Unanimous? PGA Tour players don’t completely align with Tiger Woods on the idea that overarching modifications are …

NASSAU, Bahamas — As a participant on the PGA Tour Policy Board that approved the significant modifications forthcoming for the PGA Tour, Tiger Woods addressed for the first time the concept of “redefining what it means to be a Tour pro.”

“I believe the vast majority of the Tour shared the same perspective,” Woods remarked regarding the alterations sanctioned in a recent board meeting last month during his Tuesday press conference prior to the Hero World Challenge, the event that he hosts and which supports his foundation. “The PAC was engaged, the subcommittees on the PAC were involved, and there was unanimous agreement on the actions required to offer a better product and improved experiences for our fans, our events, and our sponsors. Redefining what a Tour pro is, simplifying that.”

Among the modifications set to be implemented in 2026 are decreasing field sizes from as large as 156 players down to 120 in some cases, reducing the number of Tour cards from 125 to 100, and lowering the players elevated from the Korn Ferry Tour from 30 to 20, along with either limiting or removing Monday qualifiers at select tournaments, as well as adjusting the FedEx Cup point distribution (effective in 2025).

Fellow Policy Board member Patrick Cantlay reinforced Woods’ remarks.

“We paid close attention to the PAC throughout the year,” Cantlay stated. “There are 16 members on the PAC, representing each segment of the membership, selected accordingly. Thus, I am aware that these changes enjoy widespread backing from numerous members. As policy board representatives, it is crucial for us to adhere to what the membership conveys and to heed the PAC, which underpinned the decision-making process.”

However, Woods’ use of the term “unanimous” might be somewhat exaggerated. One member of the Tour’s Player Advisory Council conveyed his dissatisfaction to Golfweek concerning the process, indicating that he was not part of the subcommittee that reshaped the pathways to the Tour.

“The alterations regarding the modification of the Tour weren’t even discussed for a single minute during my PAC time,” conveyed a PAC member. “Then, I received an email thanking the PAC for tackling challenging topics and instigating necessary adjustments for the Tour’s betterment. It was challenging for me, as my name appeared on it, and I had no knowledge of these matters.”

This PAC member chose to remain anonymous since he was elected by his colleagues and aspires to continue making a positive impact for them while serving in his position but wished his experience to be recognized. Several other players, encompassing current and former PAC members and some of the most insightful and considerate voices on the Tour’s internal matters, have commented to Golfweek and other media outlets to articulate their concerns regarding certain upcoming modifications. Here are essential responses to consider.

McNealy raises concerns about signature event field sizes

Maverick McNealy has already impacted the modifications to the Tour. If you haven’t caught the story on how McNealy calculated the discrepancies in the FedEx points this season, those will be addressed next season thanks to his number-crunching. Read all about it here.

When asked at the RSM Classic a few weeks ago what he believes should be the next step for the Tour if it were to implement another adjustment, he answered, “It’s difficult to defend Signature Event fields of 72 players if we’re going to limit the number of players holding a card.”

“I consider 120 to be an ideal number, highly competitive. I believe a cut is crucial to our sport’s integrity, and it would be exciting to have signature events featuring 120 players rather than 72,” said McNealy, a PAC member since June. “With eight tournaments, we could create 400 additional playing opportunities. It seems like an obvious choice to me. While there are numerous arguments in favor of the 72-player format, none have yet persuaded me; that is simply my perspective.”

Harris English expresses concerns about the divide between “PGA Tour A and B”

Harris English is fully on board with Maverick McNealy’s proposal. English indicated this during an appearance on “Gravy & The Sleeze,” on Sirius XM/PGA Tour Radio on Monday.

“I appreciate what Mav has accomplished. He’s invested significant thought and effort, and I believe he’s currently on the PAC. He would certainly have my endorsement for the [Tour policy] board. He’s that insightful and that dedicated to enhancing the PGA Tour’s quality.”

Finishing 55th in the FedEx Cup standings grants English entry into the initial two signature events, but thereafter he is excluded from favored tournaments like the Arnold Palmer Invitational, which he has come close to winning, and the Travelers Championship, where he has previously triumphed.

“It feels somewhat exclusive,” he noted regarding the 70-man fields. “It’s becoming increasingly like a PGA Tour A and PGA Tour B situation. I find myself somewhat in between. I have a few opportunities on PGA Tour A, but if I don’t capitalize on those, I’ll be relegated to PGA Tour B for the remainder of the year. It’s challenging to catch up.”

He continued, “It’s difficult. They continuously shift the goalpost. The changes since my debut in 2012 have been significant. I comprehend their intentions to support many Korn Ferry players. However, it is frustrating to secure your Tour card yet find limited chances to participate in tournaments. I sympathize with their frustrations. It’s becoming considerably more challenging for everyone. Remaining within the top 100 is no simple feat. I’ve hovered around the 125 mark multiple times, and it’s incredibly stressful.

It’s tough to shift the metrics so drastically within a single year. Perhaps they could start with lowering five cards in the first year, another five the subsequent year, and gradually adjust that number. To slash 25 cards in one year is quite shocking.”

English also highlighted that although the intention of creating additional opportunities for Korn Ferry graduates seems sound in theory, the competition remains tougher for them with 25 fewer cards available.

“They believe they are simplifying the process for them, but the reality is it will be very challenging. They’ll face unfamiliar courses, won’t receive prime tee times; we all had to navigate this, but now they have made it significantly more challenging,” he remarked.

Snedeker warns against excessive changes, emphasizing the need to return to “core values”

Brandt Snedeker, a professional since 2004, noted he has observed more transformations in the last 4-5 years than in the prior 15 combined.

