Tiger Woods lost most of his money to divorce.
Executive summary
Tiger Woods did not lose "most of his money" to divorce; credible reporting and post‑divorce documentation point to a settlement in the low hundreds of millions at most—commonly reported around $100–110 million—not the sensational $750 million figure pushed by tabloids [1] [2] [3]. Key legal details of the settlement were never fully released to the public, which allowed speculation and exaggerated numbers to proliferate [4].
1. The rumor mill versus the public record
In the immediate aftermath of the Woods–Nordegren breakup, tabloid stories repeatedly reported eye‑popping numbers—$750 million became a recurring headline in outlets like The Sun and was repeated in several aggregator stories—even though those figures were never substantiated by court filings [5] [6] [7]. By contrast, legal observers and follow‑up reporting stressed that the actual settlement details remained largely private and that any claim far above the low hundreds of millions was unproven [4].
2. What reputable outlets and legal summaries say
Multiple later accounts and legal explainers converged on a much smaller number: roughly $100–110 million has been cited by sources summarizing the post‑divorce disclosures and reporting, with outlets such as Sportskeeda, TMZ‑linked coverage, and law‑firm summaries all referencing figures in that neighborhood [1] [3] [2]. Golf Digest and other outlets provided nuance, explaining that the settlement was complex and included mortgage arrangements and periodic payments rather than a single colossal cheque, which undercut the idea that Woods’s entire fortune was instantly transferred [8] [9].
3. The mortgage detail that fueled confusion
Part of the noise came from a mortgage arrangement: reporting noted a $54.5 million mortgage tied to the settlement and reported deadlines for payment, which gossip sites at times mischaracterized as an outstanding $54 million debt equating to an unpaid settlement balance [8] [9]. Golf Digest specifically walked back those rumors and clarified that the mortgage structure did not mean Woods had failed to pay a larger settlement in full, demonstrating how partial legal facts can be amplified into misleading conclusions [8].
4. Why “most of his money” is an unsupported claim
There is no public court document or credible financial accounting in the cited reporting establishing that Woods surrendered the majority of his net worth to the divorce; instead, the consistent theme across more sober reporting is that the payout was large but not ruinous relative to Tiger’s overall wealth at the time, and that sensational figures were driven by unnamed insiders and tabloid agendas [4] [1] [10]. Because the full settlement language was not made broadly public, definitive accounting of every asset transfer is unavailable—reports therefore rely on secondary sources and should be treated with caution [4].
5. The media incentives and the lasting narrative
Tabloid publications and online aggregators had clear incentives to amplify the biggest possible number—$750 million made for clickable headlines and a dramatic celebrity‑divorce narrative—while more measured reporting emphasized gaps in the public record and pointed to the $100–110 million range [7] [10] [2]. That split between sensational and conservative accounts explains why the popular narrative that Woods "lost most of his money" took hold, even though the stronger documentary trail points to a smaller—albeit still substantial—settlement [1] [2].