'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, we react to the PGA Tour's new match play season finale announcement...

The PGA Tour continues to drip-feed announcements over its new-look 2028 season, where there will be a two-tier system with the Championship and Challenger Series, and the latest update was a big one.

The circuit confirmed its season-finale Tour Championship will be a two-event match play shootout in 2028, following the 'Championship Series' winner confirmed at the final regular season event.

Stage one of the revamped 'postseason' will see 32 players, in eight groups of four, compete one-on-one in in match play, with the top two from each group, so 16 players in total, progressing to the following week's finale.

There, the season finale will be a four-round event with the players competing in each round - so not standard knock-out.

Players advance through the bracket based on their win-loss record, with the final two undefeated players battling to be crowned 'Tour Champion' and the other players competing to determine the final championship standings.

Thanks to smaller fields, the PGA Tour says it can rotate the two-week Tour Championship around "prestigious venues, including courses the modern PGA Tour has not traditionally been able to feature."

It all sounds promising, so what do our tour experts think? And what do you think? Let us know in the comments section. Below, our writers give their initial verdicts...

I've been crying out for match play to return to the professional circuits and, finally, it has been delivered!

For me, the changes in 2028 sound good and were certainly needed, given that the current format is stale and doesn't work whatsoever.

Time will tell as to what venues will be used, which will obviously be a big factor in the success of the new format and, like anything new, there will be positives and negatives.

In my opinion, though, I've never really seen the point of the Playoffs, as it always feels like manufactured drama. At least now we have a different format to the 72-hole stroke play event that we see week in, week out.

If I were to nitpick, I'd say the eight groups of four could be slightly anticlimactic. There's a chance of some dead rubber games that don't mean anything.

This could be the English football (soccer) fan coming out in me, but I think a random draw among the 32 would add intrigue. It would be a bit like the FA Cup, a competition where you don't know who will face who and there are opportunities for some headline matches or huge upsets.

This change is a big step in the right direction though, and I can't wait to see it in play when it comes round to 2028.

My initial take is one of apathy, if I'm honest.

I'm not sure I fully understand the reimagined Tour Championship concept right off the bat, and if I do, I'm not sure I'm really in love with it.

It's certainly a positive that participation in the Championship Series Finale is mandatory to gain all the relevant rewards, but why would players want to compete in the standalone two-week match play tournament afterwards unless there's a ridiculous payout on the line?

On a similar note, I hope the Championship Series Finale doesn't offer silly points to dramatically change the order of the season's rankings based off one week.

If the points and payout are similar to a Major, fine. But I don't want them to be significantly higher so that someone who's only had a few good weeks ends up usurping the most consistent player just to create a bit of inauthentic drama at the last.

If Scottie Scheffler has run away with the title long before that, so be it. That's sport.

Moving on, the match play version of the Tour Championship seems a touch complicated in the second week when surely straight knockout would be simpler?

It's likely been formulated this way to satisfy TV coverage, which I understand, but I don't think it backs up the PGA Tour's claim the season-ending structure will be easier to follow.

Overall, this concept doesn't seem to strike the right chord with me.

Perhaps when I see it take place I will change my mind somewhat, but at this stage two years out, I don't think I love the look of the new season-ending structure...

My original reaction to the new Tour Championship format is a cautious one.

I'm pleased to see an element of match play coming in, but with all of this talk of going to famous venues, I wonder how famous we are talking here?

Pine Valley level famous? Or will it be Liberty National or Quail Hollow and leave us all disappointed?

As for the format, they may well have nailed it.

A separate Tour Championship trophy and FedEx Cup/season-long trophy should have always been the way to go.

The Tour Championship will now be an exciting match play tournament but the points winner rightfully wins the overall season championship - Patrick Cantlay might win both this week, which would be as hilarious as it would feel wrong.

I'll let my thoughts marinate over the rest of the week as I digest more viewpoints, but all-in-all, I'm feeling cautious optimism.

My initial reaction is that I can't really fault what the PGA Tour has announced today.

I love that the Tour Championship will be played over two weeks. I think that's potentially a really clever idea and allows for a narrative to build and some real anticipation for week two.

The four-man groups should make for plenty of entertainment with genuine implications as only the top two make it through.

There will be playoffs where necessary, which will be very dramatic.

With only the circuit's top 32 advancing, and then just 16 making it to the finale, it will find the PGA Tour's best players over the season who are in form and have shown they excel in both the stroke play and match play formats. I love it.

Making a big deal out of the 'regular season' champion means the circuit can celebrate its no.1 player throughout the season and the 'postseason' winner separately, and I think that works far better than how it currently does.

And to make it even more exciting, the idea of prestigious, famous courses sounds excellent.

I was sceptical about the initial claim, but with just 32 or 16 men, and no need to worry about par or huge tournament builds, I think we could actually see the likes of Pine Valley, Cypress Point and some of America's elite courses. The USGA manage it for their events, so why can't the PGA Tour?

Maybe I'm being a bit too optimistic there? I guess we'll find out.

Brian Rolapp has come in and quickly realized that the Playoffs are broken, and he may well have fixed them. I am impressed.

What do you think about the PGA Tour's new 2028 Tour Championship plans? Join the conversation below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, we look back on LIV Golf '1.0'...

A significant chapter in LIV Golf's book closed on Sunday in Indianapolis, when the league's fifth season drew to a close after just 12 of the 14 scheduled events.

Whether it's the final chapter in LIV Golf remains to be seen but genuine uncertainty remains over the circuit's future.

LIV fractured the men's game in 2022 and was a real threat to the PGA Tour at times, but the withdrawal of the Saudi PIF this year could be extremely tough to overcome.

Whatever happens, LIV Golf 2.0 will look very different, and arguably less impressive, compared to the renegade tour fronted by Greg Norman and backed by Saudi billions that looked like it would change the men's game forever.

So, if LIV does end, or even if it remains, what successes and failures can we reflect on from its five seasons?

Our tour experts have their say, and let us know yours in the comments section below the article...

Let's start on a positive note. The events in South Africa and Australia were unquestionable triumphs.

Although the DP World Tour has been visiting the two for years now, it hasn't felt like there have ever been quite the energy or intensity as the LIV tournaments.

LIV's trips to South Africa and Australia showed what was possible and has to have made the DP World Tour think seriously about the missed opportunities it left on the table as well as the potential to build moving forward.

Something else I feel LIV got right was shotgun starts. But only in rounds one and two. I don't think they worked at the weekend when a touch more clarity is needed in terms of the storyline.

It might be an unpopular opinion, but I'd say tour golf could really improve by making all smaller-field events shotgun starts on Thursday and Friday only. It concentrates the action into a tighter window and leads to several other positives as a result.

However, tournaments would have to be limited in terms of their size to make it work, otherwise you're left with a morning and afternoon shotgun start which probably doesn't make much difference.

Either way, LIV's penchant to try new things and throw a load of fresh ideas at the wall to see what stuck could well affect the game positively going forward.

On the flip side, LIV made so many mistakes since its inception, but the biggest error of all - in my eyes - related to the wildly excessive prize purses.

At least partially, it was what led to the Saudi PIF's exit and has led to a negative knock-on effect in the rest of pro golf. Signature Events on the PGA Tour were not really what the game needed in the US, and that then affected the other circuits around the world as well.

Away from money, the promotion and relegation systems were borderline farcical at times. A proper widespread pyramid would have given the league so much more legitimacy from the start, but the money and contracts on offer appeared to prevent a meritocratic operation being formed.

And lastly, the music being played on course. I understand LIV wanted/want to create a more relaxed and enjoyable environment for its players and fans, but this is still elite-level sport by the way.

It almost cheapens the product when any kind of loud music is being blared out while someone is trying to concentrate.

I am on board with the sport taking itself a little less seriously at times, but LIV went too far in many aspects and I felt it lost sight of certain fundamentals which could have been corrected.

I don’t think many people would argue that having more big golf events around the world is a bad thing, right?

Those scenes in Australia and South Africa were great, UK events are always well supported and it’s never a bad thing to see Valderrama in action.

Some didn’t have that same spark but LIV does seem to have piqued more of a global interest from the PGA Tour and that should be applauded.

Some of the broadcasting technology was top notch too, especially the 'any shot any time' feature and some of the drone shot tracer use.

Of course, LIV events had a limited field with unlimited funds and the costs are wildly prohibitive going forward, but they were good while they lasted.

I was never a fan of the shotgun start, especially for the weekend - I don’t really like a two-tee start on other tours either as golf courses are designed to be played 1-18.

There’s also something about the final round with the leaders going out last, sleeping on the lead and then having to tackle the course, in the right order, and feel that pressure building. It’s just not the same with players scrambling around all over the course.

The team format also didn’t really work – apart from the Team Championship, it was very much an afterthought in the rest of the tournaments behind the individual event. That team atmosphere and togetherness was obviously good for the players so you have to say for them it was great, but for those watching it left us all a little cold and confused.

Off the course, I don’t think the initial combative, abrasive approach from Greg Norman did LIV any favors in the long run.

Being a disruptor is fine but players were encouraged to burn bridges, the online LIV fans went into overdrive bashing the PGA Tour and DP World Tour, and all that butting heads turned a lot of would-be fans off.

Also, the business side of things took far too long to try and start turning into a sustainable money-maker.

Year after year of huge spending and huge losses could only continue if the Saudi PIF continued to bankroll it, and that was always risky.

If LIV leaders had been more focused on turning a profit, the league would be in much better shape to attract outside investment right now.

Like Jonny, I'll start with the positives.

LIV definitely identified some underserved markets in Australia and South Africa.

It also found some very bright young talents, like David Puig, Caleb Surratt and Josele Ballester, and its link-up with the Asian Tour was a smart move. The International Series offered a good alternative for its players and Asia-based pros to compete in strong fields with OWGR points and pathways into Majors.

LIV also exposed some shortcomings in the pro game. A shorter, more condensed round was more watchable and the on-site experience was definitely more fun for spectators.

It had a younger, more balanced customer in terms of gender, too, so that can be considered a win compared to the PGA Tour's older male audience. Its broadcasts, on the whole, were impressive and innovative as well.

I also give LIV major credit for bringing Anthony Kim back. His return to pro golf was truly inspiring and his Adelaide victory was undoubtedly the tour's biggest moment for me.

So, what did LIV Golf get wrong? I have a fair few notes.

Firstly, it failed to create a product that enough golf fans truly cared about.

Yes, it has plenty of fans, but not enough people felt like they needed to tune in to watch the on-course action. LIV is often in the news, on back pages and the main story on golf websites, but the articles, videos and talking points are rarely about what happened on the course.

That's because its events felt like exhibitions. They underestimated the value of a 36-hole cut and their players were far too comfortable. Golf fans love history and tradition, and the alternative that LIV offered them was not compelling enough.

Instead of grinding for a pay check like on other tours, its golfers were playing with music blaring without the worry of going home on Friday evening empty handed. It certainly felt like the players were having far too much fun, when elite golf should be incredibly stressful and demanding.

Many of its players had already been handed tens of millions and they didn't even have to make the cut to earn more cash. LIV was, as Eugenio Chacarra said after leaving, all about money.

I don't think it got the team format right, either. Yes, fans love team golf - as witnessed in the Ryder, Solheim, Presidents, Walker and Curtis Cups - but LIV didn't lean into team golf enough.

The aforementioned events are only about team golf, whereas LIV's was a bolt-on. Had it only been team golf, and with a match play format, it could have been far more entertaining.

LIV also overestimated the value of star players.

It thought buying Dustin Johnson, Phil Mickelson, Brooks Koepka and other recognizable names would instantly make people watch its events. That simply wasn't the case - certainly due to some of the points raised above.

It's the same with Bryson DeChambeau. He is one of the biggest stars in the sport but more people watch him on YouTube than in LIV Golf.

Why would people want to watch Dustin Johnson playing for guaranteed money in a brand new event that didn't have world ranking points when they could watch Rory McIlroy vs Justin Thomas on the other channel playing in a historic national open that had genuine implications (my example is the RBC Canadian Open)?

It also failed to crack America, the biggest golfing market in the world.

LIV's real success came internationally in Australia, South Africa, Korea, Hong Kong and the UK. The PGA Tour is such a huge force in America, and ultimately it was too big of a competitor for LIV to overcome.

Another area the tour failed in was obtaining world ranking points for the first four full seasons. It led to its players dropping out of Majors and largely becoming irrelevant in the biggest moments.

It also did not prepare its top stars well enough for the Majors. Whether this was due to the course difficulty, weaker fields, lack of cuts or the more relaxed nature, it failed to create a strong enough competitive environment for its best players to flourish at the Majors and build on their reputations.

Yes, Brooks Koepka and Bryson DeChambeau won Majors while signed to LIV and there are plenty of examples of strong performances from its players, but on the whole, they did not perform well enough on the grandest stages.

What do you make of our comments? And what do you think LIV got right and/or wrong? Join the conversation below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, we discuss our thoughts following the FedEx St. Jude Championship.

We're onto week two of the 2026 FedExCup Playoffs following Scottie Scheffler's dominant victory at TPC Southwind.

The World No.1 looked at his best as he breezed past the field in Memphis for a huge eight-stroke victory.

Scheffler remains no.1 in the rankings as some big names were eliminated like Jordan Spieth and Shane Lowry.

We move to Bellerive for the BMW Championship this week where the top 50 compete before just 30 qualify for the season-ending Tour Championship at East Lake.

So, what were our takeaways from week one of the Playoffs? Below, Golf Monthly's tour experts have their say, and let us know your thoughts in the comments section at the bottom of the page...

Do the players really care?

Yes, of course the players do care, they're competitors at heart...but clearly not all of them care enough. And that's a problem Brian Rolapp knows he needs to solve.

Rory McIlroy has just been vacationing and partying in Europe while most of the big names came into week one of the PGA Tour's most important stretch rusty after three weeks off.

The men's game is increasingly becoming more and more about the four Majors, and The Players Championship sits just behind those.

The Playoffs are a massive deal for the fringe players and journeymen, but are they really a huge deal for the tour's elite? I don't think so. Week one and two certainly don't seem to be for those who are safely inside the top 30, at least.

It's a 'bring your wheelbarrow' time for the top players, but they're all incredibly rich already after years of $20m Signature Events, Comcast Business Top 10s and Player Impact Program payouts.

Who can challenge Scheffler?

World No.2 McIlroy was understandably rusty after his time off, and it led to a leaderboard that looked like Scheffler vs a group of golfers firmly a tier below him.

Si Woo Kim, Sam Burns and Sungjae Im are all quality players, but none of them are close to matching the World No.1 at the minute. It feels like nobody in the world of golf can.

Where were Morikawa, Schauffele, Young, Hovland, Aberg and co.?

Right now, Scheffler really doesn't seem to have anyone truly challenging him at the top of the game on a consistent basis.

McIlroy and Schauffele have definitely had their moments in recent years while Young and Matt Fitzpatrick threatened earlier in the season, but it looks too easy for Scheffler currently.

He knows that if he plays well, he has nobody to worry about.

Jon Rahm certainly could run him close if he returned to the PGA Tour, and in fact a number of LIV players could increase the competition at the top of the game. Bryson DeChambeau, Joaquin Niemann, an in-form Cameron Smith and a handful of other players would make the PGA Tour far, far better.

