LIV's Patrick Reed Loses Appeal in $750M Golf Channel Defamation Suit

Yahoo

5 days ago

A Florida trial judge's dismissal of LIV golfer Patrick Reed's two federal lawsuits against the Golf Channel, commentator Brandel Chamblee and others has been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Reed initially sued because he says he was defamed by the commentator who said Reed was 'purely playing for blood money' by joining LIV Golf.
Reed, the 2018 Masters Champion, joined LIV in 2022 and faced widespread criticism for switching allegiances from the PGA Tour to the nascent league backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund. The PGA Tour suspended Reed and other LIV-joining golfers for violating membership obligations. Those suspensions led to a high-profile antitrust litigation essentially pitting the PGA Tour against LIV. The antitrust case was resolved via settlement in 2023.
More from Sportico.com
Jordan's 23XI, Front Row Petition Rejected by Fourth Circuit
Wisconsin CB Thinks House Helps His Eligibility Case. NCAA Disagrees
Penn State Wins Permanent Injunction Against Vintage Brand
In one of his complaints, the 34-year-old Texan argued that rebukes expressed about his decision to join LIV crossed the line into defamation and caused him to lose 'multiple multi-million-dollar sponsorship deals.' The complaint referenced numerous endorsement deals that were not renewed, as well as promising endorsement opportunities that were halted after he faced scorn. Among the companies listed were Titleist, Nike, Ultimate Software, cbdMD, Callaway, Tax Slayer, Perry Ellis, NetJets, Quicken Loans, Draft Kings, and Travelers. Reed alleged the damages he suffered exceeded $750 million, a figure inclusive of alleged harm to Reed's goodwill and reputation in addition to lost business and sponsorship deals.
In the lawsuit, Reed referenced several bombastic remarks made about him joining LIV as evidence of defamation. For instance, during a podcast, Chamblee was quoted as saying, 'So if [Reed and other LIV golfers are] aligning themselves with a tyrannical, murderous leader… if you look at who [Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] is… centralizing power, committing all these atrocities, you look at what he's doing to the citizens of his… of his country ask yourself, I mean would you have played for Stalin would you have played for Hitler would you have played for Mao would you play for Pol Pot . . . would you have played for Putin… which… and this who this guy is. He settles disputes with bone saws.'
Comments by golf journalist Eamon Lynch, another defendant, were also cited. In a Golfweek column, Lynch referenced LIV in the context of 'the evil empire's … Death Star.' The column also opined that some of golf's stars 'opted to cut and run for Saudi money' while others stayed with the PGA Tour.
The Eleventh Circuit's three-judge panel—consisting of Judges Robert J. Luck, Barbara Lagoa and Nancy G. Abudu—reasoned that Reed's case suffers a major flaw: He 'failed to plead any Defendant acted with actual malice in making any of the statements.'
Plaintiffs in defamation lawsuits must establish the statement in question was false, attempted to assert a fact (not opinion), was delivered to others and caused harm. Public figures, like Reed, have the additional hurdle of proving actual malice, meaning the defendant made the untrue and reputationally harming statement while knowing it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false.
Reed, the panel reasoned, merely offered a 'litany of conclusory allegations' that recited the actual malice element in a formulaic and non-explanatory way. In other words, a complaint that accuses the defendant of acting with actual malice but doesn't explain how the defendant acted with actual malice is insufficient. Reed claimed the defendants showed hostility and animosity towards him, but the panel noted that ill-will or even 'evil intent' does not count as actual malice in a defamation case.
Reed also argued the defendants failed to fully investigate their statements by, as the panel put it, 'intentionally choosing not to speak with any witnesses who could have refuted the allegedly defamatory statements.' However, a failure to investigate does not, by itself, establish actual malice. 'Instead,' the panel wrote, 'a plaintiff must show the defendant deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of the statement in order to evade learning the truth … Reed's amended complaints fail to allege such facts.'
As for Golfweek and other publications republishing critical comments about Reed, the panel stressed that 'Reed never alleged a key component of actual malice, which is the Defendants had serious concerns about the accuracy of the published statements or were highly cognizant that the statements were likely false.' The panel stressed that media and publishers can lawfully rely on other published reports when they are based on 'reputable sources.'
Reed can petition the Eleventh Circuit for a rehearing en banc, where, if granted, other judges on the Eleventh Circuit would hear the case. Such petitions are rarely granted, however. If a rehearing en banc fails for Reed, he could petition the U.S. Supreme Court.
Best of Sportico.com
College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions