Buying a house just doesn’t feel possible right now.
Home prices have doubled in the last decade, with much of that growth happening in just the last four years. By one measure, housing affordability has fallen to its lowest level since the 1980s. And high interest rates have exacerbated the problem, ballooning monthly mortgage payments.
But it’s not easier on the other side of the equation. Would-be sellers — grappling with those same high interest rates — are locked into homes that may be too small for their growing families. Parents with newly empty nests would rather stay put than pay the same amount or more for a smaller home.
The result: The pandemic-era housing boom is over. Home sales in 2023 were the lowest they’ve been in nearly 30 years.
“The housing market is pretty frozen in place,” the Wall Street Journal’s housing reporter Nicole Friedman told Today, Explained co-host Noel King. “There’s really kind of a standoff right now between buyers and sellers.”
So how did the housing market go from frenzy to frozen in just a few years’ time? And what might turn the heat back on?
What follows is the transcript of a conversation between King and Friedman, edited for length and clarity. —Amanda Lewellyn, producer
Noel King
Nicole, we have a very young audience, and I want you to tell us about something that I never knew about — or I never realized at all — until I got a mortgage when I was 40, which is: Interest rates actually mean something. So if I don’t know about mortgages, I might think 3 percent, 7 percent. That’s not a big deal. What does an interest rate, a higher interest rate, actually mean for a person getting a 3 percent and a person getting a 7 percent?
Nicole Friedman
So that type of change in interest rate is a huge difference in terms of the monthly payment. At a 3 percent interest rate versus a 7 percent rate, that can be a difference of hundreds of dollars — even maybe $1,000 difference — in what you’re paying every single month. And so that’s really, for many people, the difference between being able to buy a home or not, or being able to buy a home of a certain size or in a certain neighborhood versus not being able to afford it.
Noel King
Right. Because also, it’s not like you get a raise because interest rates have gone up. It’s not like any other part of your budget, or your life, gets better to account for interest rates going up.
Nicole Friedman
Absolutely. And that’s why we talk a lot about affordability, right? Homebuying affordability or housebuying power. The way that economists think about homebuying affordability usually is a combination of the price of the house, the mortgage rate, and income. So it’s really, what is that monthly payment going to be? And then, how much of your income does it take to pay that monthly payment?
The benchmark for “affordable” is that you really shouldn’t be spending more than 30 percent of your income on your housing payment. One index that tracks housing affordability from the National Association of Realtors shows that in October, homebuying affordability fell to the lowest level since the ’80s.
So even though there are times in the past when mortgage rates have been much higher than they are today, it’s really the combination of rates and prices and incomes that means that affordability is still worse.
Noel King
Okay, so there’s a third piece of this that is also super interesting, which is: If interest rates are high and fewer people are buying, it seems like that should mean the people selling have got to lower the prices of the houses. You have fewer buyers. “Okay, we have to compromise. We’re just going to make less money on this house.”
And yet, I haven’t seen many stories saying home prices in America are super low since interest rates went up and the competition waned. What is that about?
Nicole Friedman
We think about just classic economics. There are two things in setting a price: There’s demand and there’s supply.
The thing about higher mortgage rates and the fact that they rose as quickly as they did in 2022 — it really lowered demand. A lot of buyers stepped out of the market, but the increase in mortgage rates also lowered supply; a lot of home sellers are also buyers. There are people who are going to sell a home so that they can buy a home.
And these people said, “Wait a minute. [In] my current home, I have a great mortgage rate. I have a 3 percent rate. I have a low payment. If I go back out onto the market, I’m paying a higher price for that home because prices have risen in the last couple of years and I’m paying a higher mortgage rate. I cannot afford to sell my home and buy a different one. I’m just going to stay put.”
That means that the supply of homes for sale is much, much lower than normal. Any buyer who’s out on the market right now is probably noticing that there’s not a lot of inventory to choose from.
That means that even though demand is down, supply is down, too. So prices really haven’t declined in most of the country.
Noel King
Nicole, crazy question. Are there enough houses?
Nicole Friedman
Everybody basically agrees there are not enough homes, because after the financial crisis, a lot of homebuilders went out of business. The ones who were left in business were really, really financially scarred by the crisis. They were left with a lot of homes they couldn’t sell and a lot of land they couldn’t sell. So builders became a lot more cautious, and the number of homes being built fell to a much lower level. It’s taken more than a decade for homebuilding activity to really catch back up.