So I guess my point is both that Scheffler is lacking challengers, and the PGA Tour continues to miss some of the players who left it for LIV.

A boring start to the Playoffs

I'll be honest, I found pretty much everything about the St. Jude Championship boring.

The course has never excited me and the reality is that whenever Scheffler has a sizeable lead atop a leaderboard, it's not really worth watching - I tend to follow on my phone and am primed to check back in if it gets close, which is rarely the case.

Given some of the amazing courses and events that populate the schedule from January to August, the St. Jude always tends to feel like a letdown, which is the exact opposite of what you want from the first Playoffs event.

I always enjoyed the Deutsche Bank Championship and would much rather see TPC Boston return to the schedule (even though it needs to be toughened up slightly). I think the three-event Playoffs structure is about right, but the choice of venue, no doubt influenced by commercial factors, lets it down.

As for Rory, there's no need to overanalzse his performance. If you've ever been to Ibiza, you'll know why he didn't bring his best golf to Memphis.

Stale.

The word stale comes to mind.

As a big NFL fan, I get very excited when the playoffs kick off in early January. The regular season all leads up to it and the level of intensity in the competition is notably higher, as are the stakes.

Meanwhile, on the PGA Tour, the second best golfer on planet earth has shown up to the first Playoffs event not-so-fresh off a month-long break where he spent more time partying in Ibiza than practising.

And why wouldn't McIlroy take a break? Major season is over and he's booked his place at the Tour Championship already.

The new-look PGA Tour schedule cannot come soon enough.

I imagine Brian Rolapp will share some more information on what this will look like in the coming weeks, but at least we know this tedious current format won't be continuing.

The Playoffs need life injected into them, and the best way to do this is to go the meccas of golf and introduce some sort of matchplay format, not a no-cut strokeplay event in the 100 degree heat of Memphis, Tennessee in August.

The entire PGA Tour format needs a serious rejig, but one benefit of the Playoffs being so bad is that Rolapp will face less pushback if he blows up the current model to start again from scratch.

The Playoffs need to be scheduled better

If the Playoffs are to be taken more seriously, then they need to be scheduled nearer to the final Major of the season. A three-week break where there are, and no offense to these smaller tournaments, isn't good enough.

Although I'm not a fan, I think LIV Golf gets the season-long standings correct in that, once there's a winner then that's it, the competition is done.

Either the Playoffs get removed completely from the golf calendar, or they're scheduled better in that we don't have such a long wait for them.

Given that the PGA Tour controls proceedings from January-August, and the DP World Tour from September-December, you could certainly adapt the schedule so that it works more smoothly.

Some of the top players have forgotten how to win

You can't deny that Scheffler is the dominant force in world golf right now and, looking at those in contention at the FedEx St. Jude Championship, it's baffling the timeframe of when some of them last won.

Si Woo Kim hasn't claimed a title since January 2023, while Sam Burns hasn't lifted a trophy since March 2023.

Going further, Sungjae Im hasn't won since October 2021, Hideki Matsuyama since January 2025, Ludvig Aberg hasn't tasted victory in 18 months and even Fleetwood hasn't won on the PGA Tour in a year.

They're producing solid result after solid result, but it seems that they have forgotten how to win. They know how to get into contention, but not how to get over the line.

Have some of the bigger names simply played better, or is it the case that the Sunday pressure is too much for them? Either way, it's time these caliber of players earned some silverware sooner rather than later.

What was your takeaway from the FedEx St. Jude Championship? Join the conversation below...

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, we discuss the DP World Tour's controversial pathway to the PGA Tour.

The DP World Tour's 10 cards initiative was introduced in 2023 as a way of giving its members more playing, and financial, opportunities courtesy of an official pathway to the PGA Tour.

The scheme has had plenty of critics, who believe a tour giving away its 10 best players is bad for business, but it has had lots of successes, too.

Ryan Fox, Robert MacIntyre, Min Woo Lee, Kristoffer Reitan and Matthieu Pavon are among the players to have made good use of the pathway over the years, but what do we think about it? Is it working on the whole? Or should it be tweaked, or even scrapped, going forward ahead of the PGA Tour's two-tier system in 2028?

Our tour experts discuss below...and be sure to let us know your view in the comments section at the bottom of the article.

I wasn't initially a fan of the programme, but I've actually come around over the last few months.

Most who are opposed to it point to how bad DP World Tour fields are between February and August (with a few exceptions like the Scottish Open), and that's objectively true, but it's hardly as if Alex Noren, Kristoffer Reitan, Marco Penge and Thriston Lawrence are suddenly going to elevate them into world-class tournaments.

Remember, these are players who don't already have status on the American circuit.

The fact is the PGA Tour dominates in those months and that isn't going to change.

I actually think it's been interesting watching these players compete on the PGA Tour and added another dimension to the coverage. It also raises their profile to a global audience, which is good when they return to DP World Tour events, as they almost always do.

Europeans who wish to compete in the Ryder Cup must be DPWT members and those from countries like Australia, South Africa and Japan have typically enjoyed playing a global schedule.

It has certainly not been the kamikaze policy many feared it would be.

I believe fans who criticize the pathway and negatively label the DP World Tour as a 'feeder tour' are missing the point.

Yes, giving away your 10 best players is not a dream scenario but it is the reality of where the European Tour finds itself.

Gone are the days of Seve Ballesteros, Nick Faldo and other European greats playing week-in, week-out. The money and the best players are primarily in America, so the DP World Tour is doing right by its members to help them progress to the biggest stage.

The 10 cards initiative has had some huge successes with the likes of Ryan Fox, Robert MacIntyre and Min Woo Lee just to name a few, but for every success story there is five or six failures.

This year, for instance, five of the 10 finished the regular season inside the FedEx Cup top 100 and a few will almost certainly lose their cards straight away.

They'll have had good experience but ultimately poor years for their careers, when they likely would have continued to have success in Europe.

When the PGA Tour's two-tier system comes into play in 2028, I think only one or two should go to the Championship Series and perhaps five should go to the Challenger. Moving to the PGA Tour from Europe is a big step up and a massive learning curve, with new courses and a completely new culture, and many players clearly aren't ready for it.

Instead, they would likely benefit from another season or two in Europe to improve their games and resumes before making the jump as a poor year in America can harm their careers and progress, and some are clearly going over too early.

Has it been a success? 100%. As Nick says, the players remain as DPWT members and return anyway, and most of them will make the September to November events stronger and more intriguing when they come back to play.

In my opinion, I still think 10 cards being offered out is too many and that number could, and should, be reduced by around half, especially as the DP World Tour losing 10 of its best players every year is quite significant.

Is the initiative working? I'm leaning on the side of yes, as some names have really progressed and furthered their careers by earning a PGA Tour card, but there are also a few that haven't.

Let's be honest, the PGA Tour is the circuit to be on, given the prize money and tournaments available. It's so competitive that you do get rewarded for good play and, when the new format comes in for 2028, that will be emphasized further.

What seems to be working is that there's a more clearer system in place, whereby it's almost like a conveyor belt. As the DP World Tour's in-form players move to the PGA Tour, another drop of future stars are coming through.

Do I agree with it? No. I think the DP World Tour is the best circuit in the world and it's a shame that it's unable to benefit from the future stars before they jump to the PGA Tour.

For me, that's why the reduction of cards to around five or six makes sense and should be implemented.

In our Inside The Ropes series, I like to come in with some fairly 'hot' takes. That's not for the sake of it, but because I hold a lot of fairly strong opinions on a range of things within golf, both recreational and professional.

However, 10 PGA Tour cards being awarded to DPWT players is not something I have too strong an opinion on.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it is too early to judge whether this has been a success or a failure. What does success look like? All 10 keeping their cards? If so, we may never see this initiative work.

You can't argue there hasn't been success so far, mainly through Kristoffer Reitan's win at the Truist Championship in May. However, the Norwegian is the only DPWT import to win this year.

Going from a Europe-based DPWT player to a fully-fledged PGA Tour player isn't just a change of tour, it's often a change of life. Your life is different almost entirely - a new city and country to play in, a higher level of competition and a wider variety of courses.

It is also worth mentioning the DPWT lost a heap of talent over the years during the LIV Golf civil war.

To put it bluntly, the DPWT isn't as deep in quality as it once was, so we shouldn't be surprised to see a few of those who qualified for the pathway have struggled Stateside.

What do you think? Join the conversation below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, we list our bugbears with professional golf that we think should be outlawed.

What should be outlawed from professional golf? That's the subject of this week's Inside The Ropes. The things that annoy us and ultimately we believe would be better off gone from the top-level game.

From long putting routines to long putters, controversial temporary immovable objects and the constant use of smartphones from spectators, here are some of the things our team want outlawed from pro golf...and be sure to let us know yours in the comments section at the bottom of the article:

Major putting green changes

NB: I find everything to do with the putting surface and the process of putting painful.

It all takes far longer than it should and TV broadcasters haven't yet mastered the art of cutting to the action at the appropriate point.

We don't need to see players surveying the putt from all sides of the hole or doing AimPoint; one practice stroke and the real thing is perfect. But, I appreciate it's a difficult job for directors, so let's make it easier for them.

My radical new plan is to outlaw marking the ball multiple times per green and capping it at once per hole.

If you're in the way of someone else after your first putt, finish out – I don't care if it's on the same line.

An even more out-there suggestion is to adopt the crazy golf model of continuing to putt until your ball is in the cup.

I also don't think caddies should be allowed to help read a putt. It's not a luxury afforded to the average amateur, and I don't think the pro game should be easier in any way than the unpaid ranks.

Phones

CK: It is, somehow, a Masters tradition that I only started really appreciating in the last two years or so, but my god does the patrons at Augusta National watching the golf with their eyes rather than through the camera app on their smartphone breathe some fresh air into a sporting event.

As a collective society, our phones have taken over our lives. I'm guilty of this too - I'm not proud of my screen time and I rarely leave a room in my flat without it in my pocket.

However, when I'm at a sporting event, I try my best not to go on it and to instead watch the action with my eyes and live in the moment.

The moment Scottie Scheffler's ball flies into the gallery, he's surrounded by an army of iPhones pointing at him.

Why not ban phones for spectators so we can all enjoy the golf in real time rather than through a screen?

Thick rough at the edge of water hazards

CK: Talk about niche, right? But I've had this opinion for years - why on earth is there a bank of rough preventing balls from feeding into the water on so many PGA Tour venues?

The Travelers Championship at TPC River Highlands springs to mind, where a water hazard is in play to the left of the drivable 15th hole, but balls always get saved by lush rough where they paint the red line.

Do this for 17 at TPC Sawgrass, too. Less rough means more jeopardy and the potential for more chaos. Is this unfair? Maybe a little, but technology in golf is de-skilling the game so it is time to fight back against -20 winning every week.

Tell the pampered pros to deal with it.

Ban dress codes on tour

JL: I feel pretty confident most of my colleagues will say broom-handle putters, but I don't agree. I tried one once and it was so awkward. So, if you can use it, all power to you.

What people really want is to avoid the doubt of anchoring, and that goes back to questioning each individual player's integrity rather than an issue with the club itself.

Instead, what I'd love to outlaw from professional golf is a ban on clothing restrictions.

I don't see what difference it makes for a pro to wear whatever they want, especially if it'll help them win.

Hoodies, shorts, whatever - it's all good with me!

Long putters

EH: Yes Jonny, you were right - long putters are what I'd first put forward to be outlawed in professional golf.

The 2016 anchoring ban was supposed to be the end of the broom-handles, but the governing bodies were not tough enough on them.

Sure, anchoring is now a thing of the past but long putters are still a way for players who struggle with the yips and other flaws to continue to shoot low scores and contend. It seems a bit wrong to me.

If a pro struggles with the driver yips, they cannot turn to an alternate method, so I think putting should go back to being the art of mastering the short stick.

I would like to see the putter having to be the shortest club in the bag. Simple.

TIO

EH: Scottie Scheffler's TIO ruling at The Open was highly controversial, and I have long been saying the rule needs changing.

The pros are the best 0.001% of golfers in the world, and TIO structures almost act as safety zones and bumpers for them.

Yes, they are essentially 'temporary', but not for the golf tournament. They are permanently there all four days, and the players know it.

Find yourself up against a grandstand after over-shooting the green? Take a penalty drop.

Slice your drive behind a leaderboard? Flop it over or chip out sideways.

Hit it into a hospitality unit? Take a one-stroke drop from the point of entry. Easy.

Getting rid of the TIO rule in the pro game would make things harder for pros who are finding the game easier and easier at the top level thanks to the technology and science they benefit from.

Pre-shot routines over 45 secs

For me, a player should be ready to take their shot once their playing partner has played. Time and time again individuals aren't ready to go once someone else has gone and it's infuriating to watch.

I know players have their own individual quirks, but the fact some take minutes to play after they've been through yardage, wind, club, shot shape etc. is painful.

It genuinely feels like players have bets on to see who can have the most over the top and flamboyant pre-shot routine. Almost as if how many club twirls, glances at the flag and peculiar movements can be done before you eventually pull the trigger.

For me, if players were fined for making their pre-shot routine over 45 seconds that would really help. Take a leaf out of Ryan Fox's book. He's won an Open Championship and his speed of play is a shining example of how the game should be played.

7 and 9 woods

This is a controversial one, but I believe that the highest fairway wood the professionals should use is a 5-wood that's set at 18°, as I believe 7- and 9-woods are just cheat codes that eliminate the skill of hitting a long iron.

Introducing a 7-wood, or 9-wood, to the bag means players can stop the ball far more easily on the green with their tee shots on long par 3s and approach shots into long par 5s.

If they had to use a 2-iron, or 3-iron, it would involve a lot more skill, as they would have to manipulate the flight to create the stopping power to get it close to the flag.

What's more, these fairway woods are far easier to hit from the rough than long irons, an area where you should be punished when there's a chance of bogey being on the cards.

I'd rather 7-woods and 9-woods be replaced by long irons, especially when testing the best players on the planet.

What would you like to see outlawed from pro golf? Join the conversation in the comments section below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, it's all about whether Jackson Koivun should be on the USA's Presidents Cup team.

Jackson Koivun beat Scottie Scheffler by three strokes to win his maiden PGA Tour title at the 3M Open in just his third start as a professional.

The former Auburn star turned pro following a record collegiate career, joining the paid ranks last month after picking up the low amateur honors at the US Open alongside Ryder Cowan.

Koivun is already ranked 73rd in the world and sits 30th in Data Golf's rankings, and calls are already coming in for the Californian to play on the USA's Presidents Cup team in September.

But is it too early? Or should he be selected by captain, Brandt Snedeker? Our tour experts have their say...and let us know your view in the comments section at the bottom of the article.

Personally, I'd say yes, Koivun should be in the Presidents Cup side, given that he is one of the in-form American players, having literally just won the 3M Open.

For me, it feels like a similar situation to Ludvig Aberg, who claimed victory at the Omega European Masters following a successful college career, with that win proving to be the key reason why he was selected for the Ryder Cup in 2023.

Not to put any disrespect on the Presidents Cup either, but it does feel like an appetizer to the main course of the Ryder Cup in 2027 and, let's be honest, if Koivun continues this run of form he'll be in line to appear at Adare Manor next year.

Looking down the list of those in contention for places at the Presidents Cup, 21-year-old Koivun is outplaying the majority of them, and it's not like you can make the excuse of him being a young rookie.

Cameron Young was the stand-out for Team USA at Bethpage Black in 2025 and, in my opinion, it's only right the Americans introduce some of the new blood given their lacklustre performances in the Ryder Cup.

Should Koivun be selected for the Presidents Cup? Given what I've seen of him I'd say 100% yes.

As I said on the latest episode of the Golf Monthly Tour Issue podcast, I would be giving Koivun the 12th and final spot on Team USA in the Presidents Cup. But there's a big 'if' attached to it.

He has to carry on playing really well over the next month and Koivun has to make the FedEx Cup Playoffs as a minimum.

I don't think he will, clearly, but Brandt Snedeker cannot become carried away with the exciting new shiny toy in the box and just pick the 21-year-old from a novelty perspective.

While the Presidents Cup isn't as prestigious as the Ryder Cup, it's also not a charity golf day so you still have to treat it with respect.

If he plays well, of course I'd give him the backing as he looks likely to become a major star the future. Plus, selfishly from Snedeker's point of view, he could go on to say he was the one to give Koivun his big break into world-class team golf.

It's not really a risk if Koivun carries on competing at the top level, either.

As an aside, if you look at the alternative names in contention for that 12th and final place on Team USA's roster, none of them have the star power or confidence that the recent 3M Open champion is currently carrying.

For me, the choice is pretty clear... as long Koivun's win wasn't a flash in the pan.

If the US is serious about winning the Ryder Cup in the future, Jackson Koivun should absolutely be on the Presidents Cup team.

Let's be honest here - this isn't a very serious team competition. The US have won all but two since it began in 1994 and until they truly fix the Presidents Cup by incorporating the best female players in the world, the Americans should view it as a competition to prepare ahead of the Ryder Cup.

The sky is the limit for Koivun, winning on only his third PGA start after dominating on the college scene for Auburn. What is there to gain not putting him on the team

Looking at the US standings shows there aren't exactly guys bashing down the door to get on the team - Jacob Bridgeman, Harris English et al.

Koivun has more potential than anyone fighting for those final few spots, so why not incorporate him in the hopes he qualifies for the Adare Manor team for next year?

I seem to remember the US taking a punt on Scottie Scheffler as a captains pick for the 2021 Ryder Cup - how has his career panned out?

It probably is too early to commit with a firm yes or no, but I do think Koivun has the talent to win points for USA.

He looks like he will qualify for week one of the FedEx Cup Playoffs and could even make it to the East Lake finale if he picks up another victory. He will not automatically qualify for the team, so the question is will Snedeker pick him over an experienced player?

Akshay Bhatia, Jacob Bridgeman, Harris English and Ryan Gerard are among his current competitors. Would I pick Koivun over those? I think the answer would be yes.

He is in great form and is clearly an exceptional talent.

If the thought process is to bed him in to the USA side to benefit him and the team for the future, then it would be an easy yes. If the thinking is to simply produce the best Presidents Cup side possible, then I think the answer could also be yes.

So I guess the answer from us is a firm yes, Jackson Koivun should be on the USA's Presidents Cup team.

Do you agree? Join the conversation below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, it's all about our thoughts on what is lacking in the pro game.

The world of professional golf is abundant with incredible players, record prize money and a busy, global schedule showcasing some of the world's best courses.

The grassroots game is flourishing and the professional game is certainly as popular as ever, but what could make it better?

In this week's instalment of our Inside The Ropes roundtable, our tour experts discuss what the pro game is currently lacking...

And be sure to join the conversation below with your view.

Personalities

NB: This has been an issue for quite a long time. Where are all the big personalities? Where are the mavericks? Where are the rivalries?

People don't just tune in to professional sport to watch the action, they do so for the drama and storylines too.

Apart from Bryson DeChambeau, who are the game's larger-than-life characters?

I was happy Rory McIlroy spoke about not being particularly fond of his American counterpart, because that makes things more interesting the next time they're paired together.

Players aren't obliged to be interesting or gregarious, but golf is an entertainment industry that competes for people's time.

Are you more likely to watch someone who wears their heart on their sleeve, or someone who wins their first professional title and can barely muster a smile or celebration?

The amount of money in the game also feeds into this 'problem' (I've put it in inverted commas here, because some people won't view it as such. I certainly do). When the financial rewards are so great, it makes more sense to do everything by the book.

Scarcity

NB: You can absolutely have too much of a good thing.

One of the reasons the NFL is so popular is that, if your team doesn't make the play-offs, it's eight months between the last game of the previous season and the first game of the current season.

That creates immense anticipation and excitement. In my view, there's simply far too much golf being played on the PGA Tour right now.

The Signature Event model doesn't work and so many huge events are crammed in between March and July.

Brian Rolapp is clearly aware of this, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the PGA Tour's two-pronged structure works out from 2028.

Cohesion

JL: The leading tours in professional golf could work together more efficiently in order to create a worldwide year-round schedule that genuinely suits players and fans and gives the prime events their moment in the spotlight.

At the moment, it's every tour for itself. In that sense, there are always going to be winners and losers.

However, if there was more cohesion then everyone could earn a healthy slice of the pie.

It's a shame because the opportunity really is there to grow the game, but no one seems to want to give an inch.

Variety

JL: I'm a real supporter of adding a bit more variety into pro golf, such as a match play event in the men's pro game.

I also really enjoy "silly season" at the end of the calendar year where there's unique events.

They could be on Friday evenings or Saturdays during the NFL season to avoid clashes with college football or the pro game.

Then there's a lack of variety in courses. On the PGA Tour and LPGA Tour, there seems to be a similar course every other week.

I like the DP World Tour and LIV's choices because they go to different layouts far more regularly. Variety is the spice of life, as the old cliche goes, and I think it could improve pro golf as well.

A global schedule

CK: Without sounding like a PR employee for links golf, if we are serious about ‘growing the game’, why are seemingly 95% of the elite tournaments based in the United States?

When you ask yourself this question, the simple answer is money.

Sponsorship deals matter. Corporate hosting matters, I get that, but why does the PGA Tour play just two weeks of links golf a year?

Why do I not get to watch Scottie Scheffler knock it around Australia’s stunning sunbelt courses?

Why is Asia’s massive golf market left untouched?

Bouncing around state-to-state on the PGA Tour has become stale, so to freshen it up, let’s get serious about this sport being a global game.

Here’s a hot take and a good way to kickstart that - let’s rebrand the PGA Championship as the world’s Major and bring it overseas.

Rivalries

CK: This modern age of sport has robbed us of seeing a lot of athletes' true selves.

Stars that are destined for the top are media trained from the get-go, which robs us fans (and journalists) of some truly juicy storylines.

Rory McIlroy is one of the few sportstars who shoots from the hip and tells you how he feels, which can be to his detriment at times. It has certainly cost him a few fans over the years, but when he speaks, people listen.

McIlroy telling media at Royal Birkdale, unprompted I’ll add, that he isn’t “overly fond of Bryson” brought a smile to my face. Sports are far more enjoyable when there are storylines, and a game as respectful as golf having genuine beef between two stars only adds to the drama.

Give me more!

Appetite to travel

EH: I must say, I think my colleagues have nailed these on the head and I agree with most of what has been written above.

One thing that grated me recently was Scottie Scheffler saying how much he wanted to go and play in Australia and New Zealand.

My instant thought was, 'Well, go on then...nothing is stopping you.'

He claimed he enjoys the off-season and time off at home, but the reality is he has only played 21 tournaments in each of the past three years. That means he has 31 'off-weeks' per year, when the average citizen has around six weeks of 'annual leave.'

I'm certainly not saying those 31 weeks are considered as vacation for him, I'm sure he's working very hard and diligently to improve his game and body, but I would think he has time to travel around a bit more. Especially as he is the best golfer in the 'world.'

Unfortunately, unless Scheffler gets paid millions in appearance fees, I find it hard to see him getting on a Qantas A380 and heading left to the 1st class section.

It's the same with the majority of the world's best. Let's be honest, Rory McIlroy only played in India last year due to appearance fees and it's the same reason he played in Australia and will again head there later this year. That is my hunch anyway, if I'm wrong I'll happily hold up my hands.

The world of professional golf is ruled by money, I know, but these golfers have more than they could ever dream of spending. If you want to go and play somewhere, go and do it!

Mixed golf

EH: I think professional golf does a poor job of mixed golf.

There will be a mixed doubles Olympics event in 2028, which should genuinely be fantastic and I'm sure the players will love it, but that is the only time we'll see the best men and the best women competing alongside each other.

We have the Grant Thornton Invitational in December now, which the women support fantastically, but the highest-ranked male player last year was World No.28 Chris Gotterup.

Why did none of the top 27 male golfers play? You guessed it...money.

I would love to see a revamped World Cup of Golf return with mixed teams. It could be a really big event again, if a few sponsors can stump up the cash to guarantee it for the next decade.

What do you make of our views? And what do you think is lacking in pro golf? Join the conversation below...

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, it's all about our men's Major season award winners.

What a run of men's Major championships we all witnessed in 2026. The biggest events never fail to deliver and this year was no different with four worthy winners providing a fascinating array of victories.

Rory McIlroy defended his Masters title in very different circumstances to 2025 - although there were similar themes such as a feature from Justin Rose - while Wyndham Clark captured a second US Open after battling the boo-boys and a typically brutal Shinnecock Hills layout.

Meanwhile, there were two fresh Major champions - and immensely popular ones too. Aaron Rai roared down the back nine at Aronimink to clinch the PGA Championship before Ryan Fox went out and won The Open at Royal Birkdale to close the season out.

While there were four winners, there were many who fell short in their pursuit of immortality. But that doesn't mean they will walk away empty-handed.

At Golf Monthly, we've decided to hand out a number of awards while the Majors are still fresh in our minds - from the best shot of the year to the biggest disappointment and plenty in between.

For more discussion on a few of these awards, you can listen to the most recent episode of the Golf Monthly Tour Issue podcast.

Whether you agree of disagree with our selections, please leave us your thoughts in the comments box below. And without further ado, here's who we've picked out and why.

BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT

Bryson DeChambeau. The polarizing American had three really bad missed cuts in the year's first three Majors, before looking more like himself at The Open.

However, he was penalized two shots for improving his area of intended swing on the Friday and his challenge petered out over the weekend.

Scottie Scheffler. The World No.1 has to be disappointed not to add another Major to his tally after a year where he was by far the best from tee-to-green but simply did not putt well enough.

Bryson DeChambeau. DeChambeau was the biggest disappointment of the Major season, undoubtedly, after missing three cuts and fading in the other.

But Cameron Young might be the most disappointed after coming so close to winning The Masters and The Open, only to be pipped at the post. Young might be especially gutted over his shot selection out of the fairway bunker on the 72nd hole at Royal Birkdale...

JJ Spaun. He won the US Open last year and it's not like his form in PGA Tour events has dropped off since, given that he claimed victory at the Valero Texas Open and has multiple top 10s in 2026.

I could have opted for DeChambeau here, but I've gone with Spaun as he as also missed three Major cuts and only finished T40th at The Open Championship.

BIGGEST SURPRISE

It has to be Aaron Rai. The Englishman had won once in America before the PGA Championship in May and had never seriously contended in a Major. It wasn't just a surprise that he was contending; it was a surprise how comfortable and ruthless he was during Sunday's back nine.

Aaron Rai. This is a toss-up between Rai and Ryan Fox, but I'll side with the Englishman as he had only won once on the PGA Tour prior to charging past the likes of Jon Rahm with a stunning final round, sealing a Major that has been won exclusively by Americans since 2016.

Only one US Major winner. Given six of the world's current top-10 are American and so many Major seasons take place with multiple US winners, I have to say I'm pretty surprised there was only one in 2026.

Add in to that, if you'd have given me one guess as to who the American winner would be back in April, I would have gone a long time before landing on Clark...

No Major win for Scottie Scheffler. Let's be honest, if Scheffler had putted like he did in 2025, we could have easily seen him claim three of the four Majors this year.

He's still the best player in the world by some margin, but to see him not win a Major in 2026 was extremely surprising. In all honesty, Scheffler only winning once this year is an even bigger shock!

BEST PLAYER

This is a tricky category. Can someone who didn't win a Major be labelled as the best player? I'm not sure, but I feel Sam Burns deserves some recognition for his fantastic Major season, so I'm going to vote for him here.

Scottie Scheffler. He went 2-2-T14-T4. Yes, he was the biggest disappointment for me, but only because of the incredible standards he sets. To contend at every Major shows just how good he is.

In this category, stats don't lie. Scottie Scheffler was the best player at Majors in 2026, despite not winning one.

He was a cumulative 20-under through the four championships (as was Sam Burns) but the World No.1 twice finished runner-up. There wasn't much between them, but Scheffler just edged it.

This is the hardest category to pick, in my opinion, as the four Major winners haven't really shone in other championships outside of their victories.

McIlroy is the only player to make all four cuts and win a Major, but his T32nd at the US Open and T40th at The Open left a lot to be desired. Therefore, I am going with a split between Scottie Scheffler and Sam Burns. They ended the year with the best combined score over the four Majors and contended in the majority of them.

BEST FINAL ROUND

I'm going for Cameron Young at The Open. I know ultimately it wasn't enough, but I was convinced his closing 64 was good enough to get him into a play-off at the very least. Only some heroics from Ryan Fox stopped that from being true.

Ryan Fox at The Open. Fox birdied four of his last six holes, which also featured a brilliant bogey save on 15 after a horrible break in the bunker, to take the Claret Jug. It will go down as one of the best Open finishes of all time.

To reiterate what I've said on this week's Golf Monthly Tour Issue podcast, I think Wyndham Clark's final round at The US Open was the best. He faced all kinds of adversity and never really wavered.

The other three were amazing in their own ways, but golf is especially tough when you're fighting against something all day and it felt like it was Clark against the world, so huge props to him for standing strong.

Aaron Rai (PGA Championship). Again, this was tricky, as Ryan Fox and Wyndham Clark showed grit to win their Majors, but I've gone with Aaron Rai, simply for that incredible final 10 hole stretch.

Having never won a Major, you could be forgiven for falling off the pace, but an eagle at the ninth and four birdies coming in, including that putt on the 17th, meant the Englishman fired a 65. In a week where scoring wasn't there, a joint best round of the week to win a Major is always going to stand out.

UNSUNG HERO

Ludvig Aberg quietly had a very strong Major season. His worst finish was a tie for 21st at The Masters and he registered top-10s at the PGA Championship and The Open.

Brooks Koepka. It has been a big year for Koepka after leaving LIV Golf, and following three MCs in the Majors last year, he made three cuts in 2026, going T12-T55-MC-T28. Certainly nothing to shout about, but good progress - all while struggling badly on the greens.

The PGA Championship. The year's second Major is always picked on or left until last in the rankings, but this year it was truly incredible. There was a tight leaderboard right up until the end, it was an interesting golf course and there was a worthy and popular winner. What more could you want?

The Greenkeepers and Organizers. It's a generic answer, but I felt that all the greenkeepers and organizers set up their respective Majors perfectly, as shown by all four championships being thrilling finishes.

The Masters is The Masters and, although the wind at the US Open was a big talking point, the set-up was perfect as it never affected play. The PGA Championship delivered competitive scoring for a change, while The Open Championship provided perfect burnt out links conditions. Overall, I take my hat off to the organizers and green staff.

BEST SHOT

Ryan Fox's drive on the 72nd hole at Royal Birkdale takes it for me. It was so brave given how narrow the fairway was and it set up his closing birdie, which meant he avoided a play-off. Rai's putt on the 17th hole at Aronimink is a close second.

Wyndham Clark, 2nd shot, 16th hole, third round, US Open. All four Major champions produced countless top-class shots this year, but this is one that really stands out to me. It set up an eagle three on the par-5, and really felt like it was the moment where he knew it was going to be his week

Elliott's nomination is certainly a close second, but I want to give the nod to Rory McIlroy's second into the 18th in round four at The Masters.

McIlroy hit arguably the worst drive I've ever seen on that hole to a part of Augusta National I'm not sure anyone ever knew existed, only to rescue it with a world-class effort into the front-left bunker he just cannot have practiced. That shot was pure talent, and it helped him with a second Green Jacket.

Lucas Herbert (The Open Championship, Round 3, 17th Hole)

Herbert's chances of a Claret Jug were slipping away on Saturday and, when he found the shrubbery on the 17th with his tee shot, you could be forgiven for thinking he was out of the championship, given he had to take a drop.

However, with a 6-iron in-hand, unsighted, off a bad lie, he didn't just advance it up the hole, but nearly smacked the flag! It's one of the few shots this year that made me bellow out "what a shot," and that's why I think he deserves the award.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, it's all about what Major championship stood out to us.

It's hard to believe that the men's Major season is already over, and that we'll have to wait nearly eight months for a shot to be hit at one of golf's big four men's championships.

Although the long wait begins, we have been truly spoilt with the men's Majors in 2026, with four different golfers claiming four different Majors in thrilling circumstances.

Back in April, Rory McIlroy became the fourth player in history to defend The Masters, while Aaron Rai produced one of the best back nines in Major history to wrap up the PGA Championship at Aronimink Golf Club.

Not long after the Englishman's success, Wyndham Clark secured a second US Open title, while Ryan Fox birdied the 72nd hole to pip Cameron Young to the Claret Jug by one at The Open Championship.

Certainly, there have been stand-out moments and epic finishes galore throughout the four Majors and, consequently, the Golf Monthly team have given their thoughts on what they consider to be the best championship in 2026.

Do you agree with the team? Let us know what ranking you would give the Majors in the comments below...

• 1. The Open Championship
• 2. The Masters
• 3. PGA Championship
• 4. US Open

This is actually a very difficult question, as I feel like 2026's set of men's Majors were fantastic.

The easiest decision would be to place the US Open in fourth position as I think it felt flat at times and the lack of atmosphere on Saturday night certainly contributed to that, with hordes of fans heading for the exit to try and get the last train back to Manhattan.

Wyndham Clark's performance was remarkably impressive up against that tough crowd, but it probably wasn't the most thrilling or dramatic.

For me, I will have to put The Open Championship first.

That might sound like recency bias but Ryan Fox was the only man to win a Major by one stroke courtesy of a birdie on the 72nd hole this year.

It was a thrilling finish, where we had no idea who would win or if there would be a playoff with three or four holes to go. The golf course and the fans ensured it felt like a very special week.

Rory McIlroy's second consecutive Masters victory comes second for me, as that was a very dramatic final round with Cameron Young and Justin Rose each holding the lead... I still feel for Rose, who definitely let the Green Jacket slip away.

The Masters is the best Major in my opinion, and the final round always feels tense and grand.

Aaron Rai's spectacular PGA Championship victory will be my number three. It was an entertaining final round where, again, we had no clue who would win for the most part.

Rai's performance was seriously impressive, so much so that his walk up the 18th hole was a comfortable one.

• 1. The Open Championship
• 2. PGA Championship
• 3. The Masters
• 4. US Open

Whenever there are at least five players in contention during the back nine on Sunday, you know the tournament has delivered, and that's exactly what happened at The Open.

It had everything - an eclectic leaderboard, a rules issue and associated controversy, a great crowd, a fantastic course, perfect weather and a final-hole birdie that resulted in a one-shot victory. Majors don't get much better .

The PGA Championship is second, as I really enjoyed the golf course and Aaron Rai's golf on the back nine was some of the best I've ever seen from someone who hadn't been in that position before.

It also had a pinch-me moment - his rollercoaster birdie putt on the par 3 17th.

If you have asked me after nine holes of the final round of The Masters, I would have been convinced it would turn into an absolute classic, but it petered out somewhat on the back nine.

As a Justin Rose fan, I was also really disappointed to see him meekly surrender the lead he'd built up on the front nine.

Finally, I am also putting the US Open last. Even though it only happened last month, it genuinely took me a couple of minutes to remember what happened and who won.

It was actually quite dramatic, with Sam Burns narrowly missing his birdie putt on the 72nd hole, but for large parts it wasn't gripping.

• 1. The Open Championship
• 2. PGA Championship
• 3. The Masters
• 4. US Open

All four Majors stood out for different reasons but, for me, The Open Championship tops the table as it had everything from start to finish.

It may have been marred by the rules incident on Friday involving Bryson DeChambeau, but the golf on display was spectacular. I can't recall a player have so much bad luck on the back nine and still win.

Fox's bogey on the 15th is one of the best in recent times, while his birdie at the 18th showed incredible bottle. That's not including the historic 62 he and others shot throughout the week.

Behind Fox is Rai at Aronimink Golf Club. His back nine was unbelievable and it was refreshing to see someone plot their way around the course, instead of overpowering it.

I was at The Masters in April and, although the week will live with me forever, it's a case of what could have been on the back nine.

Rose was set-up to win but couldn't manage it, while McIlroy wasn't challenged by the chasing pack, meaning he could afford a bogey at the last to win a second Green Jacket.

Like others on this list, Clark's victory is fourth, but I will hand it to the American, who faced plenty of trials and tribulations on Sunday from the New York crowd.

The fact he stood up and won it took serious nerve, but it wasn't the most memorable of finishes and was overshadowed by those in attendance.

• 1. The Open Championship
• 2. US Open
• 3. The Masters
• 4. PGA Championship

I would just like to start this by saying I didn't watch more than six holes of the PGA Championship because I was on holiday (I know, how could I go away during a Major?!) so that has to go last.

I'm aware it was a very good ending with a massively popular winner but, that being said, I didn't see it so it's going in fourth.

The Masters was a little bit underwhelming this year, I seem to remember, and McIlroy didn't put us all through the mill like 2025 so I'll award it the bronze.

This is surely recency bias coming into play here, but I'd have to give The Open the nod ahead of the US Open, simply because it was a tight finish where Ryan Fox went out and won it with a dramatic final-hole birdie.

I still think Wyndham Clark's final round was the best of the year in the Majors, but there were very quiet periods at Shinnecock Hills, so that can take silver.

• 1. The Masters
• 2. The Open Championship
• 3. US Open
• 4. PGA Championship

Rory McIlroy going back-to-back on a chaotic Sunday in what were the best course conditions we've seen at Augusta National in at least a decade is an easy choice for the best major of 2026.

To begin with, McIlroy pipped a chasing pack that featured the likes of Scottie Scheffler, Cameron Young, Justin Rose, Sam Burns, Collin Morikawa and more.

Of course, it wasn't as exciting as 2025, but I don't think any Major I watch in the rest of my life will eclipse that famous Sunday.

I am not being hyperbolic when I say Ryan Fox's final six holes is one of the greatest stretches of golf ever played.

Birdies on the 13th and 14th were halted by a brutal break in the bunker on the 15th, where he splashed out backwards and still made an amazing bogey, but the Kiwi bounced back with a stunning approach into the 16th for birdie and just an astonishing final hole.

A sensational birdie for a sensational, deserving winner to cap off a blockbuster four days at one of the best Open host courses that, again, delivered on the drama.

In terms of the US Open, Shinnecock is my favorite venue by a wide margin, and watching Wyndham Clark try and hold onto his lead over the weekend led to riveting viewing.

It didn't have the same star power as The Masters or Open and the crowds on Long Island were a dampener on proceedings, but boy was the golf good to watch.

High winds throughout the week meant the USGA had to hold back on ramping up the difficulty of the course, which was disappointing, but Shinnecock still provided a stern test to the field - one in which I couldn't take my eyes off.

I am putting the PGA Championship bottom as I felt like it was a weird one.

I liked the golf course and the setup was a welcome break from the birdie-fests we've seen at the likes of Valhalla. For me, though, it felt like there weren't many birdies out there because the pins were in inaccessible areas and the pros weren't making more than a bogey.

Then, on a bizarre Sunday in which nobody seems to want to win the championship, up steps none other than... Aaron Rai. Aaron Rai? Right, that's quite cool, I'm happy for him... but it doesn't get the juices going like Foxy's win did.

By the PGA's recent standard I thought this was a good showing, but we need to move this Major back to August to try and rebuild its image and reputation, because it feels lost.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, it's all about players not speaking to the media.

Two-time Major winner Bryson DeChambeau largely ignored the gathered media at The Open Championship last week.

He answered some questions from an in-house reporter after Thursday's play, but it was radio silence thereafter by a player who always has plenty to say.

The great shame of this fact was highlighted following a rules controversy on Friday where DeChambeau was adjudged to have improved his swing path on the fifth hole, consequently leading to a two-stroke penalty.

DeChambeau was aggrieved at the decision - that much was obvious. He demonstrably made his case to rules officials on site before posting on social media to say he did not agree with the decision.

It later emerged that the LIV golfer even wanted to bring US president Donald Trump in on the matter, according to reports.

Yet, due to DeChambeau's decision to avoid speaking with the media for the remainder of The Open Championship, no one was able to hear or understand his perspective or the finer details around which The Scientist was apparently trying to make his case.

And, as fans, that seems a shame. All we really wanted was to hear the Californian explain what had happened from his point of view. However, all we actually read was a short statement via social media.

With no clear explanation, two obvious camps developed online with each having unequivocally made up their minds about who was at fault during the inadvertent rules breach. Those extremes could have been avoided with just a little communication. Or maybe not, it is social media after all.

Either way, DeChambeau isn't the first golfer to avoid the media and, unfortunately for all of us, he probably won't be the last.

Collin Morikawa is another recent example of someone who stated he "didn't owe anyone anything" in terms of pre-round or post-round quotes while Rory McIlroy usurped media duties during the PGA Championship in 2025.

But is that right? Should pro golfers, whose careers partly depend on engagement with fans, be allowed to avoid speaking to the media or should it be mandatory?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below. For now, three of our tour experts - including one who was at The Open last week - share their views.

EH: I was on-site at Royal Birkdale to witness Bryson DeChambeau walk past all of us in the mixed zone and it really did not sit well with me.

DeChambeau is certainly not the first golfer to decline media duties and he is well within his rights to - as there is nothing that says they are mandated to speak to the press.

He is a polarizing figure who does regularly get bad press, so can you really blame him for not wanting to talk to us when he can instead speak directly to his fans on social media?

I don't blame him at all, but I don't think it should be allowed to happen. I think the Major organizers and the tours need to get players to tick a box when they enter an event or join as a member to agree they must speak to the gathering media if requested.

EH: This would create more news articles, videos, social media posts and more in-depth and interesting coverage of the tournaments, so players speaking to the press benefits the tours and the tournaments.

It only takes them 10 minutes and I believe it is part of the job as an athlete who is able to earn millions in prize money and endorsements. Why do they earn so much money? Because fans tune in by purchasing tickets and TV subscriptions.

The fans deserve to hear the players' thoughts on their experience or how they saw things from the round, respond to fair questioning and discuss newsworthy talking points.

Communicating directly on social media, via a paid member of staff or agency, rarely offers up full transparency or context. Sadly, I struggle to see this changing and call on the organizations to do more.

JL: I'm really in two minds about this topic because, as Elliott points out, it really does benefit more people for players to speak to the media than by going down the route of only positing on their own social media channels.

Then again, if players were contractually obligated to do so, I can't help but feel we'd see some resentful players turning up and being difficult.

We could end up seeing the golf equivalent of Marshawn Lynch's famous "I'm just here so I don't get fined" one day, which might be quite funny at first, but too many occasions like that would become farcical.

On that topic, one idea to encourage players into engaging with the media is by fining them should they skip more than a couple of press conference requests per season. I'm sure a similar scenario is in effect regarding pro-ams, which I'm sure some players might occasionally find tiresome, so why not implement that with the media?

Ultimately, it'd be great if players always spoke to the media but I understand why, on occasion, they might not want to. However, a long-term icing by players is not the way forward and only serves to harm the sport from which they make their names.

MC: I can see both sides of the argument, depending on whether I have my golf writer's hat on or my golf-fan hat on.

If I had to fall on one-side, though, I'd say yes, players should have to speak to media. They're playing a professional sport, in the public eye, in front of millions of people. The fact that we as fans would miss out on any explanation of things they do on the course wouldn't be right.

Yes, I completely understand that they may be angry following a poor round, controversial moment or when they've thrown away the championship, but this is often when we get the most interesting quotes from the world's best.

Some will agree and others will disagree, and I suppose one way of giving players freedom, but not restricting them from media, is to introduce a similar strike system we have with the Code of Conduct, which a few players fell foul of during The Open Championship.

If a player is asked to do media and refuses, they receive a strike. The first one is a warning, but if they do it again they receive a shot penalty. That might make them think twice about whether they skip it or not.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game.

This time, it's all about temporary immovable obstructions (TIOs) and the controversy surrounding Scottie Scheffler's free drop at The 154th Open.

The Rules of Golf are a complicated and curious thing. But sometimes, some people feel they are too easily taken advantage of.

When Scottie Scheffler hiked his second shot at the par-5 17th well left into the hospitality tent at Royal Birkdale during the final round of The Open Championship on Sunday, more than a few people raised their eyebrows after he was allowed a completely free drop when playing his third.

How was this possible? Scheffler had already hit three shots on the hole - the second of which went "around 100 yards off line" and was lost, according to Sky Sports Golf's Inci Mehmet.

Scheffler's caddie Ted Scott was adamant the ball had landed in the hospitality tent left of the fairway, and a search began to find the offending golf ball. That was until Scheffler called it off, knowing that if it wasn't found he would be able to take free relief.

Now, many people would argue it's not feasible to blame the player at this point. If anything, they might say, Scheffler might be applauded for knowing the Rules well enough to take advantage of them.

But then why, after completely losing a golf ball, should a player avoid a penalty altogether? Frustration surrounding the TIO rule in golf has long been around, with plenty of people calling for it to be overhauled as quickly as possible.

Yet, here we are in 2026 and nothing has been done. Is that right? Let us know your thoughts on the TIO rule in golf. For the time being, here are three of Golf Monthly's tour experts sharing their view with you.

MC: The issue is the Rules of Golf are there to be broken and, if players can do that to gain an advantage, they will.

