The RBC Canadian Open, featuring many of the world’s top golfers, kicked off at the TPC Toronto at Osprey Valley in Caledon, Ontario, on Thursday and culminated with a playoff for the title on Sunday.

After both Sam Burns and Ryan Fox shot 5’s on the first three holes, it was Fox who would finally birdie the fourth go-round at the 18th, giving him the title.

Fox was awarded a $1.764 million from a total prize purse of $9.8 million. Burns was not far behind, earning a little over $1 million.

Here is a breakdown of the prize money earning for the 2025 RBC Canadian Open.

What is the total purse for the 2025 RBC Canadian Open?

The total purse for the 2025 RBC Canadian Open is $9.8 million. The first place winner will take home $1.764 million of the prize purse.

RBC Canadian Open: Prize money breakdown

• First place: Ryan Fox – $1,764,000
• Second place: Sam Burns – $1,068,200
• Third place: Kevin Yu – $676,200
• T-Fourth place: Cameron Young – $441,000
• T-Fourth place: Matt McCarthy – $441,000
• T-Sixth place: Byeong Hun An – $330,750
• T-Sixth place: Andrew Putnam – $330,750
• T-Sixth place: Matteo Manassero – $330,750
• T-Ninth place: Cameron Champ – $257,250
• T-Ninth place: Victor Perez – $257,250
• T-Ninth place: David Skinns – $257,250
• T-Ninth place: Lee Hodges – $257,250
• T-13th place: Ludvig Aberg – $180,810
• T-13th place: Shane Lowry – $180,810
• T-13th place: Nick Taylor – $180,810
• T-13th place: Danny Willett – $180,810
• T-13th place: Alex Smalley – $180,810
• T-18th place: Jackson Suber – $130,176.67
• T-18th place: Noah Goodwin – $130,176.67
• T-18th place: Jesper Svensson – $130,176.67
• T-18th place: Thomas Detry – $130,176.67
• T-18th place: Jeremy Paul – $130,176.67
• T-18th place: Kevin Roy – $130,176.67
• T-24th place: Emiliano Grillo – $86,730
• T-24th place: Harry Hall – $86,730
• T-24th place: Antoine Rozner – $86,730
• T-27th place: Lanto Griffin – $75,950
• T-27th place: Max McGreevy – $73,010
• T-27th place: Corey Conners – $70,070
• T-27th place: Keith Mitchell – $67,130

The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fast. Download for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more.

Now that was a lead that was safe.

After dropping the first game of the NBA Finals, the Oklahoma City Thunder thoroughly controlled the Indiana Pacers on Sunday, June 8, in Game 2, 123-107.

Indiana, which has posted five comebacks this postseason of at least 15 points, could never seriously threaten Oklahoma City, which had five players score at least 15 points.

Pacers star Tyrese Haliburton did finish with 17 points, though he had scored just five through three quarters.

Here are the winners and losers from Game 2 of the NBA Finals:

WINNERS

Alex Caruso and Aaron Wiggins

It wasn’t just his defense, Thunder backup guard Alex Caruso also poured in 20 points — including four drained 3-pointers — in just 27:04 of playing time. He was steady and aggressive on the offensive end, cutting into the lane when gaps opened up.

Throw in fellow backup guard Aaron Wiggins, whose 18 points — including 5-of-8 from 3 — in just 20:32 also lifted the Thunder. That Caruso and Wiggins accounted for nearly 65% of Oklahoma City’s 14 made 3-pointers, is a testament to the Thunder’s depth.

Chet Holmgren

This was exactly the bounce-back game that the Thunder needed from center Chet Holmgren. Three nights after scoring just six points on 2-of-9 shooting, Holmgren got to work, though most of his production came early. Nine of his 15 points came in the first quarter.

The Thunder go big

After opting to play mostly small in Game 1, Oklahoma City leaned much more on its double-big lineup with its pair of centers, Chet Holmgren and Isaiah Hartenstein, on the floor at the same time. The result was instant, with the Thunder dominating points in the paint in the first half, 26-12.

“It takes discipline, but we try to really use these early games in the series to learn what are options are and what our tradeoffs are — not assume anything,” Thunder coach Mark Daigneault said after the game. “That was the intent tonight: just to get a little more information.”

LOSERS

Tyrese Haliburton waits way too long

Through the first three quarters, the most important player of the Pacers had scored just five points on just 2-of-7 shooting. Through the first three and a half minutes of the fourth, Haliburton had scored nine points, making all four of his attempts.

While Haliburton’s rep as a closer cannot be questioned, his inexplicably slow starts could become costly. The Thunder will clog the paint and gameplan to slow Haliburton’s attacks into the paint. He needs to find ways to score regardless.

Pacers coach Rick Carlisle downplayed Haliburton’s sluggish production, saying that Indiana’s team is an ‘ecosystem’ and that it doesn’t matter where points come from.

“There’s a lot more to the game than just scoring,” he said after the game. “Everybody’s got to do more.”

Regardless, Haliburton is the team’s most gifted player and the one who can score easiest.