Noel King
The baby boomer generation gets a lot of crap for buying the seven-bedroom house with the big backyard for seven raspberries and 40 years later, still sitting on the house. Are the boomers — God bless them, every one — are they really part of the problem, or should we leave the boomers alone?
Nicole Friedman
Well, every boomer would tell you that they bought it for seven raspberries, but at a 15 percent mortgage rate. I don’t think that boomers are the problem here. It is a change from past generations that the baby boomer generation is aging in place more than past generations, and they are often working longer. They’re staying healthier longer. And so they are able to stay in their homes for longer, and that’s their choice. That’s fine. But it does mean that the typical cycle of how long somebody normally stays in their home before they sell it has gotten longer.
People are staying in their home for longer, and that does contribute to less turnover on this ladder of how people move through the housing market. Normally, you buy a starter home and then you move up to a bigger home and maybe eventually you downsize to a smaller home. That ladder gets a little jammed up if people don’t move as frequently.
But I would also say, what’s really jamming up the gears right now are those move-up buyers. That’s going to be Generation X. These are people that are in starter homes that they bought within the last five, 10 years, and they’re looking for that next move up. There may be a young family who bought a home before they had kids — or when they had just one kid, and now they have a second child and they need another bedroom — and they want a bigger home.
But those people are saying, “I can’t give up this 3 percent mortgage rate,” even though, in this “natural” cycle, they should be selling their starter home to a first-time buyer and moving into a bigger home that’s being vacated by a downsizing baby boomer. But those people are so stuck in place that they just can’t afford to make that move. Arguably, they’re really the ones right now kind of jamming up the gears.
Noel King
Americans are made to feel like we should buy houses. We hear all about the benefits. We hear much less about the drawbacks.
What does it mean that it is starting to feel less and less accessible? This thing that once upon a time and for a long time was considered to be part of the American Dream, and now there’s an entire generation — millennials, and Gen Z hot on our heels — who feel like it just might never happen?
Nicole Friedman
Yeah, I think it does feel frustrating to people. People do want to own homes, by and large. There was a theory once upon a time that millennials didn’t want to own homes. I think that’s been proven wrong.
Noel King
We were just broke! We were just broke when they were saying that about us.
Nicole Friedman
Exactly. And it’s now very clear that millennials are like prior generations. They do want to own homes.
Partly it is a financial investment: Homeownership is a key way to build wealth and has been, in this country, an important way to build wealth. But it’s also a very emotional thing. A lot of people want stability. They want a sense of ownership. They want to be able to paint their walls and redecorate their house, and they don’t want to worry about the rent going up, or about their landlord deciding to sell the building and them not being able to stay.
Right now, that gap between what it costs to rent and what it costs to own in a lot of places is pretty out of whack. It’s just much more expensive to buy right now than it typically is. And I think that people are realizing that and trying to come to terms with what it means.
But it’s also a bigger question as a society, how much we want to prioritize homeownership and homebuying affordability.
Be sure to follow Today, Explained on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
There is something about Opening Day in baseball that looks back even as it looks forward, a Mobius strip twist in time during which the past and future co-exist. The T-Mobile magenta carpet is rolled out, then rolled back for another year. One elevator attendant wore a button proclaiming this to be their fourth opening day; another, their 23rd. The pageantry at the ballpark is familiar, if staffed by new faces: different kids running around the bases and announcing “play ball”; a national anthem from a member of a band many of us have been listening to since the days of burning CD mixes. A different Mariners legend throwing out the first pitch: this year, Nelson Cruz, taking his place in the firmament of Mariners stars by signing a one-day contract to retire as a Mariner. He threw to Félix Hernández, himself already ensconced in eternal Mariners glory, in a perfectly chaotic first pitch that involved Nelson—who said he blew out his biceps tendon in one last farewell tour of LIDOM—spiking the ball into the ground, then recovering to lob in a pitch that Félix summarily dropped. Chaos ball, is that you?
Cruz was teammates with Mitch Haniger; when asked pregame to reflect on what Haniger was like in his “younger” playing years, Cruz smiled and said Mitch had always been very mature as a player. Haniger, making his return to T-Mobile Park, enjoyed a loud ovation when he ran down the magenta carpet, a Mariner once again: when he came up to bat for the first time, the fans gave him a standing ovation, something Mitch recounted warmly postgame, calling T-Mobile a “special” place to play.
But that ovation was nothing compared to the noise they made when Haniger homered to give the Mariners their first runs of the season:
While Haniger has historically gotten a lot of his power from the pull side, this ball—102.2 mph off the bat, 372 feet to the opposite field—showed some of the improvements he’s made during his time away from the team, something he credits to a deeper swing path and different rear-arm and top-hand mechanics.
Also so back: Dylan Moore’s power. After an injury-hampered 2022, DMo—pinch-hitting in the seventh for Mitch Garver—absolutely demolished this sinker from lefty Joely Rodriguez, crushing this pitch at 104 mph 409 feet. (Scoring on the play: Mitch Haniger, who had singled, natch.) DMo’s one job is beach, and by “beach” we mean “crush lefties”; if he can be back to his power-hitting form of the past, that’s an incredible boon for this ballclub.
Per Mariners PR, that makes DMo only the second player to hit a pinch-hit home run on Opening Day, joining Roberto Petagine on April 3, 2006. Unfortunately, that game was also a loss. The Mariners have generally had a good record on Opening Day, even in the fallowest years: per stats guru Alex Mayer, the Mariners have a .655 winning percentage on home openers, third-best among all active franchises. But tonight’s game will not join that rare air.
Luis Castillo had a lot of life on his pitches but poor command, and a patient Red Sox lineup was able to sit on his pitches and exhaust his pitch count early. The Sox drew first blood in the third inning, when Rafael Devers did what Devers does best and reached across the plate to pop this sinker that didn’t quite sink over the left-field fence for a two-run homer.
I was sitting next to Alex Mayer for this game and he immediately recalled (because he has an enormous baseball computer for a brain) Devers hitting a home run off a similar pitch from Sewald in 2022, so I looked up Devers’s zone splits and dang. Sometimes you just have to tip your cap.
The Sox would get another run off Castillo in the fourth: Triston Casas singled, and Masataka Yoshida doubled, bringing Tyler O’Neill (who is with the Red Sox now!), who had hit into a force out, to third. O’Neill would then score when Josh Rojas almost made a great play, snagging a sharply hit grounder from Ceddanne Rafaela and touching third for the force, but then his throw home hit O’Neill in the helmet. D’oh. Another run crossed home in the fifth, again with Devers providing a big hit with a double, pushing speedy Jarren Duran to third; he’d then score on a force out.
Speaking of Tyler O’Neill, he made some history of his own tonight, becoming the first player to homer in five straight Opening Day games, torching Cody Bolton for a solo shot. For O’Neill, the achievement was probably even sweeter coming against the team that traded him away. Everything that’s old is new again (derogatory).
That gave the Red Sox six runs, and the Mariners two two-run home runs. The Mariners lineup threatened at times tonight: they had a good chance in the first, when Julio worked an 0-2 count to a 2-2 count and doubled, followed by a single from Jorge Polanco, but Mitch Garver hit into an inning-ending double play. Later, Garver would double, but be stranded by a Cal Raleigh inning-ending groundout. J.P. Crawford hit two balls with exit velocities over 107 mph, right at defenders. That’s how things would go for the Mariners tonight: the sequencing luck just wasn’t there, even as the process was. Postgame, Haniger said the results weren’t there for the team tonight, but he likes the process, and he feels like this is the most complete Mariners team he’s been a part of—significant words coming from the man who was once Nelson Cruz’s teammate.
Layered on every Opening Day is the ghost of other, previous Opening Days: time spent with friends who have moved away, family members no longer with us, and to take stock of the changes for those that remain, steps a little slower, hair a little grayer. For me, this was my first Opening Day without my dad, who passed away this February. It’s hard knowing that he won’t be there to dissect the big plays of the night with me, that he won’t get to see what this team will become. He would have really loved to see Mitch Haniger’s second act as a Mariner. But mostly, it’s hard to know that he will now only exist in memories, the layers that make up every Opening Day experience. Maybe by this time next year it will be a fond memory, easier to see him woven into the fabric of the history of my personal Mariners fandom and the Opening Day experience writ large: another star in the firmament, and a reminder of how inextricably linked what was, is, and will be all are; maybe by then it will be easier to find the beauty in that. Maybe next year.
We need to tread lightly.
Both professional golf and the United States Senate face a precarious situation with the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF), the sovereign wealth fund for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The PIF bankrolls LIV Golf, the circuit that has plucked so many top players from the PGA Tour, which has, in turn, created an unprecedented schism within the sport.
Then, amidst all this division, in the spring of 2023, PGA Tour brass and the PIF settled on a ‘framework agreement,’ which shocked the world. However, that ultimately only settled lawsuits between the two sides.
But that deal raised eyebrows in Washington, so much so that both the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have launched subpoenas and investigations. The Senate Finance Committee is also investigating the PGA Tour’s status as a 501(c)(6) entity.
The PSI aims to unearth the PIF’s intentions related to its various business deals within the United States—including LIV Golf. The DOJ is investigating whether this deal violates antitrust law and if the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) applies.
And yet, the PIF has repeatedly failed to comply with the U.S. Government. They have completely ignored requests and summonses, despite their business ventures falling within the realm of U.S. law.
Meanwhile, the deal between the PIF and the tour remains at a crossroads. Even more so that the PGA Tour partnered with the Strategic Sports Group (SSG)—the consortium of American professional sports owners committed to investing $3 billion into the tour.
Things could get even murkier between the PIF and the PGA Tour, thanks to an early February hearing in the nation’s capital with more developments set to follow.
Feb. 6, 2024, Hearing in Washington
The PSI invited leaders from four U.S.-based consulting firms—Boston Consulting Group (BCG), McKinsey & Company, M. Klein and Company, and Teneo—to testify before the Senate, focusing on the PIF’s investments in American businesses.
Interestingly, McKinsey & Company helped advise the PIF with “Project Wedge,” which laid out plans for an economically viable—and competitive—golf tour.
Their consulting efforts paid off as LIV Golf has completely changed the landscape of professional golf. It also forced the PGA Tour to change how it operates.
Yet, that tidbit pales in comparison to the overarching takeaway from this hearing.
The Saudi Arabian Kingdom told these companies that their employees could face financial penalties or prison time for cooperating with U.S. Senate subpoenas.
The PIF filed an injunction against these four firms in Saudi court, simply for responding to an inquiry from the Senate’s PSI. The injunction also arose because the Kingdom views its consultants as government employees and does not want their ‘employees’ to cooperate with U.S. law.
“The PIF has been explicit that the disclosure of information relating to BCG’s work for PIF is a violation of Saudi law, which ‘imposes criminal penalties for disclosing or disseminating such information including imprisonment for a maximum of 20 years, a fine not exceeding one million riyals, or both,’” said Rich Lesser, the Chairman of the BCG, in his opening statement.
“As a firm committed to complying with the laws of every country we operate, BCG wants nothing more than to satisfy the Subcommittee’s inquiries. Unfortunately, we are in an unprecedented situation, hamstrung in our ability to do so.”
Considering the history of the Saudi Arabian Kingdom and how it restricts freedom and destroys any dissent, the shared anxiety among these firms is warranted.
The dilemma is that PIF’s investments in American companies fall under U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, the U.S. Senate has the authority to investigate, even though the Saudi Government does not want to comply.
But why would they fail to cooperate?
Does the Saudi PIF have something to hide?
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has absolute power within his Kingdom and does not want to relinquish it to a foreign institution—in this case, the U.S. Senate. The Saudi Government likely feels this subpoena could expose more skeletons in its closet, too.
“I really think this is a strategic blunder for them,” said Ben Freeman, the Director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy Program at the Quincy Institute, in an exclusive interview with Playing Through.
“If you comply with this inquiry, you adhere to the subpoenas, you provide the documents and everything… I don’t think people would care as much. Nor would they have as many questions as they do now. The fact that they want to obfuscate so much, it really, really looks like they have something to hide now.”
As the world knows, this Government controls all media and restricts any freedoms within its press and among its citizens. Plus, the Saudi Kingdom has a terrible history of human rights abuses, has subjugated women, facilitated a civil war in Yemen, and murdered Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi.
Oh, and 15 of the 19 hijackers who killed thousands of innocent American lives on Sept. 11, 2001, were Saudi citizens. Even further, the Biden Administration recently released de-classified documents that indicate Saudi government employees aided the attackers in the months and years leading up to that horrific day.
“The real danger here that I don’t think enough folks are grasping yet, is the precedent that this could set,” Freeman added.
“If the United States sits right now idly for a while and lets the sovereign wealth fund of a foreign government dictate congressional investigation and congressional oversight, if we let this happen, and there are no repercussions for the PIF because of this, then this becomes a blueprint for authoritarian regimes just to come in and just walk all over U.S. law…
“All they have to say is that anybody who’s working for you can say they’re employees of our government because our government employees don’t have to comply with any of your laws in the U.S. They’re going to be completely immune from it.”
The Saudi PIF has acted as if they are untouchable, or dare I say, above U.S. law.
Indeed, the U.S. Senate will not want a foreign sovereign wealth fund to embarrass its power on the global stage.
Hence, this bi-partisan probe is marching on.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) have championed this effort since the announcement of the framework agreement in June 2023.
“Any foreign entity wishing to do business in the U.S. must comply with U.S. law and be responsive to Congressional subpoenas,” Johnson said during the hearing.
“That is why I chose to join Chairman Blumenthal on follow-up letters to the consultants calling for full compliance with the Subcommittee’s subpoenas… I am supportive of preserving PSI’s oversight prerogatives and responsibilities.”
Concerns from the Senate arose because a foreign government has never invested substantial capital into an American sports league, let alone ‘sportswash,’ which Bin Salman has said he will continue to do.
“Senators are starting to pay attention to the massive problem of Saudi foreign influence that we have in this country,” 9/11 Justice President Brett Eagleson told Playing Through.
“If you are one of these consultants, a lobbying firm, a banking firm, or an APR firm engaged in business with Saudi Arabia, you need to think long and hard about whether or not you want to continue to have that client…
“That goes for the LIV golfers, too. This should be a strong signal that if you disagree with your employer or the person writing you the check, they’re threatening to put you in jail.”
But money talks.
The PIF reportedly has over $700 billion in assets, allowing it to invest in multiple Fortune 500 companies, Newcastle United in the English Premier League, LIV Golf, F1 racing and now, possibly, the sport of tennis.
At this rate, investments in an NBA or NFL team could soon follow.
Still, Sen. Blumenthal expressed agitation and frustration during this hearing, sensing that neither the PIF nor these four consulting firms duly complied.
Heck, one of the enduring spectacles was Blumenthal holding up a set of entirely redacted documents. Other evidence provided for this hearing included mundane emails and calendar invites—a far cry from the proof requested.
“The position that I’ve heard expressed today is essentially that you will comply with the subpoena but only and solely so far as Saudi Arabia allows you to do so, which is not compliance with this subpoena,” Blumenthal said.
“It’s simply staggering to me that American companies are not only willing to accept this claim, allowing the Saudi government to determine what is permitted to provide this subcommittee.”
As such, Blumenthal, sensing the undermining of his institution by the Saudi Government, called for his fellow lawmakers to strengthen the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).
Strengthening FARA
Congress signed FARA into law in 1938 to promote transparency of foreign agents. At that time, Nazi Germany was becoming a global power, and Congress wanted German individuals and entities working in the United States to show their true objectives and denounce Nazi propaganda.
But FARA has become outdated thanks to globalization, technology, and social media. It has had some tweaks since it was first introduced, but nothing substantial.
“FARA is woefully unequipped for the technological era we’re in,” Freeman explained.
“The administrative language is vague at best, and the DOJ has not done an adequate job of filling in the blanks there.”
FARA requires individuals and organizations representing a foreign principal to file important information such as income, money, spending, oral agreements, and the nature of its business to the United States.
According to the Congressional Research Service, foreign principals include:
(1) A government of a foreign country and foreign political party;
(2) A person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen and domiciled within the United States, or is organized under or created by the law of the United States… and has its principal place of business within the United States;
(3) A partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the law or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
Surely, this would apply to the Saudi PIF, a foreign sovereign wealth fund that has invested billions of dollars into the American economy.
Yet, last June, LIV Golf insisted that they are advocating for golf, not for Saudi Arabian political interests, and therefore feels it does not need to file as a foreign principal or agent.
