“I told myself I’m not going to be for it or against it until I know everything,and I still don’t know everything,” Webb Simpson,a board member who won the 2012 US Open,said in a recent interview. And at a news conference on June 13,Patrick Cantlay,another player with a board seat,said “it seems like it’s still too early to have enough information to have a good handle on the situation.”

Beyond the anticipated backing from Herlihy and Dunne,Rory McIlroy,who sits on the board,has indicated reluctant support for the deal,saying:“If you’re thinking about one of the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the world,would you rather have them as a partner or an enemy?”

Other directors have not responded to messages or could not be reached for comment.

With many of the agreement’s details still being negotiated,the board was not expected to vote on the deal on Tuesday.

The Justice Department could try to block the deal.

The Justice Department was looking at professional golf before the deal was announced,with antitrust investigators examining the tour’s closeness with other leading golf organisations and its efforts to deter players from joining LIV.

The proposed partnership did not extinguish the department’s interest. In fact,it appears to have strengthened it.

Although the tour and the wealth fund have refused to characterise the transaction as a merger,antitrust experts say semantics may not matter. Even if the deal is structured as more of a partnership than an acquisition,the Justice Department could seek to block it.

Monahan stirred more doubts in Washington with his public observation that a leading rival would no longer be a threat. Antitrust lawyers said the department could interpret his remark as evidence that the elimination of competition is the aim of the deal,not,say,improving the sport.

But Monahan also said the agreement would help create “a productive position for the game at large.” The tour is expected to focus on this in the coming months,arguing that by combining resources and repairing the rift in professional golf,the proposed venture would offer fans the best of all worlds,including more competitions between the finest players on the planet.

‘If I were the lifetime czar of antitrust in the United States,I would ban the deal and tell them go back and compete.’

Stephen F Ross,sports law professor and former Justice Department employee

The end of the tension could help persuade regulators to approve the deal,reasoning that it is good for consumers.

“If I were the lifetime czar of antitrust in the United States,I would ban the deal and tell them go back and compete,” said Stephen F Ross,who teaches sports law at Penn State and worked for the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

But,he said,“the real world is that neither private litigation nor antitrust enforcers have ever been particularly good at policing competition between sporting entities to make sure that consumers’ preferences are respected.”

Congress wants the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to study the pact.

The deal has been loudly criticised in Washington,and a Senate subcommittee has scheduled a July hearing. But a Senate hearing cannot stop the deal,and so some lawmakers have asked a Treasury Department-led panel to intervene.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States,or CFIUS,is an interagency panel that has broad latitude to scrutinise any transaction that could result in a foreign entity controlling an American business and threatening national interests. Control is interpreted broadly,and can exist even in an investment for a minority stake.

A transaction involving golf tours would not immediately seem to trigger a CFIUS review;it does not involve critical technologies and most likely does not involve much sensitive personal data about US citizens. Janet Yellen,the Treasury secretary,said earlier this month that it was “not immediately obvious” the deal involved national security concerns.

This article originally appeared inThe New York Times.