The global golf megamerger looks even more confounding after a 3-hour grilling in front of Congress

Our experts answer readers' investing questions and write unbiased product reviews (here's how we assess investing products). Paid non-client promotion: In some cases, we receive a commission from our partners. Our opinions are always our own.

• PGA Tour officials testified before Congress about the league's shocking merger with LIV Golf.
• While there is no deal in place yet, the PGA Tour says they are moving in that direction.
• Big questions remain, especially as to why the PGA Tour took the Saudi money without looking elsewhere.

The PGA Tour's deal with LIV Golf and Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) is just an agreement to seek an agreement.

While that doesn't sound like an agreement at all, PGA Tour officials made it clear during a Congressional subcommittee hearing on Tuesday that a merger is what everybody wants, and they are moving in that direction only. 

This all started when LIV Golf, with golf legend Greg Norman at the lead, started offering PGA Tour players vast sums of money to jump to the new Saudi-backed golf league. This led to star players being suspended from the PGA, big changes to the PGA Tour, and, of course, lawsuits.

Then came the stunning 180-degree turn.

After the PGA Tour had previously called LIV Golf a vehicle to "sportswash Saudi atrocities," the two sides agreed to drop all litigation and ... merge? 

During the three-hour long Congressional hearing, the PGA made it clear that they believed if they had not accepted investment from PIF, LIV would have just kept throwing money at golfers, and eventually, even those who had committed to staying would relent.

The PGA Tour, a non-profit, just did not have the resources to compete with the deep pockets of the Saudis. So instead, they joined them.

The PGA also insisted that they will retain control of the sport, and if the PIF does not agree to that, there won't be a deal, something for which Chairman Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) repeatedly expressed skepticism. The PGA also pledged not to keep players from criticizing Saudi Arabia if the deal goes through.

But there was still no official deal between the PGA and LIV, which meant the hearing didn't have any teeth to stop it without knowing what the deal is. Brooklyn Law School sports law professor Jodi Balsam told the Golf Channel it was "about political grandstanding, public shaming, and ceremonial indignation."

However, she also noted that the hearing may have strengthened the PGA's position because there is no deal, and we now know Congress is watching.

"There is a possibility that the hearings today actually strengthened the PGA Tour's bargaining position because of congressional insistence that the final, definitive agreement contains provisions that void censoring players, that ensure long-term PGA control over the sport," Balsam said. 

Ultimately, this will come down to money, but that's where the real mystery lies

PGA Tour Policy Board member Jimmy Dunne told Congress that the initial investment offer from PIF is "north of $1 billion." We don't know how far "north," but it raises the seemingly legitimate question of why the PGA Tour didn't see if anybody else was willing to invest.

According to Eamon Lynch of Golfweek, there is other money out there.

"I know of at least one private equity guy who is telling players that he can produce $5 billion overnight," Lynch said on the Golf Channel. "There is alternate financing out there if the tour decided to go for a for-profit model. The tour just ran up a white flag and took the easy, dirty money."

Why go to Saudis for "north of $1 billion" if they can get $5 billion elsewhere? If an investor can get a weak NBA team for $3 billion, wouldn't investors be climbing over each other to get an entire sport for $5 billion? 

This was one of Blumenthal's most significant points.

"The litigation is behind them," he said on the Golf Channel. "It's history. It's done, and they ought to be exploring options that involve less repressive regimes, no sportswashing, other financial options ... The concession of financial control and, in effect, equity ownership, I think, puts them in jeopardy of very severe consequences to the sport."