What occurred with Scheffler could have been avoided if they simply said you must find and identify the golf ball. The fact that he didn't even need to find the ball was a bit baffling, given that at any other time you have to identify the ball to receive a drop.

TIO reliefs are always big talking points when they happen, and the issue is that you can't do much about them as tournament sponsors want hospitality areas and facilities such as food stalls and bathrooms.

Again, the easy way to avoid the incident that we had with Scheffler would be to say you have to find the golf ball, plain and simple.

MC: If you want to go further, then either make the TIOs a shot penalty, or make the dropping area so bad that there is no advantage in taking it.

We see it often where players deliberately hit into grandstands or hospitality areas when nothing is on, just so they can get a nice, free drop. Imagine if the area they had to drop in was three-feet of rough, or perhaps a short sided chip, that would stop them from doing it.

You may argue that it's not fair, but usually TIOs are well offline and these are the best players in the world. Golf isn't fair, so get over it.

EH: Scottie Scheffler's controversial free drop after losing his ball in the Clarets hospitality section on 17 left a lot of people scratching their heads, and rightly so. Scheffler did absolutely nothing wrong and used the rules to his advantage very well, but it simply shouldn't have been allowed to happen.

As I wrote in a previous Inside The Ropes article on tour golf rules we'd like to change, I think the current TIO rule in professional golf is shocking. Yes, these temporary structures like hospitality units, grandstands and leaderboards are temporary, but the players know they are there so should know to actively avoid them.

Instead, TIOs give players the freedom to bail out and completely avoid real danger on the other side of the hole. They make the holes and challenge easier as they offer a nice, easy bail-out - for golfers who are the best 0.001% in the world.

EH: I previously wrote that they should be out of bounds but perhaps that is a little harsh. I certainly think pros should have to take penalty drops if they find them, or be forced to chip out sideways if they're up against one.

If a tour pro flies a green and is up against a grandstand, that is tough luck and their own fault for hitting the wrong club into the green, right? They might be temporary, but during tournaments they should be classed as part of the golf course and should be avoided at all costs.

These structures house fans, too, so it is also very dangerous. These are the best players in the world and they are more than good enough to avoid them.

JL: It's a complicated one, the TIO rule, because I think it should be changed but the specifics aren't quite cut and dry.

Firstly, if a player hits their golf ball into a TIO off the fairway like Scheffler did at The Open, that - in my opinion - has to be declared OB.

You shouldn't be hitting there, it's dangerous, and they should be more than good enough to avoid them. Sorry, that's just a rubbish shot and it should be dealt with accordingly. Drop from the original position and try again.

JL: But where I think it becomes tough is around the green. My earlier points are still valid here, but those tents and stands can be positioned so close to the green, there is a legitimate chance players could accidentally hit a ball into one.

In that instance, I would say a free drop is fair. But, if I wanted my OB Rule to be implemented, I think you might have to say hitting into any TIO is cause for a penalty stroke - even if the next drop is right beside it rather than going all the way back.

Put simply, I don't like the current TIO rule, and I agree with Elliott that something has to be done now because - as it stands - the rule is so exploitable, it's become ridiculous.

What do you think about the TIO Rule? Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below.

A day which started with Lucas Herbert and Sam Burns equalling the lowest 18-hole score ever in a men's Major ended with Bryson DeChambeau and a spot of rules controversy.

On the fifth hole of round two at The Open, footage showed DeChambeau standing on tall grass a yard or two behind his golf ball in the right rough.

Nothing was mentioned by The R&A at the time, although more than a few people on social media noted the incident looked curious to say the least.

Then, shortly after DeChambeau had pulled within one of the lead on the 18th hole, the two-time Major winner was shown a replay of his potential misdemeanor and asked to give his take on what happened.

DeChambeau and Grant Moir drove out to the spot of the aforementioned incident and exchanged words at the site before returning to the rules tent for an extended conversation.

Understandably, perhaps, the American was frustrated at the suggestion he may have even accidentally improved the area of his intended swing and set about making his case to R&A rules official Moir by the fifth.

Ultimately, despite DeChambeau's protestation, it was decided he had inadvertently improved the area of his intended swing and he was assessed a two-stroke penalty.

That apparently caused the 32-year-old to even suggest he would consider pulling out of The Open before round three began, although he later appeared to change his mind.

Writing on social media late on Friday evening, DeChambeau said: "Obviously disappointed with the ruling. I don’t agree with it, but it is what it is. This fires me up. Onto the weekend. Let’s get it."

Many of DeChambeau's fans retained their support of the monster-driving LIV man and some even accused The R&A of being part of an anti-DeChambeau agenda alongside golf's other governing bodies.

They claimed that no other players would have been dragged out to where the incident occurred and asked to explain themselves before heading all the way back to the rules tent for a further conversation.

Other fans were adamant The R&A did the right thing and were just following protocols which have been in place long before DeChambeau was a pro golfer.

What do you think? Was DeChambeau treated unfairly in the wake of his rules controversy?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments. For now, three of our tour experts have had their say.

NT: Absolutely not. I’ve found it interesting to hear the emerging narrative about how golf’s ruling bodies have an anti-Bryson agenda. I don’t believe it.

The first thing to remember is the ruling has nothing to do with the person involved. Any golfer in this situation would have been treated the same. The video footage shows him standing on the long grass behind the ball on the line of the shot.

Had there been any doubt, Bryson would have been given it. Sadly, the histrionics and the threat of not playing may have cost him the goodwill of many of the fans.

EH: There is part of me that thinks DeChambeau was treated unfairly, as it's hard to imagine every single player in the field getting the same treatment.

Lower-profile players do not have anywhere near as many cameras on them so there's every chance that something similar may have happened with other competitors this week. That is something that just comes with being such a big star.

However, I believe the rule was implemented correctly and The R&A did very well with the messaging by telling media that it was accidental and making sure he took no blame or received any accusations.

He definitely could have handled it better by accepting it and admitting he made a mistake, and I also feel he should have spoken to reporters to give his side of the story. Was he a bit unlucky? Yes. Was it unfair? I don't think so.

JL: I don't think Bryson DeChambeau was treated unfairly at all. The R&A officials simply walked through the exact process in the way they would have had it involved any other player.

It seems to me The R&A couldn't care less about reputation or personality. It operates with the game of golf at the forefront of its mind, not any one player or group of stars. I'd argue the fact the prize money is still relatively low compared with the other three Majors is evidence of that.

DeChambeau was invited to give his take on what happened at the original site because from the replays on offer, frankly, it didn't look like he was completely in the clear.

When he was shown the replay - which to me looks pretty damning - he could and probably should have looked at it with an open mind and just said "yeah, you know what, I did not mean to do that at all but I can see how it looks so I'll take the penalty."

I think you could argue The R&A actually did DeChambeau a favor by reiterating the ruling was made due to an accidental action rather than a deliberate one so as to avoid any further fallout.

Only DeChambeau knows whether he truly meant to improve his chances of a good swing there, but there's no small part of me that even considers the way he was treated on Friday was unfair.

What do you think about how the situation was handled? Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about winning scores at Major championships.

Characteristics of Major championship golf are widely thought to include; the best and toughest golf courses, the greatest professional (and sometimes amateur) players and huge prize money.

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, watch on from outside the ropes as their heroes try to make their dreams come true no more than five times a season. The tension, the stakes and the rewards on offer are all higher.

Something else many people expect from a Major is difficult scoring which ultimately - more often than not - leads to a winning total much closer to par than a traditional tour event.

Not every Major needs to look like a US Open, but many feel the number required to taste success at the biggest tournaments should not exceed 15-under at worst. Others don't believe the winning number makes any difference to the quality of the event.

But, as a rule, fans like seeing the very best tested to the max as those who play golf for a living chase career-defining titles.

A debate arose at Golf Monthly towers recently following the culmination of the Amundi Evian Championship. Haeran Ryu's victorious score of 19-under (following a playoff against Brooke Henderson) was met with frustration by some of the team.

Others expressed apathy and highlighted how, once again, the end of the penultimate women's Major was incredibly exciting and entertaining.

And with The Open Championship set to occur this week, which has been won with scores of between 15 and 20-under par in four of the past six editions, we decided it was time to revisit the debate.

So what really matters at a Major championship? Is it the entertainment factor or is it a higher winning score? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments box below this article. In the meantime, some of the Golf Monthly team have shared their views.

JL: I don't think there's anything wrong with a low score, something like 19-under, winning a Major at all. Even the most ardent golf fans will struggle to tell you the exact total from recent Major winners, whereas plenty more will be able to remember and reminisce over close finishes.

And that's all we want, isn't it? A bit of drama and entertainment! Can I remember what score Rory McIlroy finally won The Masters with? No. But I remember many of the key shots from the closing stages and how I felt watching them.

For me, a great Major is not about the score at all, it's about the entertainment and a close finish.

For example, I love the Amundi Evian Championship because the course is so interesting but can also prove really tough. Equally, it regularly offers up a lot of chances as well. That's ideal, isn't it?

US Opens are great as well, don't get me wrong, but the level of derision on show when a winning score at a Major exceeds 15-under annoys the heck out of me.

In my view, great Majors are about outright entertainment and pitting the best against the best. And like any tournament, it's lowest score wins. Whatever number that is should be irrelevant. As long as it's close.

MC: For me, I'd rather see Majors won with scores that are higher than those we see in normal regulation events.

Yes, there are exceptions, such as when a player shoots the lights out of the course and nobody has a response... but the Majors are the best of the best when it comes to the golf calendar, so why is it that the scores in them should be the same as normal, regulation tournaments?

The Evian Championship was incredibly exciting last week, but when 19-under ties the winning score in a Major, that is a rather large number for a set-up which should be designed to test the world's best players.

It's jeopardy. In a US Open, or The Masters, there is a consequence for a poor shot. If someone can make a double bogey and then fire birdies straight away, then the punishment isn't that severe.

I know these are the best players in the world, but we want to see them challenged on the biggest stages. Scores like 16-under or lower in Majors don't look good to me whatsoever.

EH: Yes, I think there is something wrong with a low winning score in a Major.

Majors are a rare occurence in the game of golf. There's only four or five a year, and they should be the four or five toughest and most demanding weeks on the calendar where there is absolutely no doubt of who played the best.

They are the select tournaments where players can secure their legacies and put their name among the greats of the game, so the courses and setups need to be exacting in all areas, from the tee to the green to the mental and strategic tests.

Sometimes the weather doesn't play ball, there is a big swing from the early/late vs late/early side of the draw or someone simply plays out of their skin, and that is fine, but occasionally a player shoots an incredibly low score for 72 holes despite a few bad shots that haven't been punished in the way they should.

A winning score of 18-under or better in a Major, with multiple others at 14-or-15 under suggests that the players weren't quite tested enough.

What do you think? Is there anything wrong with a low-scoring Major championship? Let us know in the comments box below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about the DP World Tour.

Nine-time DP World Tour winner Pablo Larrazabal has argued his home circuit is in "the weakest position we've ever been in" following two years of allowing 10 of its best players to depart for the PGA Tour.

The 10 cards initiative was introduced in 2023 as part of the Wentworth-based circuit's strategic alliance with the PGA Tour.

It gave 10 of the best non-exempt players dual status across both circuits, though it has almost exclusively been seen as a ticket to bigger and better things in America.

As a result of pros like Marco Penge, Alex Noren and the Hojgaard twins playing the majority of the campaign on US soil, fans and players alike have noticed how much weaker DP World Tour fields have become between February and August when the PGA Tour is in full swing.

Speaking to Flushing It on X, Larrazabal mostly blames the 10 cards initiative for the DP World Tour's problems, which has made it tougher to move up the OWGR due to weaker-field strength most weeks.

He said: “Those cards have to disappear. We are losing too much talent on the DP World Tour. When I started we could easily be top 50 in the world (OWGR) playing here. Now it’s tough. We’re in the weakest position we’ve ever been in probably.

“We will see what happens with the cards, I don’t know. I’ve been vocal that I want them to disappear. I always tried to fight the cards. We are weakening our company week in, week out.

“Imagine Samsung giving away their ten best employees to Apple every year. It would never happen. The company would get weaker every year and the DP World Tour is getting weaker every year.

“Look, the guys are winning on the PGA Tour and that’s good for them. It’s not good for the tour. Golf has turned very selfish the last few years. It’s an individual sport so you have to be selfish, but if we don’t all work together we’re going to get weaker.”

Although Larrazabal has made his views clear, is it the common belief among fans and those in the media as well?

Four of Golf Monthly's tour experts have had their say below, and you can too in the comments box underneath this article.

NB: I'm not sure I agree the DP World Tour is in its weakest position ever, but it clearly plays second fiddle to the PGA Tour these days.

I also think you have to see the DPWT as almost two tours in one. In January and from September until November, the DPWT is a force to be reckoned with.

World-class players like Rory McIlroy, Jon Rahm, Tommy Fleetwood and Justin Rose frequently compete in its events and, in this period, the tournaments are more prestigious than anything the PGA Tour can offer.

However, from February to August (excluding the odd event like the Scottish Open), fields are generally poor.

NB: I did some analysis of this period a couple of years ago and it was startling how few players from the world's top-50 were in fields during these months.

There's nothing the DPWT can do, though. The PGA Tour dominates in this period, top Americans don't cross the Atlantic and prize pools are so much higher in the USA, a gap that widened during and after Covid.

I do think the 'giving players away' argument is slightly flawed, though. Yes, these golfers are often in America during the aforementioned timeframe, but they're still members of the DP World Tour.

The reality is anyone who is good enough to finish inside the top-10 on the Race to Dubai will want to have a crack at the PGA Tour, but we're not losing these players forever.

JL: It breaks my heart to admit it because I've grown up watching the DP World Tour and I still love it more than any other circuit, but I don't think you can deny that it is in the weakest position ever and I really do fear for its future.

The 10 cards initiative was introduced by the DP World Tour as a bargaining chip with the PGA Tour in order for part of its tournament prize money to be subsidized, but the most obvious drawback to agreeing that deal is playing out right in front of us.

Players like the Hojgaard twins, Haotong Li, Alex Noren and Marco Penge have all gone to the PGA Tour over the past few seasons when they could have been strengthening European fields during the summer months.

Yes, the DP World Tour is significantly better than the PGA Tour between September and February, but that's when the NFL is on so American audiences have their attentions elsewhere anyway.

JL: Contrary to what Nick says, I do think the DP World Tour could theoretically do something about their current plight, though it won't be easy and it's effectively why no one has bought LIV Golf yet.

It needs an alternative independent backer who can help raise prize funds closer to the PGA Tour and therefore reduce the number of players who want to move across. But that business/person doesn't seem to exist.

At the moment, more money is the biggest and most obvious reason a pro takes up PGA Tour status. Otherwise, we could argue until the cows come home about which circuit has the more prestigious titles.

For the time being, though, the DP World Tour is certainly in its weakest position ever and that doesn't look to be changing any time soon.

EH: I understand the 10 cards initiative has been controversial and the argument of a business losing its 10 best assets each year is not good - but I certainly don't think the DP World Tour is as bleak as some make out.

For a start, its biggest asset is Rory McIlroy and he is playing far more DPWT events in recent years than he has to. McIlroy is a huge believer in the European circuit and his support certainly strengthens the tour.

