Unanimous? PGA Tour players don’t all agree with Tiger Woods that sweeping changes are good for the game

NASSAU, Bahamas — As a member of the PGA Tour Policy Board that voted on the sweeping changes coming to the PGA Tour, Tiger Woods spoke for the first time about “redefining what a Tour pro is.”

“I think the entire — I’ll say the majority of the Tour felt the same way,” Woods said of the changes approved in a recent board meeting last month during his Tuesday press conference ahead of the Hero World Challenge, the tournament that he serves as host and benefits his foundation. “The PAC was involved, the subcommittees on the PAC were involved and it was unanimous across the board what we need to do to present a better product and something better for our fans, for our events, our sponsors. Redefining what a Tour pro is, streamlining that.”

Among the changes that go into effect in 2026 include reducing field sizes from as large as 156 down to in some cases 120, shrinking the number of Tour cards available (125 to 100) and players promoted from the Korn Ferry Tour (30 down to 20), reducing or eliminating Monday qualifiers at some tournaments as well as a tweak to the FedEx Cup point distribution (which goes into effect in 2025).

Fellow Tour police board member Patrick Cantlay echoed Woods’ sentiment.

“We listened to the PAC really closely all year,” Cantlay said. “There are 16 guys on the PAC, they’re representative of each part of the membership, that’s how they’re selected. So I know that those changes have widespread support among a lot of members. As policy board members, it’s important for us to do what the membership’s telling us and listen to the PAC so that’s how that decision came about.”

But Woods choice of the word “unanimous” may have been a stretch. One member of the Tour’s Player Advisory Council expressed his disappointment to Golfweek with the process involved, noting that he wasn’t involved in the sub-committee that reshaped the pathways to the Tour.

“The changes in terms of gutting the Tour, I didn’t even spend a minute of my time on the PAC discussing that,” said a member of the PAC. “And then, you know, I got an email saying, thank you to the PAC for discussing these difficult topics and making the Tour change for hopefully the better. And like, my name’s on it, and it was hard for me because I’m getting this email thanking me for all my hard work and I don’t even know about this stuff.”

This PAC member requested anonymity because he was elected by his peers and hopes to continue to make a difference for them through his role serving but wanted his experience to be known. Several other players, including current and former PAC members and some of the smartest and most thoughtful speakers on the Tour’s inner workings, have commented to Golfweek and other media outlets to express their concerns about some of the changes that will be implemented. Here are some of the responses to know.

McNealy questions signature event field sizes

Maverick McNealy already has left his mark on changes to the Tour. If you haven’t read the story on how McNealy did the math and figured out that inequity in the FedEx points this season. That will be rectified next season thanks to him crunching the numbers. Read all about it here.

When asked at the RSM Classic a few weeks ago to name what he thinks is the next step for the Tour if it were to make one more change, he replied, “I have a hard time defending Signature Event fields of 72 players if we’re going to limit the number of players that have a card.

“I think 120 is a beautiful number, I think it’s very competitive. I think a cut is an integral part of our sport and I think it would be really cool to play signature events at 120 players over the 72,” said McNealy, a member of the PAC as of June. “With eight tournaments, that’s 400 more playing opportunities. It just seems like a layup to me. There’s a bunch of arguments why 72 is the number. None of them have convinced me yet, but that’s my personal opinion.”

Harris English concerned about difference between playing on “PGA Tour A and B”

Count Harris English as being fully supportive of Maverick McNealy’s suggestion. English said as much on Monday during an appearance on “Gravy & The Sleeze,” on Sirius XM/PGA Tour Radio.

“I like what Mav has done. He’s put a lot of thought and effort and I think he’s on the PAC now. He’d have my vote to be on the [Tour policy] board. He’s that smart and that committed to make the PGA Tour the best it could possibly be.”

English finished 55th in the FedEx Cup standings, which gets him into the first two signature events but after that he’s not in favorite events such as the Arnold Palmer Invitational, which he’s nearly won before, and the Travelers Championship, where he’s a past champion.

“It’s a bit of a closed shop,” he said of the 70-man fields. “It’s become more of a PGA Tour A and a PGA Tour B. I’m kind of in the middle right now. I’ve got a couple of starts on PGA Tour A but if I don’t take advantage of those opportunities I’ll be playing on PGA Tour B the rest of the year. It’s just hard to catch up.”

He added: “It’s tough. They keep moving the marker a bit. It’s changed so much since my first year in 2012. I get why they are doing it to help a bunch of these Korn Ferry guys. It sucks to get your Tour card and you don’t get a ton of opportunities to get in tournaments. I understand those guys’ frustration. It’s going to make it a lot tougher for everybody. Being a top 100 player is no easy task. I’ve been around the 125 number a couple times and it is super stressful.

It’s just tough to move it that much in one year. Maybe five cards the first year, five the next year and keep moving that number down. To cut 25 cards in one year, it’s pretty shocking.”

English also pointed out that while the idea of creating more opportunities for the Korn Ferry grads is good in theory, the deck is still stacked against them with 25 less cards to play for.

“They think they are making it easier for them but it’s going to be very difficult. They’re going to be playing the courses for the first time, not getting the best tee times, we all have to go through it but they made it a lot harder now,” he said.

Snedeker says too many changes, need to get back to “core values”

Brandt Snedeker, who turned pro in 2004, said he’s witnessed more change in the last 4-5 years than in the previous 15 combined.

“I’m not saying that’s a bad thing or a good thing but there’s been a ton of change and any time there is a ton of change in a short period of time a lot of stuff gets left out. All the great plans we had get thrown into a washing cycle as the actual implementation comes through,” he said on the “Talk of the Tour” podcast.

