assault rifle at a woman who was among protesters outside the building demanding that the martial law be lifted.

It wasn’t clear how the 190 lawmakers were able to enter a parliamentary hall to vote down Yoon’s martial law decree. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung livestreamed himself climbing over the wall, and while troops and police officers blocked some from entering they didn’t aggressively restrain or use force against others.

No major violence has been reported. The troops and police personnel were later seen leaving the grounds of the National Assembly after the parliamentary vote to lift the martial law. National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik said: “Even with our unfortunate memories of military coups, our citizens have surely observed the events of today and saw the maturity of our military.”

Han, the People Power Party leader, demanded that Yoon explain his decision and fire Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, who he said recommended the martial law decree to Yoon. The Defense Ministry has not commented.

Under South Korea’s constitution, the president can declare martial law during “wartime, war-like situations or other comparable national emergency states” that require the use of military force to restrict the freedom of press, assembly and other rights to maintain order. Many observers question whether South Korea is currently in such a state.

The constitution also states that the president must oblige when the National Assembly demands the lifting of martial law with a majority vote.

Some experts say Yoon clearly violated the constitution in how he imposed martial law. While martial law allows “special measures” to restrict individual freedoms and the authority of agencies and courts, the constitution does not permit the functions of parliament to be restricted. But in following Yoon’s declaration on Tuesday, South Korea’s military proclaimed parliamentary activities were suspended and deployed troops to try to block lawmakers from entering the National Assembly.

Park Chan-dae, the Democratic Party’s floor leader, called for Yoon to be immediately investigated on charges of rebellion over the way he deployed troops to the parliament. While the president mostly enjoys immunity from prosecution while in office, the protection does not extend to alleged rebellion or treason.

In Washington, the White House said the U.S. was “seriously concerned” by the events in Seoul. A spokesperson for the National Security Council said President Joe Biden’s administration was not notified in advance of the martial law announcement and was in contact with the South Korean government.

Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said there was no effect on the more than 27,000 U.S. service members based in South Korea.

In Seoul, the streets seemed busy like a normal day Wednesday.

Tourist Stephen Rowan, from Brisbane, Australia, who was touring Gyeongbokgung Palace, said he was not concerned at all.

“But then again, I don’t understand too much about the political status in Korea,” he said. “But I hear they are now calling for the current president’s resignation, so ... apparently there’s going to be a lot of demonstrations. ... I would have been concerned if martial law had stayed enforced.”

Yoon’s government and ruling party have been embroiled in an impasse with the Democratic Party over next year’s budget bill and a Democratic Party-led attempt to to impeach three top prosecutors.

Natalia Slavney, research analyst at the Stimson Center’s 38 North website that focuses on Korean affairs, said Yoon’s imposition of martial law was “a serious backslide of democracy” that followed a “worrying trend of abuse” since he took office in 2022.

South Korea “has a robust history of political pluralism and is no stranger to mass protests and swift impeachments,” Slavney said, citing the example of former President Park Geun-hye, who was removed from office and imprisoned for bribery and other crimes in 2017. She was later pardoned.

Associated Press writer Jennifer McDermott contributed to this report.