“I think we need language in the statute to clear this up to know when the statute applies and when it doesn’t,” Freeman explained.
“This sportswashing case raises a whole other element of concern. When do sporting events or teams owned by a foreign owner trigger FARA? And does it trigger FARA? Should that be a FARA issue?”
If LIV Golf consisted of purely foreign investors looking to make money as a private business within the United States, it would fall under the so-called “commercial exemption” within FARA.
Should a foreign business have this exemption, it would need to register through the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) instead of FARA. LDA is aimed at providing transparency for lobbying practices within Congress.
But obviously, the benefactors of LIV Golf are not private businessmen.
“Where it gets tricky is we are talking about a foreign government financing these operations,” Freeman further explained.
“Because of who is in charge of the Saudi Kingdom, Bin Salman can veto anything or make anything happen at the top, and the de facto ruler of a foreign government has a yes or no vote on the activities.”
The DOJ enforces FARA against foreign government actors much more than private businesses.
And with the Saudi Government blatantly disregarding the PSI’s subpoena, as well as ignoring FARA, the scrutiny directed towards the PIF is warranted.
Meanwhile, this past year, Congress re-introduced the Foreign Agents Disclosure and Enhancement Act, which would essentially strengthen FARA, per Wiley Rein LLP, a transactional law firm based in Washington. This bill would provide the DOJ the tools it needs to investigate violaters of the law further. It would also increase the penalties against foreign actors should they fail to comply.
Plus, the Foreign Agents Disclosure and Enhancement Act bill has received bi-partisan support, paving the way for the law to be strengthened at some point in 2024.
Ramifications Regarding LIV Golf
With LIV Golf being owned and operated by the Saudi Public Investment, would the Saudi Kingdom view them as employees of the Government?
It’s an authoritative regime that craves absolute power, so it’s not a far-fetched question to ponder and be concerned about. They have already shown the propensity for that line of thinking.
These golfers have been adequately paid to join its upstart golf league to play worldwide, including in Saudi Arabia, which has dedicated millions of dollars to golf tourism within its country.
Yes, LIV golfers have not consulted the PIF like BCG, McKinsey, M. Klein Company, and Teneo have. But if the Saudi Government views these golfers like they do their consultants—as employees—then they, too, could find themselves in a precarious position, similar to the one the executives of these firms are in now.
Especially considering that it looks like FARA will be strengthened, the U.S. Senate and the DOJ will want more answers and evidence instead of simple calendar invites.
“Perhaps that strengthening includes calling on all these LIV golfers to register as agents for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” Eagleson said.
“And what will happen when the Kingdom tells them not to register? Are they going to threaten to put the golfers in jail?”
What happens if Phil Mickelson has to file as a foreign agent?
After all, without Mickelson’s efforts throughout the spring of 2022, LIV Golf likely would not exist. Without him, the idea of LIV likely folds like Greg Norman’s vision of a global golf tour in the 1990s.
Nevertheless, Mickelson—and other golfers—registering as foreign agents could become a reality in the coming months.
If that were to happen, who would Mickelson listen to, as an American citizen?
Would the Saudi Government threaten him for complying with Congress, just as they have with these four U.S. consulting firms?
If he listened to the Saudis, then he would be in contempt of U.S. law and violate FARA. He would find himself in a completely strained position.
The Saudi Kingdom has imprisoned dissidents before and will silence critics again, so what would stop the Kingdom from this?
Yes, understandably, at this stage, these are all just possibilities. But these are very real possibilities, now that Congress is clamping down on FARA.
Just think, in February 2023, the golfing world was celebrating Jon Rahm winning on the West Coast on the PGA Tour while LIV Golf launched its first full season.
Five months after that, Jimmy Dunne and Ed Herlihy, two PGA Tour policy board members, found themselves in a U.S. Senate hearing explaining how the PGA’s deal with the PIF came to be.
And now, barely eight months later, the Saudi Kingdom has threatened its clients with jail time in Saudi Arabia simply for complying with U.S. law.
Knowing how quickly tensions have escalated and how fragile global politics are at the moment, we nervously have to consider these possibilities and ask ourselves, what could happen next?
Jack Milko is a golf staff writer for SB Nation’s Playing Through. Be sure to check out @_PlayingThrough for more golf coverage. You can follow him on Twitter @jack_milko as well.