Golf Tips Handbook: Your Free Guide Awaits

Unlock our Exclusive Golf Tips Handbook- a curated collection of the smartest, most practical lessons we’ve published this year.

Download now

Jack Nicklaus’s defamation case centers on whether false claims about his mental fitness and involvement with LIV Golf damaged his reputation. At 85, the golfer says these rumors undermined the respect his career has long earned. But few could have anticipated the way the defense would just hand him that when it was their turn to question him.

“You know how hard it is to cross-examine the greatest golfer of all time?” defense attorney Barry Postman asked on Oct. 16, smiling at Nicklaus from the witness stand. “Do you know how hard that is? I grew up watching you play. I had your book when I was a kid.”. Rather than attempting the traditional cross-examination tactic of poking holes in the testimony of the 85-year-old golfer, Postman leaned into admiration.

Nicklaus, with characteristic modesty, chuckled. “It should be hard,” he replied, drawing laughter from the jury and Postman alike. But from there,  Postman carefully framed his questioning to show that Nicklaus’s reputation remains untarnished.

“People pay you to show up,” the defendant’s attorney said. “That’s the mark of someone who still commands respect.” He added, “Even after the allegations that are the subject of this case, you’re still asked to appear on national television, still invited to host tournaments, still recognized worldwide. That’s a testament to your reputation, isn’t it?” Nicklaus demurred at the praise, but the lawyer pressed, “I appreciate your modesty…But from all outward appearances, your impact on the golfing world today remains extremely strong.”

In 2023, Nicklaus initiated a defamation lawsuit against his former business partner, Howard Milstein, and Nicklaus Companies president Andrew O’Brien. The lawsuit stemmed from public statements suggesting that Nicklaus had secretly pursued a role with LIV Golf and had to be dissuaded by company executives. Nicklaus vehemently denied these allegations, asserting that they were false and damaging to his reputation. According to court documents, nearly 70 outlets carried the story within two days of the original New York filing. His attorney condemned Milstein’s actions, accusing him of attempting to “destroy his reputation” out of embarrassment over his decision to leave the company he founded.

The trial began on September 29 in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. But, despite the ongoing legal battle, Nicklaus has remained active in the golfing world. In 2025, he made a surprise appearance at THE PLAYERS Championship to celebrate its 50th anniversary. He also participated in media events such as the 2025 U.S. Open press conference, where he provided insights into the game alongside fellow golfing legend Johnny Miller. Additionally, Nicklaus continues to be involved in the Memorial Tournament, a PGA Tour Signature event he hosts at Muirfield Village Golf Club in Ohio. In May 2025, he and his wife, Barbara, were honored at the tournament– for this very legacy. 

Financially, Nicklaus’s post-golf ventures have been lucrative. His net worth is estimated at $400 million, accumulated through his golf career, course design business, and endorsements. Nicklaus Design, his golf course design company, whose name was retained once the arbitrator ruled that Nicklaus “is now free to engage in the activities once restricted by the contract’s covenants and to compete against the company that bears his name,” has designed over 430 courses worldwide. 

Yet, the pro, maintaining his measured modesty, replied to Postman, “That’s not for me to say.” 

At one point, Postman even referenced Nicklaus’s invitation to appear in Happy Gilmore 2, asking whether it was a mark of his influence. Nicklaus again deferred and told Circuit Judge Reid Scott that the movie was “actually funny”. Postman joked that he could impeach him for that. The exchange had the courtroom erupt in laughter, yet again. But it also showed the defense’s broader strategy of refuting claims of reputational damage. 

 They maintain that no one actively sought to smear Nicklaus. “If the company was actually interested in negative publicity, it would have been very easy to just send out a press release,” said Gary Malone, representing Milstein and O’Brien. He noted that the New York lawsuit that triggered the media attention was quietly filed on a Friday evening, a time chosen to minimize public notice.

As of now, ​​closing arguments are scheduled for Oct. 20. Jurors will decide whether Milstein, O’Brien, and Nicklaus Cos. defamed Nicklaus or whether their actions were a legitimate defense of business interests, leaving the Hall of Famer’s decades-long legacy intact.