The 10 cards initiative also helps to grow the profiles of players who remain members anyway and, in same cases, lose their PGA Tour cards and come back full-time.

Jon Rahm has just re-joined and Ryder Cup legends Sergio Garcia, Lee Westwood and Ian Poulter are on the verge of re-joining next year, too. Then there's Josele Ballester and David Puig, a number of other LIV players and the remaining core of the DP World Tour.

EH: I would say things are actually looking very good at Wentworth HQ, especially since the PIF announced it would be pulling its funding of LIV Golf.

Sure, it is miles off the PGA Tour, but there's no shame in that. It still has some great tournaments, some world class players supporting it and a constant pipeline of talent from the HotelPlanner Tour and other global circuits.

We may never return to the days of Seve, Faldo, Woosnam and Langer but I would say the tour is in a good place right now.

MC: Personally, I don't think the DP World Tour is in its weakest position ever, but I do feel changes are needed.

Let's be honest, given the money being thrown around on the PGA Tour, it's unlikely that the DP World Tour will ever compete with it like it used to; however, the time between September to January, where its biggest events take place, shows what its capable of.

Big names supporting those events help, as does the addition of LIV players joining the circuit. But, for me, the handing out of 10 PGA Tour cards is too much.

Yes, as we have seen with Kristoffer Reitan and many others, the system does work in that players have pushed on when they have made it to the PGA Tour. Losing 10 of your best players every year, though, is far too damaging for the DP World Tour.

MC: Many say it's like a conveyer belt. The DP World Tour creates these future stars from all over the world time-and-time again. The issue is the circuit then moves them on and doesn't benefit from the star power.

Like we see in football. Smaller clubs build this upcoming talent, only for the big teams to swoop in and buy them for their own gain.

Overall, I think the DP World Tour is in a good position and, depending on what occurs with the PGA Tour's changes within its scheduling, it could well start getting stronger and stronger.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Is the DP World Tour really in its weakest position ever? Let us know in the comments box below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about our latest unpopular tour golf opinions.

Earlier this year, we shared version one of our unpopular tour golf opinions as part of the Inside The Ropes franchise. It generated a fair few comments under the article itself and many, many more across social media.

We published takes on which circuit was the best, what the future looks like for Tiger Woods and talked about how pampered pros are. Some of you agreed, many did not.

And that's fine, it's good. A healthy debate on this great game is what we want to see!

We've also had plenty of time to think of a few more hot takes since then, with the main portion of the golfing campaign really fueling the cogs in our brains.

So, without further ado, here is the latest round of our unpopular tour golf opinions.

Feel free to chip in with yours underneath the article in the comments box - the more the merrier!

CADDIE-PLAYER DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT 'INTERESTING'

Caddie-player interactions aren't interesting or "fascinating insight", despite what commentators usually say during of these tedious back-and-forths.

They normally involve both player and caddie doing some maths, rechecking that maths, picking a target in the distance and then working out the wind.

What then follows is some bog standard, straight-off-a-template trope from the looper about committing to the target, seeing the shot or trusting the process.

These discussions take too long and don't generally reveal anything out of the ordinary; it's a sensitive player seeking validation and assurance from a colleague who robotically spews out an acceptable phrase.

If there's a disagreement over club selection and the player goes on to hit a poor shot, listening to the fall-out can be entertaining. But for the most part, I'd much rather see more action than hear inane discourse about an upcoming shot.

US Men's Pro Golf Is In A Quiet Crisis

Slowly but surely, and very quietly, American professional golf has been regressing in my opinion. After the historic beatdown the US gave Europe in the 2021 Ryder Cup, it looked like a true golden generation was primed to dominate for the next decade.

Of the 12 men on that team, I'd argue at least nine have regressed. Scottie Scheffler, obviously, is the top performer. Xander Schauffele now has two Majors and Collin Morikawa has looked sharp this season despite a back injury.

Outside of that? Dustin Johnson essentially semi-retired after going to LIV, as did Brooks Koepka - for a period at least. Injuries and general bad form have damaged the stock of the likes of Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas and Daniel Berger.

Bryson DeChambeau has lost his way in 2026, Harris English hasn't made that next step many expected and players like Tony Finau and Patrick Cantlay have seemingly fallen off the face of the earth.

It's OK, though, for there will be plenty of players coming off the American conveyer belt, right? Let's have a look - Chris Gotterup, check. Cameron Young, check (although he's been poor recently). Wyndham Clark, OK. Errrrm, Sam Burns? Ben Griffin? JJ Spaun? These aren't exactly names that scream 'superstar'.

The US have had stars exit stage left and they haven't really come close to replacing them. If the Americans want to be competitive in future team events, they could really use the likes of Jackson Koivun, Preston Stout and Blades Brown enjoying Spieth-like arrivals on the PGA Tour. What age is Charlie Woods again?

Par 3 Holes Over 200 Yards Are Farcical

I know players are hitting the ball farther than ever, but par 3s that are over 200 yards are farcical. Bar one or two, I'm struggling to think of any good par 3s that measure more than 200 yards.

They're too much of the same. Nobody wants to see players strike a long iron into an identical spot on the green, then safely two putt for a par. There needs to be jeopardy and a chance of creativity.

I remember covering The Open Championship at Royal Troon back in 2024. That week, the best and most destructive hole on the course was the iconic Postage Stamp, a hole that measured 123 yards and saw everything from a 2 to an 8.

It's the same for the 12th at Augusta National, the 17th at TPC Sawgrass, the 16th at TPC Scottsdale. I could go on! If every par 3 is under 200 yards then it still allows players to attack the flag but, if they're off, then a high number can occur.

By having a par 3 that's over 200 yards, it basically takes a birdie out of the equation, and who wants to see 156 shots from players repeated over and over again? Certainly not me...

Money is eroding the essence of professional golf

I was disappointed to see that PGA Tour purses will remain at a minimum of $20m for the biggest events under the new two-tier structure in 2028.

With the Saudi PIF no longer funding LIV Golf (it still feels odd writing that), it was a great chance for the game to reset its incredibly out-of-touch, and unsustainable, prize funds.

The Tour played for $327m in 2016 and ten years later than figure has risen by 49% to $487m. That's comfortably above the inflation rate of around 40% and has resulted in players becoming richer than ever before.

I guess that's what happens when the PGA Tour Board features players, who have become increasingly more powerful since the inception of LIV.

It means many big names don't need or wish to travel around the world or play in prestigious events like the Australian Open or BMW PGA Championship as the prize funds are not worth it for them.

Dustin Johnson recently turned down the chance to play in final qualifying for The Open... Why is that? Probably because he has more money than he knows what to do with and, because of that, likely isn't chasing greatness in the way his predecessors did. I fear money is eroding the essence of professional golf.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH BIRDIE-FESTS

I hear takes on this subject a lot and it slightly annoys me. There's nothing wrong with a birdie-fest in tour golf. Absolutely nothing at all. As long as it isn't every week.

I've said this countless times already on the Golf Monthly Tour Issue podcast, it's all about variety in pro golf.

If they were playing brutal slug-fests every week, that would become boring as well. Personally, I really want to see how many birdies tour pros can make on a 7,500-yard course every now and then.

Also, and it is such a cliche, but isn't par kind of irrelevant? Whoever plays the least golf wins the golf tournament. It's weird, but that's the way the sport works. The number next to the champion's name could say anything for all the difference it makes.

In the end, varied golf courses which provide a plethora of different tests are what it's all about in my eyes. Variety, variety, variety!

Feel free to leave a comment below this article letting us know your own unpopular tour golf opinion!

Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, it's all about The Open Championship Final Qualifying.

The latest edition of Open Championship Final Qualifying takes place on Tuesday, with four sites around the British Isles offering five spots apiece into the year's final men's Major.

Royal Birkdale is the ultimate goal for all of those taking part in the 36-hole battles at Burnham & Berrow, West Lancs, Dundonald and Royal Cinque Ports, and it is set to be one of the toughest Final Qualifying events in recent memory - such is the calibre of player teeing it up.

Although the likes of Dustin Johnson and David Puig are among a handful of big names to withdraw in the build-up, Major winners Sergio Garcia and Danny Willett remain in the hunt alongside some of the very best amateurs on the planet.

Meanwhile, a host of other elite professional golfers from the biggest tours in the world are all preparing to have a crack at securing a spot in The Open next month.

It's a far cry from decades prior when, among the 60 spots available at Final Qualifying, some distinguished amateurs made it through and achieved their dreams simply by earning a tee time.

In the years since, The R&A moved to heavily reduce the number of available places at The Open via Final Qualifying down to 12 - three at four sites. More recently, it then increased the number to five at each of the four sites, offering a total of 20 Open tee times out.

Several other changes to the world of pro golf have ultimately created a situation where talented amateurs are either not bothering to try and qualify or are simply being beaten to the punch by world-class professionals who can't secure exemptions elsewhere.

While The Open is still an open championship to a point, many argue the romance of the most historic golf tournament in the world has been lost somewhat with Major winners and top tour pros vacuuming up the Major spots from amateurs who would offer up a far more romantic tale of hope to the rest of us.

But is this actually a problem or not? Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below. In the meantime, three of our tour experts have their say.

MC: For me, I actually find Final Qualifying to be one of my favorite events of the year as it brings together a mix of recognized, established stars and those with not as much of a reputation.

Okay, you can argue that the underdog stories of club professionals qualifying for The Open Championship are gone, but Final Qualifying still yields some extraordinary storylines, as shown by Richard Teder last year, who holed out from 80-yards to claim the final spot.

The caliber of player featuring also continues to increase, as shown by Dustin Johnson at this year's edition, before he withdrew.

MC: Again, many may search for the underdog angle, but the big names yield more interest in my eyes and, if I were a player, I'd want to be in the field competing against them to compare and see how my game stands up.

Has Final Qualifying lost the romance? Overall, I'd say no. Given the rise of the YouTube golfer, we have more access than ever into Regional and Final Qualifying, which I think is a good thing, as it's one of the only times when money isn't a factor.

No-one talks about how much money said player is making for qualifying, instead they're talking about how they've earned a spot in golf's oldest Major. Long may that, and Final Qualifying, continue!

JL: I would certainly argue there is an element of Open Final Qualifying having lost some of its romance, its allure, its magic. We had Estonian amateur Richard Teder last year, but stories involving the plucky underdogs just aren't as common as they used to be.

There was that period where hardly anyone broke through in OFQ because there were so few spots, but thankfully the number of opportunities has increased again now.

In an ideal world, I'd love to see a fifth site added for Final Qualifying - somewhere on the island of Ireland perhaps - to allow a great chance for even just one more strong amateur or toiling pro to break through.

The R&A shouldn't forget - and I'm sure it doesn't - that this great championship was founded on the success of amateur players and I'd love it to pay homage to that with a few more spots for those who are unpaid.

JL: An additional site would also hopefully lead to a handful more tour pros from second or third tiers making it through, providing them with a potential chance to springboard their career.

These days, Final Qualifying appears too saturated with world-class professionals who are good but don't provide much in terms of an inspiring story. I do wonder where all the under-achieving heroes have gone in Open qualifying?

There's still plenty who possess enough quality to win it, so I'd love to see a few more regular Joes taking their opportunity to play in a Major and consequently being able to tell their grandchildren about the time they played in the greatest Championship of them all...

BP: I don't really feel Open Final Qualifying has lots its magic. At every Major, I want to see the best possible field, so if that means there are fewer of your average Joe amateurs qualifying and instead you're getting players from maybe the PGA Tour, DP World Tour or LIV who might only have an outside chance, but nonetheless have a chance of potentially contending or even winning The Open Championship, I would rather see that.

I think the strength of field is important in terms of maintaining the integrity of a Major championship - especially The Open.

It doesn't really affect my enjoyment of a championship either way. Everybody likes the Cinderella story, obviously, but you can still get that from some of the lesser-known tour players or maybe more senior tour players who come in and perform really well - someone like Padraig Harrington or Darren Clarke.

I can understand where people are coming from when they say the magic of Open Championship Final Qualifying is disappearing a little bit, but I'm not too bothered either way, if I'm honest.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments box below whether you feel The Open Final Qualifying has lost some of its romance or whether you think it's fine as it is.

Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, it's all about Rory McIlroy.

Rory McIlroy may only play a maximum of 14 PGA Tour events this season. The minimum-event threshold for a regular PGA Tour member is 15. Yet, the Northern Irishman won't face any punishment, nor will his status be affected for 2027.

That's because of a loophole of sorts in the PGA Tour's regulations which protects the historic US circuit and its assets from situations such as this.

“Notwithstanding the above, the commissioner, upon application by a foreign member and for medical reasons or other extraordinary circumstances that the commissioner, at his discretion, determines to be a valid reason for not playing in at least 15 PGA Tour cosponsored or approved tournaments, may reduce the 15-minimum (or 12-minimum as the case may be) tournament requirement.”

All of that is to say, Brian Rolapp can make adjustments to the rules if he feels it isn't in the PGA Tour's best interest.

In addition, a deeper look at the PGA Tour's regulations in relation to the event minimum further absolves McIlroy - who is listed as both a foreign PGA Tour member and a life PGA Tour member.

The regulations say "a foreign PGA Tour member shall be eligible for a “home circuit” exception to provisions of the release regulations with regard to conflicting tournaments provided he has played, or committed to play, in a minimum of 15 PGA Tour co-sponsored or approved tournaments in the season..."

The guidelines go on to say: "... or in the case of a regular member or life member who is age 45 or more and has made 150 cuts or more in tournaments awarding official prize money in his career, in a minimum of 12 PGA Tour co-sponsored or approved tournaments in the season."

There is an important caveat to note at this point. The PGA Tour removed the age (or number of seasons as a member) requirement from the life member regulations a way back.

Therefore, now, once a player reaches 20 wins he will be immediately eligible for life membership - McIlroy became a life member on the PGA Tour ahead of the 2022-23 campaign.

But are these added rules and regulations fair on the rest of the membership? Very few are in the position McIlroy finds himself and are unlikely to be let off the hook in similar circumstances.

So is it right McIlroy can do as he pleases? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments box below. Meanwhile, some of our tour experts have had their say on the matter below.

EH: Yes, I think it is fair. He is Rory McIlroy and should, to an extent, be allowed to do whatever he pleases. Don't forget he is a key reason the PGA Tour is in such a strong position today.

Had he jumped ship to LIV Golf or not spent hours in press conferences defending the US circuit then we may be in a different scenario right now. McIlroy is the biggest draw in the game and a career grand slam champion who only has eyes on the Majors.

EH: He builds his schedule around the biggest events and if that means he can't quite fulfill a 15-event PGA Tour minimum this year then so be it. The PGA Tour would be silly to punish him, their biggest star.

Tiger Woods is obviously on another level but the Tour also has a rule that allows him into all of the Signature Events.

I can see how some may feel it's unfair, but I think it is fine that a small number of highly accomplished and needle-moving individuals - Woods, McIlroy, and perhaps one or two more - are able to be treated slightly differently to the rest.

JL: For a tour that preaches the word 'meritocracy' as often as it does, I think this scenario carries a certain amount of hypocrisy by the PGA Tour.