Snedeker has been a Ryder Cupper and top 10 player in the world and consistent top 50 player and also spent the last few years struggling to make the top 125 as he battled injuries. The 43-year-old veteran, who is a former member of the PAC, offered great perspective on the changes coming to the Tour.

“The idea behind it sounds great: a few smaller fields, a few less cards, a way to get people around faster, better for TV, supposedly. All these things sound great,” he said. “I’m worried about what you’re losing, what you’re giving up to get to there. We were told these signature events last year were going to have higher TV ratings, be better for our product, better this and that, but the reality is it hasn’t changed that much at all.

“You look at these things and you say what has the Tour always been about? It’s always been a meritocracy, it’s always been about giving back to the local communities, it’s always been about guys going out and competing and earning a job. I feel like we’re getting a little bit away from that. It’s turning more into a business with a bottom line, black and white, it’s getting away from its core values. There’s obviously a better way to do things and I’m not saying that we have to stay in the past, I’m fine with going to 100 Tour cards, I think it will produce a better product, I have no problem with that. I worry about losing Monday qualifiers. Is losing four spots really going to do anything?  I don’t really think it is. It’s a revenue stream that the PGA of America needs, that PGA Tour uses. It’s great stories to have those Monday qualifiers play great and support the local community, which is an area we shouldn’t be losing.”

Snedeker was just getting warmed up and cracked fun at himself and spoke some hard truths. “I guess I’m getting into my get off my lawn mode now but it’s not up to me. I understand we have to change with the times, I understand golf has changed and stuff but sometimes you lose that North Star and what’s driving your Tour and you get away from your core values. Every once in a while you need that reality check. Why are we getting away from that now? What’s changed? Obviously, the pro golf landscape has changed, OK, but our values shouldn’t change. Our values should stay the same and we tweak it here and there to make it better but don’t change the core values of who you are as a company and what has been so successful for so long. That’s my thought on it and that’s kind of how I believe.”

Snedeker closed by saying too much change is not a good thing and has led to some half-baked ideas.

“Change should be a lot slower implemented and should be a lot more well thought out instead of every year it feels like the Tour is changing immensely, drastic changes, every year for four straight years,” he continued. “It’s kind of hard to tell what’s going to happen when you don’t give it time to figure out what the first change did. If you change everything the next year, what did that do? I don’t know. We haven’t had more than two years with the same policy in the last five years. Kind of hard to see how changes are actually going to take place if you don’t let something bake for a while in the oven.”

Streelman worried about the churn

Kevin Streelman is a former member of the board and current member of the PAC. At 46, he’s seen it all and you could argue he has the least at stake among the members of the PAC as he knows he’s in the twilight of his career and he’s looking at the big picture for the future of the professional game. In June, Streelman expressed optimism about the changes that the PAC was advocating but now that the changes have been approved he had shifted to cautiously optimistic.

“From the get-go, I’ve been saying that I believe in the way it has been but I have been a traditionalist, probably to a fault. I know things need to evolve and we need to make the best product that we can. This is something the top players really wanted to try. I think it is reactionary to the signature changes. That was a major change for scheduling and creating essentially two different tours within one with the different point structure. We didn’t know what would happen in terms of what players would play which events and which fields would get strengthened and which would get weakened. Now that we have a full year’s body of work to see the statistics of that they didn’t feel the rookies got enough chances and the best way to get more people in fields is to take spots away from field size.

“I think the concern is going to be the churn rate of players maintaining their card. I think right now it is about every five years, 50 percent of the Tour turns over with the top 125. If that goes down to 3 ½ years — and that’s totally a guess — then our stars won’t be stars for long enough. It will be constant new names on leaderboards. If guys are constantly going in and out of the top 100, it will be harder for fans to pick up guys to follow.”

Lucas Glover: ‘They think we’re stupid.’

Glover has been one of the most outspoken players against the steady stream of changes. He didn’t like the concept of smaller field, no-cut events when he wasn’t in the signature events and he didn’t like them after he won twice in 2023 to qualify for all eight of them this season. But Glover has never served on the PAC, calling it a waste of time. “The Tour just does what it wants to do anyway,” he said.

When Cantlay was asked to name what he considered to be the benefits of the changes being made, he replied, “Well, a couple obvious ones for me are I think we’re going to have a chance to finish some of these tournaments that never finish on Friday and have a cut on Friday. That’s one, and that was one of the biggest things we heard, which is just reduced field size in some of those early spring events.

“Then on top of that, the Korn Ferry guys who are rookies on Tour are going to get more starts than they have. They’ve been getting less and less starts incrementally over the last few years, so I think it’s important to give those guys a fair shot at getting a full card.”

Glover contends there was an easier way to fix the problem: play faster. Of the latest changes to shrinking field sizes down to 132 and 120 (depending on daylight), Glover gave arguably the signature player quote on the topic. “I think it’s terrible,” he said. “And then hiding behind pace of play, I think challenges our intelligence. They think we’re stupid.”

Glover contends that 20 years ago when he was starting out on the Tour, there were no more than a handful of slow players. Now? “We have 50,” he said. “So don’t cut fields because it’s a pace of play issue. Tell us to play faster, or just say you’re trying to appease six guys and make them happy so they don’t go somewhere else and play golf.”

You can read more of Glover’s comments, if you missed them, here.

This article originally appeared on Golfweek: Unanimous? PGA Tour players don’t all agree with Tiger Woods that sweeping changes are good for the game