He may never win a major again. Right now, that doesn’t matter. The fact is, for a sport in crisis, he is the most important golfer in the world. He is the conscience of the game, the most honest and principled voice on the circuit. Not just because he opposes the Saudi Arabian rebels tour, because many players do that. But because he does it by operating from the highest level of the sport and without flinching. Rory McIlroy hasn’t been afraid to voice his opinions on the controversial LIV Golf Series Never asks a question, never misses an opportunity. He doesn’t care that he has friends on the Saudi Arabian circuit, he doesn’t care that he has been through titanic battles with them as Ryder Cup teammates. McIlroy calls it as he sees it. And how he sees it is almost always on point. This week, four of the revolutionary LIV golf series players won a legal match to take part in this week’s Scottish Open. Among them was Ian Poulter, four-ball partner of McIlroy’s in the Ryder Cup. The couple goes back decades. McIlroy didn’t swing. “I think if you’ve been to play another tour, go play this tour,” he said. “You’ve left all your peers behind to make money, which is fine, but hang in there. Do not attempt to return. This whole having your cake and eating it is where the resentment comes from.” He is also right. Having taken the Saudi money, Poulter and a few other rebels now want to return to the European and PGA Tours and cash in on those pots as well. It is not fair. If the attraction of the Saudi tour is the great rewards, why should Poulter or Branden Grace be competing for what’s on offer in Scotland this weekend? The Northern Ireland star did not back down from friends playing on the Saudi-backed rebel tour, which has attracted major stars such as Ian Poulter, pictured at the Scottish Open on Thursday It’s not the first time McIlroy has been the spokesperson for golf as we know it. When the Rebels joined Matthew Wolfe, who had previously been recognized as one of the most promising young players on the course, it was the ultimate embodiment of a malaise that McIlroy had already recognized. Last month, he distinguished between revolutionary players nearing a career on the senior tour and his contemporaries. “I think my best days are still ahead of me, and I think theirs are, too,” McIlroy said. “So there you feel like you’re taking the easy way out. Nothing is guaranteed. You have to show up and play well to win it.’ Well, you do on McIlroy’s tour. Wolff, just 21, was ranked in the world’s top 20, having become the only golfer in 132 years to finish in the top five of his first two majors. Many players have left existing tours to take part in the LIV Golf Series He has since fallen to world No 78. So instead of fighting back, he took the easy route: the guaranteed spoils from Saudi Arabia. McIlroy swapped the European Tour for the PGA but, when he did, he made life more difficult. There’s no comparison between trying to catch the best at some of the world’s best courses in the United States and competing in fewer venues and a smaller field, but huge show money regardless of what’s on your card. This is going to get ugly. Scottish Open organizers had to let the rebel quartet in, but put them in two groups of two – the rest of the field comes out in threes – in graveyard slots. And while McIlroy’s criticisms are always measured, others are not so careful. American golfer Billy Horschel referred to the rebels as “liars and hypocrites”. United States Ryder Cup captain Zach Johnson has already said no rebel players will be selected for his 2023 team. McIlroy’s stance on the Rebel Tour has been echoed by the likes of Tiger Woods There are few sports like golf for its history and traditions and this is what has been betrayed, for money. When Tiger Woods was asked about the breakaway, he was unequivocal. “I believe in legacies,” he said. “I believe in big leagues, big events, comparisons with historical figures.” This is also McIlroy’s view. What is golf if it doesn’t take place at venues like St Andrews, if you’re not against the best, unless it’s judged over the ages? And what is any sport unless the rewards are fairly won? So on the Old Course next week, McIlroy would be the most deserving winner. But even if it’s not, there’s no one better for the game. When Sergio Garcia was whining in one of the final Tour events, it was McIlroy who brought him down. “Finally, we’re getting paid what we deserve,” Garcia said. “Sergio, we don’t deserve anything,” McIlroy replied. “We’re playing golf.”