The rules for most tour members are that they play, or at least commit to playing, 15 events per season. But then there's this rule and that rule which seem to give an out to players whenever they need one.

Ultimately, you end up with a situation like this where it looks unfair on the surface, only to realize that - technically - Rory McIlroy will justifiably escape punishment. But I don't really like the situation.

JL: The fact the PGA Tour has to point out to everyone that McIlroy is a Life Member and only needs to play 12 events per team speaks to a lack of clarity the circuit is currently facing. If it was up to me, I'd scrap the discrepancy and go with 15 for everyone, no matter what.

I've got no problem with McIlroy playing whenever and wherever he wants, and I understand why he is doing so at this stage of his career, but rules are rules and I think they should apply to everyone. Then again, the PGA Tour needs McIlroy more than he needs it, so I'm not surprised the situation has played out the way it has.

It's debatable whether this likely escape for McIlroy is right on the balance of all relevant context, but I'm not sure it's fair on the rest of the membership.

CK: This isn't a good look for Rory, but context is important. When LIV Golf threw a grenade into golf's ecosystem, the PGA Tour were desperate for a leader on the players side of things.

Up stepped McIlroy, in the prime of his career, chasing the grand slam, taking time away from his game to sit in board meetings, negotiate with players and business leaders and going to bat for the Tour on the public stage.

His reward? Jay Monahan throwing him under the bus by going behind his and every other player's back and announcing a framework agreement with the PIF.

We saw McIlroy's live reaction to the news on Netflix's Full Swing in which he said "F*** it, do what you want to do". He later said he felt like a "sacrificial lamb" following his advocacy for the Tour.

CK: Three years on, this is a different Rory. He's not only completed the grand slam, but now has TWO Green Jackets to his name. McIlroy took the fight to LIV on behalf of the Tour and in return got a slap in the face.

McIlroy owes nothing to the Tour now and is very much going to do what HE wants to do - and that is to put himself in the best position to win as many Majors as possible.

Yes, it is a new era for Tour under new leadership and a soon-to-be new format, but I don't think Rory cares. He is out for himself now and himself alone.

Agree or disagree with this all you like, but those at the PGA Tour can blame Jay Monahan for the shift in attitude.

PH: In general life I’m a 'one rule for all' type of guy, I don’t like preferential treatment due to status or celebrity, so this one has me a bit torn. But sport isn’t real life really, is it?

Not all golfers are equal, not all have brought in, or offer as much value as Rory McIlroy does to the PGA Tour – far and away more than any other golfer on the planet.

So Brian Rolapp is in a tough spot here to be fair to him, how can he punish his biggest star just at this crucial time in PGA Tour history? Is doesn’t make any sense to pick a fight with McIlroy over this - it makes even less sense to impose some sort of ban that would only damage the ‘product’ we keep hearing so much about.

PH: Even if he did ban him, and I’d actually quite like to see that, as imagine McIlroy then just playing on the DP World Tour and the Majors for a year, that’d be pretty epic if you ask me.

But modern sport is ruled by the athletes, player power is king and bigger players have more power – the PGA Tour needs McIlroy more than McIlroy needs the PGA Tour.

So to sum up, is it fair? No, not to the rest of the PGA Tour it’s not, but those players also know what McIlroy brings, and also know that’s the way of the world in modern sport.

Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, it's all about the PGA Tour's future structure announcement.

The PGA Tour is set to look pretty different from the start of 2028, with the historic US-based circuit unveiling big, shiny new plans for a two-tier structure on Tuesday.

The idea is quite simple - there will be an elite tier called the Championship Series which features all of the PGA Tour's best players in 120-man fields in 23-24 events with a halfway cut and $20 million (minimum) prize purses.

Meanwhile, the Challenger Series will sit between the top level and the Korn Ferry Tour with 144-man fields competing in a similar number of tournaments but for at least $4 million every time.

Many of the finer details still need ironing out, according to new PGA Tour commissioner and existing CEO Brian Rolapp, but the idea is that at least 90 players will hold Championship Series status every year with 20 or more earning promotion from the Challenger Series.

Unsurprisingly, the most prestigious tournaments will sit on the top tier alongside The Players and the Majors with the biggest markets serving the brightest stars.

In addition, there are big changes coming to the Playoffs, too. The Tour Championship is switching to a match play format and will cycle away from East Lake in a bid to keep things fresh.

Overall, Rolapp says the new-look PGA Tour has been designed this way with meritocracy at the forefront and a desire to innovate in order to breathe new life into the circuit.

What do you make of the PGA Tour's plans? Please let us know in the comments box below this article. For the time being, here's what some of our writers made of the changes.

The early signs of the Future Competition Committee's big, sweeping upheaval of the PGA Tour pointed to some drastic changes, but in reality it doesn't seem like there will be too much of a difference to what we see now, with far too many tournaments and an over-saturation.

There are plenty of positives, though, like getting rid of no-cut, small-field events. I am glad the PGA Tour has listened to the criticism of these. The Tour Championship moving to match play also sounds exciting, as does the potential of playing some of America's greatest courses.

I am disappointed to see purses remain at $20m+ following the Saudi PIF withdrawing from LIV Golf, though. That was a great chance for a reset and the Tour to reduce the ridiculous sums players are earning.

There are still lots of unknowns so it is tough to get too excited. Rolapp essentially said the job has been to organize the tour into a more simple system for fans to follow and ultimately I think that will be achieved.

So what do I think? I think it sounds... good. I am interested to hear more and hopeful Rolapp can deliver on his promises, especially around courses.

I'm a big fan of the new schedule. The removal of Signature Events and the introduction of a second tier make a huge amount of sense to me.

I also like that winning twice on the second tier – the Challenger Series – is the only way to get a promotion to the Championship Series during the season.

There are no sponsors' invites or places available through things like the Aon Swing 5 - you either qualify for the top tier or you wait another season. This creates genuine jeopardy if you're at risk of falling outside the top 90 on the Championship circuit.

I also like the introduction of match-play in the play-offs. Essentially, the new structure creates a clearly defined extra level between the Korn Ferry Tour and the Championship Series, which makes things easier from a logistical standpoint and creates a clear pathway to the top.

It also sounds like some 'Fall' events might be co-sanctioned with the DP World Tour, hopefully seeing some top American players coming to Europe during the autumn months.

Given the news has not long broken, I'm still processing it, but here are my initial thoughts on the whole situation.

I'm not sure I love the fact there will be two PGA Tours (even though many would argue that has been the case for a while now).

I think it would have made more sense to add another separate tour in below the PGA Tour and call it something else, so effectively relegate the Korn Ferry Tour to the third tier and either renegotiate that sponsorship deal with them or tweak the contract to give Korn Ferry the naming rights for this new second tier.

Practically, I'm thinking this two-tier system creates confusion in regards to filing wins as well.

Will every victory be titled PGA Tour wins even though they're clearly not the same standard? What if Tiger Woods is able to come back and he wins a Challenger Series event? Does he now have sole possession of the all-time record for PGA Tour wins?

On a different note, I wanted a match play event back, but making the Tour Championship a match play tournament is an awfully bold decision. Is it the right one? Only time will tell, but I'm sure it had been suggested before and not many liked it. So what's changed?

Overall, I do think the general changes are good ones and I'm excited to see how it plays once 2028 rolls around, but there are so many unknowns still at this stage my mind may well change by the turn of this year.

What do you think about the PGA Tour's future? What could have been done differently? Or do you love the plan as is? Let us know in the comments box below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, we look back on the 2026 US Open.

The third men's Major of the year has now passed as Wyndham Clark sealed his second US Open title with a gritty one-stroke victory at Shinnecock Hills.

The 2023 LACC champion edged out Sam Burns by the finest of margins on Long Island, after starting the day with a six-stroke lead and having to deal with constant 'get in the bunker' cries from the watching galleries.

Clark proved to be a very worthy champion, prevailing over a great golf course and beating all of the world's top players to write his name in the history books as a multiple Major winner.

So, what were our key takeaways from the week? Here are the thoughts of Golf Monthly's tour experts - and make sure to let us know your views in the comment box below...

THE USGA GOT IT RIGHT

Before a shot was even hit, the talk was around course set-up following the incidents of 2018 and 2004, where the course received negativity from the players.

High winds and fog didn't help the matter this year but, overall, I felt the USGA got the set-up spot on, as shown by the leaderboard and how there was limited talk around the course following the build-up.

For me, it was firm but fair. Only three players ended the championship under-par and, had it not been for Wyndham Clark's putter, that four-under total could have been higher.

I take my hat off to the USGA, who got the course set-up right in tough circumstances.

USA'S IMPRESSIVE LINE OF TALENT

Several big names shone at Shinnecock Hills, but a number of young American stars showed off what they are capable of at the US Open.

Miles Russell, who is only 17-years-old, was immense all week and finished above multiple Major winners. He's predicted to do big things and seems to be very level-headed, a great characteristic for any player.

Jackson Koivun, who is to turn professional soon, is another incredible young talent and, sharing low amateur honors with Ryder Cowan, shows that the 21-year-old pair are also ones to watch.

USA's 2026 Walker Cup side could be the strongest in history and, although this doesn't translate into the Ryder Cup down the line, it wouldn't surprise me to see Team USA dominate the latter going forward.

Jim Furyk recently announced that he has turned to statistical analysis for the 2027 Ryder Cup, taking a leaf out of Europe's book. If it works, then combined with the young crop of talent coming through, the USA could be a force to be reckoned with going forward.

HATED FAN REACTION ON SUNDAY

If you read my opinion piece on the disgraceful way many fans reacted to Wyndham Clark on Sunday, you'll already know how I feel about the subject.

I wondered if it was perhaps the emotion which is stirred up in the moment which caused me to feel that way, but after I slept on it I realized I'm just as annoyed today.

Again, not to labor the point, I know Clark isn't the most universally popular kid on the block, but you have to respect the performance he put in at Shinnecock Hills.

It was outstanding with a little bit of everything thrown in there. As a result, the jeers and cries that were sent his way during the final round made me feel really disappointed in the behavior of those people.

Why can't golf fans just respect great play when they see it, regardless of who's producing it?

Golf isn't a popularity contest, it's a game of skill. Clark showed the most ability last week, and he also did very well not to bite to any of the nonsense. Bravo Wyndham.

WHAT A FIGHTBACK BY NIEMANN

US Opens are all about hanging tough, and Joaquin Niemann showed just how gritty a competitor he is following a rough start on Thursday.

The Chilean let himself down with what can only be described as a full strop from a grown man in round one, which consequently led to him becoming the first player to be docked two strokes under the Majors' new Code of Conduct policy.

He carded a seven-over-par 11 on the sixth hole and could easily have downed tools there and then.

But he didn't. Niemann gritted his teeth and turned that negative energy into something extremely positive.

Following the opening 78, he carded a superb 65 to make the cut before posting scores of 72 and 66 to finish T7th on one-over. Instead of heading home early, he recorded his best ever Major finish.

Now, he'll be back next year with a huge lesson in his back pocket as he looks to improve further.

SHINNECOCK WAS THE STAR

Fans aside, Shinnecock sets the standard for what a US Open test should be.

It's a shame the winds were so strong at the beginning of the week, meaning we got a Diet-US Open setup for the opening two and a half days.

Nevertheless, watching the players having to be creative around the greens and top-level iron play being rewarded instead of the bomb-and-gauge of the week-to-week PGA Tour was a breath of fresh air and a reminder that lush green golf courses with thick rough don't set the stage for the most entertaining version of the sport, especially in this era of equipment technology.

I doubt we'll see any players fist pumping after par putts this week at TPC River Highlands like we did countless times in Long Island.

Give me Shinnecock over any other US Open venue in a heartbeat.

ANOHER MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR FLEETWOOD?

Another chance slips away for Tommy Fleetwood.

The course was a fantastic fit for his game and his form peaked at the right time going into the week.

After an electric round on Saturday, he positioned himself beautifully to make a charge if Clark faltered - which he did.

What also faltered was Fleetwood's ability with the putter, again. The 35-year-old gained strokes on the field putting all week... until the final day. Losing -1.11 stokes on the greens on Sunday won't win you a Major Championship and it isn't the first time the flatstick has let Tommy down on the closing stretch.

This felt like an amazing opportunity for him and instead of the field beating him, it feels more so that he beat himself.

I still love his chances at Royal Birkdale next month but if he goes 2026 Majorless, I'm really starting to question whether Fleetwood will ever win one.

YOU CAN HAVE WIDE FAIRWAYS AND STILL MAKE THE GOLF COURSE HARD

I loved the way Shinnecock Hills was set up this week. Wider fairways than we would traditionally expect at a US Open initially made me nervous that we would see low scoring, but when partnered with very penal rough and strategic pin placement it all came together perfectly.

The wind also played a huge part, effectively narrowing the fairways anyway, but when only a handful of players shoot under-par over four rounds you know that the course was absolutely bang on as a Major test.

Well done to Shinnecock Hills and the USGA!

TOM KIM IS BACK!

Tom Kim looked like a superstar in the making early in his career when winning three PGA Tour titles in the space of just over a year, but eight missed cuts and only one top-10 last season slowed that momentum.

He has been much more consistent this year, making 13 of 15 cuts, but his best finish of the year so far came at a tough US Open test.

He ranked in the top-20 for SG: Tee To Green, Around The Green and Putting, showcasing the brilliance of his game throughout the bag.

Mark my words - he wins on the PGA Tour before this season ends! Tom Kim is back.

ROLLBACK

As I wrote last week when I questioned if the professional game needs a reset, every Major is highlighting the need for a serious rollback.

The build-up to the US Open was more about the setup and watering, or 'syringing', than the storylines of the actual event.

John Bodenhamer was getting more coverage than Scottie Scheffler's grand slam attempt. Why? Because golf fans are desperate to see the world's best tested - which is increasingly difficult when Bryson DeChambeau is able to hit drives 427 yards on 475 yard par 4s.

I set out a four-point plan, which was to introduce golf balls that spin more, significantly reduce driver heads and MOI, introducing a maximum tee height and reducing the number of clubs in the bag.

Watching Wyndham Clark bomb power fade after power fade was impressive but it wasn't exactly exciting, and was evidence that the game is very monotonous these days. The easiest way to combat that is by extreme course setups.

AN ENGLISHMAN FOR THE CLARET JUG?

There are currently three Englishmen in the world's top seven and five in the top 20.

We had five in the top-11 at Shinnecock Hills, so I am picking one to win the Claret Jug at Royal Birkdale next month where they'll be on familiar links ground in front of huge, supportive crowds.

Whether it's Rose, Fitzpatrick, Fleetwood, Hatton, Rai, Hall or someone else, I think we might be on for a very special week.

What were your takeaways from the US Open? Join the conversation below...

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about the Majors' new Code of Conduct.

In light of a number of unsavory incidents by pro golfers at the four Major championships in recent years, it was decided to introduce a new Code of Conduct from the start of 2026 which aimed at cracking down on the poor behavior exhibited with the eyes of the world on golf.

On Thursday, Joaquin Niemann became the first player to seriously breach the Code of Conduct after he threw a club and was seen kicking sand around on the sixth hole at Shinnecock Hills.

It was deemed a step too far in the eyes of the USGA and he was docked two strokes, turning what was already a five-over-par nine into a ghastly seven-over 11.

