PGA Tour golfers hit back at Tiger Woods’ proposal to cut events and overhaul the schedule

Tiger Woods has found himself at the centre of a growing backlash among PGA Tour professionals after outlining plans that would drastically reshape the competitive landscape from 2027. The 15 time major winner is helping to lead the future competition committee, a group entrusted with redesigning the Tour’s entire structure across the regular season, postseason and offseason. Yet early signs suggest many players are wary of what lies ahead.

Woods acknowledged last week at the Hero World Challenge that the committee had only met a handful of times, and he appeared cautious about providing specifics. Even so, he hinted that a significant transformation is being considered. Among the most striking proposals is the idea of shifting the start of the season to February in order to avoid clashing with the NFL calendar. The new structure could also see the number of PGA Tour events reduced to around twenty five, creating a tighter, more curated schedule.

Alongside these changes is the prospect of deliberate breaks after major championships and a willingness to move certain tournaments to larger markets. The ambition is to modernise the Tour’s offering and create a more compelling narrative across the year. However, several long standing Tour members have voiced their discomfort, insisting that what has been suggested risks damaging the essence of professional golf rather than enhancing it.

Tom Hoge, speaking to the Golf Channel, expressed concern that the traditional model worked well before the arrival of rival circuits. He argued that players once enjoyed the freedom to choose where and when to play, a freedom he believes should not be sacrificed. According to Hoge, marquee names such as Woods and Phil Mickelson rarely competed in the same events except for majors and World Golf Championships, yet they still managed to elevate the tournaments they selected. In his view, that flexible approach served the sport and its fans effectively.

Hoge added that one of the defining appeals of the PGA Tour is the ability for players to tailor their own schedules. They can take extended breaks when needed or play several weeks consecutively if momentum suits them. A reduced calendar, he suggested, risks undermining that autonomy. He made no secret of his discomfort, stating bluntly that the idea did not appeal to him.

Ryan Palmer, a four time PGA Tour winner, echoed those sentiments. He acknowledged the weight of Woods’ legacy and influence but insisted that the proposed direction does not align with the goal of expanding the sport. For Palmer, the essence of “growing the game” lies in accessibility and variety, values he feels are threatened by a more condensed format.

The committee guiding the process includes Woods, Patrick Cantlay, Adam Scott, Camilo Villegas, Maverick McNealy and Keith Mitchell. Their task is considerable as they attempt to strike a balance between commercial pressures, competition from the breakaway LIV Golf League and the preferences of the players who make up the Tour’s backbone. While Woods remains measured in public, the early reaction suggests a difficult road ahead as he attempts to build consensus.

For now, many golfers remain cautious, fearing that the Tour’s identity may shift too far, too quickly. They acknowledge the need to adapt in an era of intense competition and shifting fan habits. Yet they also worry that reducing the number of tournaments could diminish opportunities, curtail the sport’s reach and disrupt traditions that players and supporters have valued for generations.

The debate is still in its early stages, but the reaction already reveals a clear tension between innovation and preservation. As Woods and his colleagues continue their work, they will need to convince a sceptical group of professionals that the path they are charting will strengthen the PGA Tour rather than unsettle it