Why Bazball doesn’t bother Aussies

There are precedents for what England players do in Test cricket. Australia’s Victor Tramper changed the scoring rates at the turn of the last century, but it was Michael Slater’s decision to treat the first over as the 50th that led to the modern scoring revolution. So when Steve Smith is heard gently mocking Bazball, it’s perhaps because Australia have seen it before, with a much better team than England currently have. Likewise, they have faced many of the players at the heart of this rock and roll cricket – Jonny Bairstow, Joe Root and even Ben Stokes – and emerged victorious. Try it against Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood, see how far you get, was the message. And until England do, while this summer promises to be exciting and the transformation breathtaking given what we saw in the West Indies, as much as we love it, the jury is out. Jonny Bairstow (right) and Joe Root (left) have done well in the new attacking ‘Bazball’, scoring crucial runs in Test wins over New Zealand and India for England.

Tuchel is the best thing for Chelsea. If he doesn’t want Ronaldo, listen to him

The signing of Raheem Sterling is a very good start for Todd Boehly and his new regime at Chelsea. He is a good player, a good goalscorer and immediately improves Chelsea’s big weakness last season: power. Cristiano Ronaldo would do it too. Even in a poor Manchester United side that failed to reach the Champions League, he scored 24 goals in 38 games. He would be nine clear of Chelsea’s top scorer with that record. Indeed, if Romelu Lukaku had converted at Ronaldo’s rate last season, he would have hit 30 goals and Chelsea would have had no problem. However, Ronaldo should be Thomas Tuchel’s call. We can all see what Boehly likes about him. This also attracted Manchester United. But where has he found them? With Ronaldo not taking part in their pre-season tour, there will be financial penalties associated with his absence. Manager Thomas Tuchel must make the final call on whether Chelsea will sign Cristiano Ronaldo That’s the thing about buying a player for both his commercial impact and his footballing ability. United have no value from Ronaldo. He could not push them into the Champions League without the right support and United may now be hit financially if they fail to reach the Far East. Owners Manchester City were also interested in him last summer, but backed down when it became clear Pep Guardiola had reservations. Guardiola was unsure how Ronaldo would fit into his game plan and believed his arrival would undermine the message that he would put the team above all else. If Guardiola asks Kevin De Bruyne to play right-back or come on at half-time, he is doing what is best for the team. Guardiola felt it would be difficult to do such a thing while parting ways with a man like Ronaldo. Tuchel’s philosophy is a bit different. He has played Callum Hudson-Odoi at full-back. He expects Timo Werner to be tireless in his pressing. When Lukaku let him down, he left him out, regardless of status and reputation. So it must be Tuchel’s decision about Ronaldo. And if he needs convincing – Guardiola never said a flat no, he just raised a lot of issues – then Boely will have to back off. Tuchel is the best thing for Chelsea right now. He knows what his team needs. Listen to him. This has been United’s mistake for a long time. Manchester United’s Cristiano Ronaldo has interest from new Chelsea owner Todd Bohli The issue that shows the FA care more about the suits than the stars Beth Mead, England’s match winner against Austria on Wednesday, says the players have discussed changing from an all-white strip over the concerns of those on periods. There is some debate, in an age when some athletes are free-bleeding in marathons and other races, as to whether this should even be an issue. However, it is and, in this case, easily resolved. England don’t play in all white. The national team colors are white, blue, white. The all-white is a fabrication by FIFA and UEFA’s marketing department because they think color blocks look better on TV. The FA, always keen to impress in the hope of knocking a piece off the table, have slavishly adopted the white strip at tournaments, with no thought to the implications for women. However, if England reverted to their true colors – worn since 1882 – the shorts would be navy and tensions would be eased. It depends on who the FA want to impress more: their players or the men in suits. FIFA and UEFA rules have forced England to play in an all-white kit in recent years, having traditionally played in navy shorts for the previous several decades Not hearing so much from Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford) about governance and football, after the government and the political party she is a member of have descended into a dark, two-pronged mess. Never forget, these are the people who will decide who runs the game and the strongest case against a government regulator…