The Pacers have no answer for OKC’s intensity and physicality

After the game, Pacers coach Rick Carlisle was asked his thoughts on how the Pacers responded to Oklahoma City’s ramped up defensive intensity. Carlisle answer was curt and straightforward.

“Not well,” he said.

The Thunder excel at crowding the paint when opposing players attack, collapsing, swarming and swatting at the ball. That is magnified particularly when Oklahoma City uses its double-big lineup with Holmgren and Hartenstein roaming down low. In the regular season, the Thunder ranked first in opponent points in the paint per game (42.5).

Indiana’s inability to attack the paint hurt its spacing and hurt its ability to get open looks from 3.

“The paint is our emphasis and the paint is our friend. The more that we’re able to attack the paint, usually better things happen for us,” Carlisle said.

Key players on Pacers bench no-show

Obi Toppin scored 17 points in Game 1. Thomas Bryant had five. Both players combined Sunday night to score 4 on 1-of-9 shooting.

Guards T.J. McConnell and Benedict Mathurin did combine for 25, but the Pacers will need much more balance from their contributions.

The biggest stories, every morning. Stay up-to-date on all the key sports developments by subscribing to USA TODAY Sports’ newsletter.

The 2025 WNBA season hasn’t been the best start for the Chicago Sky. And now, the team was dealt a major blow to a star.

Guard Courtney Vandersloot suffered a torn right torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) during Saturday’s loss to the Indiana Fever, the Sky announced. She will undergo surgery and miss the rest of the season.

The injury happened in the first quarter against Indiana in the first ever WNBA game at the United Center, home of the Chicago Bulls. Vandersloot was driving to the basket when she immediately went down and was in visible pain as she grabbed her right knee. Her teammates huddled around her, and she was eventually taken back to the locker room with the help of medical staff. She didn’t return for the remainder of the contest. The Fever won the game 79-52.

It’s a brutal injury as the WNBA veteran was playing her first season back with the team that selected her No. 3 overall in the 2011 draft. Vandersloot spent the first 11 seasons with Chicago and was instrumental in the team capturing its first WNBA title in 2021. She signed with the New York Liberty in 2023 and spent two seasons with the team, helping the Liberty win their first championship last year.

A five-time WNBA All-Star, Vandersloot is second in league history in assists with 2,887 career dimes, trailing Sue Bird’s 3,234 assists. She also owns several franchise records in Chicago, including most games played, points, assists and steals, while ranking in the top five of several other categories. She re-signed with the team in February.

‘She’s our engine,’ Sky coach Tyler Marsh said following the game against Indiana. ‘She’s our captain and our leader out there, so obviously, it’s a huge blow.’

Vandersloot averaged 10.6 points, 3.1 rebounds and a team-high 5.3 assists per game in seven games played.

Chicago is 2-5 on the season, standing in 11th place in the league as the team tries to get back to the postseason after missing it in 2024.

‘It’s heartbreaking. It’s heartbreaking to watch anybody, but especially one of our teammates and someone that means as much as Sloot does to this team and organization,’ Hailey Van Lith said postgame. ‘Whatever is in store in the future for this team, I trust we will find a way to make this moment mean something in the end.’ 

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma City Thunder coach Mark Daigneault called the Indiana Pacers an acquired taste.

“We haven’t played them a ton,” Daigneault said. “They’re not in the West obviously. They play a very distinct style on both ends.”

After wasting an opportunity to win Game 1, the Thunder were left with a bitter aftertaste against the never-quite Pacers.

The Thunder devoured the Pacers in Game 2 Sunday, June 8, evening the NBA Finals with a 123-107 victory.

While the Pacers stole home-court advantage, they haven’t played great and it’s starting to become an issue as the series moves to Indianapolis for Games 3 and 4.

“Another bad first half,” Pacers coach Rick Carlisle said. “Obviously, it was a big problem, and we just played poorly. A little bit better in the second half but you can’t be a team that’s reactive and expect to be successful or have consistency.”

At this stage, the Pacers cannot rely on their ability to complete a comeback. They need to start better, and now, it’s on Carlisle and his staff to figure that out. Indiana trailed by as many as 23 points, and while the comebacks have been compelling, it’s not a recipe for playoff success.

“We’re going to have to be a lot better on Wednesday,” Carlisle said.

The Pacers have led for just one minute and 53.3 seconds of the 96 minutes in two games and their biggest lead is three points. It’s tiresome to play from behind for that long.

The Thunder were more physical, dominated the paint for the second consecutive game and limited Tyrese Haliburton to a quiet 17 points, 12 of which came in the fourth quarter when Oklahoma City had control of the game and was not in the mood to blow another double-digit lead.

How did the Pacers handle Oklahoma City’s physicality?

“Not well,” Carlisle said.

“They were the best in the league during the year at keeping people out of there (paint). They are great at it. We have to find ways to get the ball in there, and you know, it’s just there are so many things that have to go right on a set of two possessions to get the ball into the heart of their defense.”

Throughout the season and especially the playoffs, the Thunder’s top-ranked defense finds a way to take away or limit the opponent’s strengths. They did it against Denver and Minnesota in the Western conference semifinals and finals.