“I’m not asserting whether that’s positive or negative, but it’s been a whirlwind of change, and whenever there’s a surge of transformation in a short time, many elements can be overlooked. All the ambitious plans we establish can get tossed in a cycle as implementation occurs,” he remarked on the “Talk of the Tour” podcast.

Having participated in the Ryder Cup, ranked within the top 10 globally, and regularly maintained a position in the top 50, Snedeker has also faced challenges in recent times to secure a place within the top 125 due to injuries. The 43-year-old veteran, who has previous PAC experience, shared valuable insights regarding the upcoming changes in the Tour.

“The rationale sounds appealing: a few smaller fields, fewer cards, a method to expedite play, enhanced for TV, supposedly. All these ideas seem promising,” he noted. “My concern lies in what we might be sacrificing to achieve these goals. We were promised that these signature events last year would generate higher TV ratings, improve our product, and enhance many aspects, but the reality is the changes haven’t yielded significant results.

“When reflecting on this, one asks what has the Tour always stood for? It has consistently been about meritocracy, giving back to local communities, and allowing players to compete and secure their positions. I feel we may be diverging from these principles. The focus is shifting more toward business aspects and profit margins, detracting from core values. There are certainly alternative ways to structure things, and I’m not suggesting we cling to the past; I’m fine with transitioning to 100 Tour cards, as I believe it will lead to a superior product, and I see no issue with that. However, I worry about the consequences of eliminating Monday qualifiers. Does sacrificing four spots really achieve anything? I don’t genuinely believe so. It serves as a revenue source for both the PGA of America and the PGA Tour. It’s inspiring to witness Monday qualifiers excel and bolster local communities, which is an aspect we shouldn’t overlook.”

Snedeker continued to express his views, humorously reflecting on himself while delivering some hard truths. “I may be falling into the ‘get off my lawn’ mentality, but it’s not solely my decision. I recognize that adaptation is necessary given the evolving nature of golf, yet at times, we seem to lose our guiding principles and the essence of what drives our Tour, straying from core values. Occasionally, a reality check is necessary. Why are we diverting from those principles now? What has changed? Certainly, the landscape of professional golf has shifted, but our values should remain constant. They ought to evolve incrementally to enhance our approach; however, the fundamental values that have contributed to our long-standing success should stay intact. That perspective is how I feel.”

Snedeker wrapped up his comments by stating that excessive alterations can be detrimental and have resulted in some poorly conceived ideas.

“Transformations should be implemented gradually and with more thorough consideration rather than experiencing radical shifts every year for four consecutive years,” he emphasized. “It’s challenging to discern what outcomes arise when change is introduced without allowing time to assess the impact of the prior change. With constant modifications from one year to the next, it’s nearly impossible to determine the effects of those changes. In the past five years, we haven’t maintained the same policy for more than two years. It’s hard to evaluate how any changes are functioning if we don’t allow them to settle for a while.

Streelman expresses concerns about player turnover

Kevin Streelman, a former board member and active PAC member, has witnessed it all at 46, and one could argue he has the least to lose among PAC members as he contemplates the broader implications for the future of professional golf. In June, Streelman expressed optimism regarding the PAC’s advocated changes, but with the alterations now approved, he has become cautiously optimistic.

“From the outset, I’ve maintained my belief in the established system, but I may be excessively traditional. I recognize the need for evolution and the importance of producing an optimal product. This is a direction the leading players were eager to try. I think it’s a response to the signature changes. That shift substantially affected scheduling and resulted in nearly two distinct tours integrated into one with the varying point systems. We were uncertain about how this would affect which players participated in various events and how the strength of the fields would fluctuate. Now, with a full year of data to analyze, it appears there weren’t enough opportunities for rookies, and reallocating spots from field sizes was seen as the best solution to boost participation.

“The real concern centers on the turnover rate of players retaining their cards. Presently, approximately every five years, 50 percent of the Tour’s membership cycles through the top 125. If that timeframe reduces to about 3.5 years — just a speculation — our leading players might not maintain their status long enough. This could result in a constant influx of new names on the leaderboards. If players are consistently ebbing and flowing in and out of the top 100, it will complicate fans’ ability to connect with their favorite players.”

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

Glover has emerged as one of the most vocal critics regarding the relentless changes. He was opposed to the notion of smaller field, no-cut events prior to qualifying for all eight signature events this season after achieving two victories in 2023. Nevertheless, Glover has never participated in the PAC, labeling it a futile endeavor, stating, “The Tour essentially acts independently regardless.”

When Cantlay was asked to identify potential benefits stemming from the current adjustments, he responded, “One clear advantage is that we might have opportunities to conclude some tournaments that typically do not finish on Fridays due to the reduced field size during some early spring events.”

“Additionally, Korn Ferry rookies will gain increased starts than before, as they have been receiving diminishing opportunities gradually over the recent years. It’s important to afford them a fair chance at securing a full card,” he remarked.

Glover argues that a simpler solution exists: improving pace of play. Addressing the recent decisions to limit field sizes down to 132 and 120 based on daylight, Glover delivered a particularly noteworthy quote regarding the topic. “I think it’s terrible,” he asserted. “And cloaking it as a pace of play issue undermines our intelligence. They presume we’re naive.”

Glover maintains that during his early career two decades ago, few players were slow. Currently? “We have 50,” he highlighted. “So rather than reducing fields due to pace of play, ask us to be quicker, or simply admit that you’re accommodating a select few players to keep them complacent so they remain with you.”

For those interested in further insight into Glover’s comments, you can find more, 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