“Our offense is built from the inside-out, and we have to do a better job getting downhill,” Haliburton said. “They collapse and make plays from there. I thought we could improve a lot there. But yeah, they are flying around. They have got great point-of-attack defenders and great rim protectors. We can do a better job, watch the film, and see where we can get better going into Game 3.”

What about Haliburton’s performance?

“There’s a lot more to the game than just scoring. … People shouldn’t just look at his points and assists and judge how he played, or judge how any of our guys played just on that,” Carlisle said. “That’s not how our team is built. We are an ecosystem that has to function together. We’ve got to score enough points to win the game but who gets them and how they get them, not important.”

Pascal Siakam found no consolation in getting a split and grabbing home-court advantage in the series.

“You want to win every game you play, so we are not happy with how the game went today, and that’s it,” he said. “We’ve just got to turn the page, focus on Game 3. That’s the biggest game of the year.”

This series is much closer to being a 2-0 Thunder lead than a 2-0 Pacers lead, and between Game 1 and 2, Carlisle compared a playoff series to a book.

“Each game in this series is going to look different,” he said. “A playoff series is a series of seven chapters, and each one takes on a different personality.”

If the Pacers don’t find a way to start the next chapter better than they have, the book is going to close quickly on their championship aspirations.

Follow NBA columnist Jeff Zillgitt on social media @JeffZillgitt

So, tennis fans, how’d you like another decade or so of that?

After Sunday’s French Open men’s final – a 5-hour, 29-minute epic that somehow ended with Carlos Alcaraz holding up the trophy for a second consecutive year – we can now officially close the book on the so-called Big Three era. 

There’s a new game in town. And it’s as spectacular to watch as anything tennis has ever seen. 

Yes, Alcaraz’s improbable comeback to beat Jannik Sinner 4-6, 6-7 (4-7), 6-4, 7-6 (7-3), 7-6 (10-2) is the story of the day. Not only did Alcaraz win his fifth Grand Slam title at just one month into his 22nd year of life – an absurd accomplishment on its own – but he did it by summoning a competitive aura only the all-time greats possess.

He is, already, a legend. And that might have been the greatest match in the history of the sport. 

But the best part of Sunday’s match is that it’s not the end of the story. In many ways, it’s just the beginning.

The first Slam final between Alcaraz and Sinner not only exceeded every possible expectation, it sets an entirely new narrative for the sport. 

As Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal faded into retirement – most likely followed by Novak Djokovic in the next year or two – there was deep concern about what would come next after a 1½-decade battle between arguably the three best to ever hold a racket. 

Now we know definitively. Tennis is in the safest of hands. And barring something unforeseen, these two spectacular athletes are going to be doing battle in Grand Slam finals for many, many years to come. 

If you managed to watch the whole thing, or even just the last couple sets, it was easy to understand why that’s such a tantalizing possibility.

Let’s start with the level of play. In a word, spectacular. 

Though Sinner and Alcaraz are each elite individually, combining to win the last six Grand Slam titles, the greatness they manage to draw out of each other is unique. Though different players stylistically and tactically, they have now twice played matches that could be considered among the best in the history of the sport in terms of ballstriking, endurance and the high standard it took to win a single point. 

When they played a US Open quarterfinal deep into the night in 2022, with Alcaraz emerging after 5 hours, 15 minutes, it showed the possibility of a friendly rivalry between two generational talents that had stretched back to childhood. It has widely been considered the best match of the decade, not just for the length of the match but the drama and the quality they both laid on the line.

It only took three years to exceed that standard. 

Which leads to the second element of this ongoing story. 

What it took for Alcaraz to win that match – to beat Sinner on this particular day – was a sustained effort that few players in history could have managed. Maybe Djokovic. Maybe Nadal. Maybe. 

Because even though the all-time greats have all come back from two sets down and saved match points on the way to Grand Slam titles, few have had so little help from an opponent. Sure, there may be a shot or two that Sinner would want back after failing to convert three match points in the fourth set, then failing to serve out the tournament in the next game. But mostly, from that point until the final winner came off Alcaraz’s racket, it was mostly about his greatness and his relentless shotmaking.

Even in the fifth set, with Sinner clearly tiring more quickly than his opponent, he summoned enough energy to erase Alcaraz’s early break of serve and send the match to a final tiebreak where – guess what – Alcaraz continued to pound clean winners off impossible angles. 

Sinner did not lose this match. Alcaraz just got up off the clay and stole it. 

We can debate where this final ranks among the 2008 Wimbledon final between Nadal and Federer or the 1980 Wimbledon final between John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg when you factor in all the intangibles. But if we’re just talking about the quality of tennis played by two men over that length of time? It would be difficult to say there’s ever been a better match. 

If the world was watching Sunday, it had to love what it saw. 

And when you realize what’s ahead between them – more finals, more trophies, more history – this one felt like a moment to mark in time. 

One chapter of tennis closes, another begins. And it’s going to be as entertaining as any we’ve seen.