Clearly, examples such as this one are beyond the pale and professionals cannot be seen to be setting such a poor example to amateurs and especially young children.

But where is the line? Niemann's fellow LIV pro Jon Rahm was captured on video kicking his driver off a tee box following a poor shot on Friday, yet the Spaniard wasn't punished.

Playing Devil's advocate, some might argue a little expression is hardly the worst thing in the world and this Code of Conduct might prevent any kind of personality out on the golf course.

Another problem, as I've already touched on, relates to how the rules are enforced. Consistency would be ideal as it relates to these outbursts, but that has already proved to be tough. What one person believes is a breach might not register with another.

Then again, if players know there is the potential for shots to be added to their scorecards, won't that tidy up on-course behavior - which is ultimately what many people want to see?

Tell us how you feel about the introduction of the Code of Conduct this year and how you hope it might evolve moving forward. For the time being, three of our tour experts have had their say below.

I think the new code of conduct is a great step forward for the game. Players have become far too powerful in recent years, and they need to realize one of the key reasons for their positions with great wealth and lifestyles is due to the fans that tune in and buy tickets.

They are role models and ambassadors for the game, and constant swearing and petulance should not be seen so frequently in front of such large audiences.

Children watch the golf on TV and in person, and poor conduct is not something they should be copying or start thinking is acceptable.

I commend the USGA for giving Joaquin Niemann a two-stroke penalty and hope that it will set an example to players.

I can see both sides of the code of conduct being introduced and, overall, I am on the positive side. Yes, it's a great initiative to stop players from acting like petulant children, but it could stop professionals from showing any emotion at all.

For me, the code of conduct requires some common sense... If the aggression is over the top, then penalize it, but if it's a natural reaction then take it into account.

Let's be honest, this code of conduct opens a can of worms. When does a show of emotion warrant a penalty?

I think it's good something is being done, but players aren't going to think about it when they hit a poor shot. In my opinion, it might help crack down on players' reactions, but surely common sense can be the factor as to whether a player has gone too far or not.

Personally, I'm really glad the Code of Conduct has been introduced this year so the game can try to cut out these pathetic on-course strops from grown men.

I don't see how it's possible to honestly defend their actions at times, and I've long been an advocate of bringing in more harsh punishments for this type of behavior.

I would have liked to see a little more consistency to date, however, with the actions of a few players crossing the line and then some. But the most important thing is something is being done because children are watching and they often copy what they witness on TV.

Honestly, I don't see Niemann being anywhere near the last player to be punished for this kind of thing, but it'd be great if the number of incidents like his were significantly reduced - and I hope that's what the Code of Conduct achieves once it's rolled out across tour golf, too.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, an office debate sees us pit the two halves of the men's Major season up against each other.

We're halfway through the 2026 men's Major season, so that got us thinking - which half is better?

The Masters opens up the Major season following a nine-month wait and is considered by many to be the best of the bunch. It has the incredible traditions, the amazing course and plenty of memorable and historic moments.

The PGA Championship follows just five weeks later, and it is often thought of as the weakest of the four, despite having the strongest field.

The brutally difficult US Open comes next in June before the oldest Major, The Open, concludes the season in July on the world renowned British links courses. Thanks to its history and standing in the game, many believe The Open to be the best, too.

So, which half is better? That's the question I asked our tour experts in this week's Inside The Ropes, and I'd love to hear your views in the comments.

I think it's the US Open/The Open Championship and it's not even close.

As far as I see it, there are three Majors up on a pedestal and the other sits below – not a long way, but enough to make it comfortably the least prestigious.

Justin Thomas has won two PGAs, but I don't view that as anywhere near as impressive as someone like a Greg Norman, who has two Open titles to his name, or Bryson DeChambeau, who has two US Opens.

I'm not going as far as to say two PGAs equals one Masters, Open or US Open, but I would say three PGAs equals two of the others.

The Masters is my favorite Major, but the PGA just doesn't carry Major gravitas in my eyes, especially as it's sandwiched between Signature events in a very busy part of the season.

I much preferred it when it was 'glory's last shot' and the final Major of the calendar year, which gave it some identity.

I love the US Open – it's my second-favorite Major – and the Open Championship is the game's most historic tournament. Sorry PGA, you've really let the side down here.

According to actual scientific studies, humans are more likely to avoid the worst of four options (PGA Championship) in a question like this, making the two Open Championships the more statistically-likely choice.

However, if you said I could only watch two Majors for the rest of my life, I'd pick The Masters and the PGA Championship because The Masters is the pinnacle of the sport and the PGA Championship gives the everyman a shot at glory.

I love talking to people about golf and The Masters is the only one most people watch, if they pay any attention at all to golf. And then I love an underdog story.

You can certainly have them in the Opens, but the year's second men's Major currently sets itself up perfectly to encourage them. Take Michael Block's recent heroics as the latest example.

I also don't think the PGA Championship is as bad as people like to make out, so it's hardly a disappointing teammate to The Masters. Still, my hope is that plenty changes in the PGA Championship moving forward which would elevate its status much closer to the Opens.

Plus, the excitement for the first two Majors has arguably subsided somewhat by this point in the year, so that's another point to the opening pair.

Ultimately, it's a really tough choice, but I want that combination of consistency and variety that only the first two Majors bring.

Hands down, I would pick the second half.

I love The Masters as much as the next person, but not watching the Open Championship would be terrible.

I love the challenge that links golf poses, but I also appreciate the tough test of a US Open.

Watching the best players in the world squirm over four rounds is a bit of a guilty pleasure, I suppose, and the US Open is the only Major that consistently provides that.

The PGA Championship is weak as a Major, in my opinion, so it sort of makes this decision easy.

Without an identity of its own, I could happily just catch the back nine of the PGA Championship each year and not feel too disappointed to have missed the rest.

If you swapped the PGA Championship out for The Players Championship that would make it a tougher decision, but I'd still go with the final two Majors of the season!

It’s a tricky one this – I love all the Majors but in my own personal ranking I go Masters, Open, US Open, PGA so this is 1 and 4 vs 2 and 3!

The PGA’s definitely improving, I don’t think it’s helped by the schedule but it can be helped by the type of course it’s staged on, in a similar way to the US Open really as there’s hardly a bad course on the Open rota so that's always a good one.

So it’s all about the flow of the season for me, we wait so long for the Masters to roll around and there’s often a bit of a comedown after Augusta which the PGA can get sucked into, and just that June-July time of year seems to be when we get into the meat of the season.

We’ve got an iconic, and controversial, golf course in Shinnecock Hills this year and watching them battle it out in a tough US Open, then into the build-up for The Open and the switch to some wonderful links golf is a pairing I’d have to put them ahead of the first two Majors of the year.

Wow, that was quite conclusive then... I guess we have the best half of the Major season to look forward to?

The Masters is the best of the four men's Majors for me but Baz is right, the PGA has let the side down...but it isn't that bad, right?

The 2026 PGA at Aronimink was brilliant and the championship often produces entertaining finishes. It just doesn't have the feel or stature of the US Open or The Open, though.

The US Open is a brilliant championship and The Open is The Open, and they're undoubtedly numbers two and three for me.

But I find it hard to live in a world where The Masters doesn't exist and it is by far my number one Major so I'll side with Jonny and go for the first half.

So, that's a 3/5 victory for the second half. We have a fantastic next couple of months to look forward to.

Do you agree with the team? Join the conversation in the comments section below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, we recap the 2026 US Women's Open.

The 2026 US Women's Open was one of the best in recent memory, as World No.1 Nelly Korda birdied the 71st hole to edge out Charley Hull and Gaby Lopez by two strokes.

Riviera Country Club in Los Angeles was making its hosting debut and it made for a fantastic tournament with a stacked and interesting leaderboard.

Korda's winning par putt somehow lipped in to give her a fourth Major title and first US Women's Open trophy. She has now won two consecutive Majors and four tournaments already in 2026.

So what were our key takeaways from the week? Our tour experts have their say - and be sure to let us know your view in the comments section below.

Brilliant galleries

Where are the crowds? A question that is often asked when watching women’s golf on TV, including the Majors. But that couldn’t be said about Riviera.

The crowds were pretty impressive, and no doubt this was greatly appreciated by the players and fans alike.

There was an electric atmosphere building all afternoon before Korda’s final putt lipped in to seal the title, bringing loud cheers.

Okay, maybe it wasn't quite as loud as a men’s Major, but what an improvement. If the LPGA can keep pairing iconic venues with Sunday drama like this, the audience will only continue to grow.

Big characters

Charley Hull and Gaby Lopez are very similar characters in that they both play aggressive golf and live for the Majors.

Lopez took a month off to prepare for the US Women’s Open, and finishing tied second alongside Hull, the gamble almost paid off.

You can see how much she craves a Major title. Her passion and the way she plays are entertaining and infectious, and I’m sure her bold-coloured skorts are a direct reflection of her personality!

I’m a big Korda fan, but more characters like Hull and Lopez, please.

Charley Hull reminds me of Tommy Fleetwood

They're popular, they play great golf and so many people are desperate for them to finally climb over the top and take hold of that first big win.

For Fleetwood, it was a PGA Tour title. For Hull, it's a Major.

Even though he'd won multiple times on the DP World Tour and had helped Team Europe lift the Ryder Cup, US fans and media couldn't quite crown him without a PGA Tour win after several near misses. Then he won the FedEx Cup.

A very similar narrative is building for Hull. She's won three LPGA Tour titles, but the next logical step to make her one of the world's absolute best (and maybe a rival to Nelly Korda) is to lift a Major.

Again, she's had chances but hasn't quite managed to cross the line in front. Last week wasn't a failure for Hull - far from it. She played the aggressive and entertaining golf that makes her a fan favorite but it just wasn't enough.

Hull didn't lose the US Women's Open, Korda won it.

Nevertheless, the frustration is probably building for Hull and the comparisons with Fleetwood's strife to land a PGA Tour title were only strengthened as a result.

What a crop of amateurs!

There were four amateurs in the top-25 of the US Women's Open this year, which is an insane stat.

Each of the four players - Kiara Romero, Maria Jose Marin, Aphrodite Deng and Asterisk Talley - shot 68 or better (Talley carded a 66) in one of their rounds, with Romero leading the group after finishing T6th.

It seems as though this era in particular has an unreal crop of amateur talent and that can only be a good thing as the women's game continues to grow.

How long will it be until an amateur wins a Major? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it happened this year.

Women's game is strong!

The women's game is in a really strong place at the moment.

With Nelly Korda’s brilliance, Charley Hull’s character and the breadth of talent in the chasing pack, the US Women’s Open showcased the best the game has to offer.

The men’s game could learn plenty from the Major Championship that we just witnessed.

Let the women play more PGA Tour venues

I would also love to see more women’s events at iconic PGA Tour venues.

Riviera was majestic last week, but the way the field played it showed a different edge to famous course.

How cool would it be to see the top talent on the LPGA Tour take on Pebble Beach, TPC Sawgrass and Bay Hill?

Riviera was amazing - as always - but even better in the summer

We've previously called for the Genesis Invitational to move later in the year, and the US Women's Open was proof that the course is so much better when it's firmer. It was also lovely to see the sycamore trees out on the par 3 16th.

Riviera is undoubtedly one of the best courses we get to see in professional golf and the USGA should be applauded for taking the championship there.

It has also got me incredibly excited for the 2028 Olympics. The men's, women's and mixed team competitions are going to be some of the best golf we'll see that year.

Stop the clashes

Despite it being one of the best women's Majors in recent years, it was a shame that it clashed with one of the best events on the PGA Tour - the $20m Signature Memorial Tournament, hosted by Jack Nicklaus at Muirfield Village.

Thankfully the Memorial finished halfway through the back nine of the US Women's Open, but it still took plenty of the limelight, newspaper columns, website articles and social media coverage throughout the week.

If we really want to grow the women's game, the PGA Tour needs to stop scheduling huge events up against women's Majors. The same will happen later this month when the KPMG Women's PGA Championship will fight for coverage against the $20m Travelers Championship.

It's not good enough.

What do you think? Join the conversation in the comments section below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, we discuss the 155th Open ticket prices.

The R&A released details of how to get tickets for the 2027 Open Championship this week, with fans eager to attend the 155th playing of the historic championship next year at St Andrews' iconic Old Course.

For those wondering, the ticket ballot opens on Monday 6 July and closes on Friday 24 July 2026.

However, the costs have raised eyebrows with tickets priced at £150 ($202) for the opening two rounds, £170 ($229) for Saturday and £190 ($256) for Sunday's final round.

Fans are divided on the cost, with users on social media brandishing them as a "rip off" and "scandalous" while others point to The Open being one of the greatest sporting events to attend with golf on from the crack of dawn until sunset.

The £190 final round price point is coming under fire in particular, with this year's final round at Royal Birkdale priced at £130 ($175) - meaning next year sees a 46% increase.

R&A chief excecutive Mark Darbon recently spoke about ticket prices for The Open following the news that 2027 Ryder Cup tickets will cost €500. He gave a measured response and admitted that the championship costs a lot of money to stage, while highlighting the R&A's policy of allowing free entry to under 16s.

"Look, it's a significant commitment of ours to try and ensure that The Open remains just that, open and accessible to a broad audience," Darbon said.

"Again, there are some commercial realities, right? The cost base of staging these things has grown significantly in recent years; that is undeniable.

"We have this unique challenge of ensuring that our championship remains open and accessible while also needing to be thoughtful about the revenue and profit that it generates so we can reinvest that back into the game.

"I think we've managed that balance appropriately in terms of taking some price increases where we've needed to but in a very measured fashion.

"One of the reasons we've done that is to maintain our commitment to some initiatives that are incredibly important to us. We still allow free attendance for under 16s at our championship. We still offer significant discounts for young people age 17 to 24.

"If you look around the sports industry, not just golf, but more broadly, there are very few major events that are doing that, and it's something we're incredibly proud of, and it's something that's really important to us. We'll strive to maintain that balance between affordability and the commercial reality.

"At the same time, I think it's important to not just talk about price, but to talk about value.

"So we pride ourselves on delivering an experience that is wonderful for the people that come through the gates to watch our championship.

"It's one of the reasons we're continuing to invest in these propositions to add and enhance to the event week to ensure that we maintain value for all of the stakeholders that we welcome."

So, what do our tour experts think of the cost? That's the subject of this edition of Inside The Ropes - although it should really be named 'Outside' The Ropes for this particular topic. And you can join the debate by letting us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

While £190 seems steep on the face of it, when you put it into context - I'm actually okay with it.

Clearly, I would prefer the tickets to be cheaper in order to boost accessibility, inclusivity and engagement with the sport, but when you consider that World Cup tickets for the latter stages are selling in the thousands of pounds and a seat at the final at Wimbledon would cost you around £300 - it seems fairly reasonable.

If this was going to be a one off, special occasion, bucket list type sporting event for me then I'd have no qualms paying £190 to see someone lift the Claret Jug in person.

Unfortunately, this is way elite sport is going these days, not just golf.

Fans at the Fifa World Cup this summer aren't allowed to bring water bottles into stadiums, are being charged hundreds of dollars to watch Ecuador vs Ivory Coast and a train to the stadium can cost up to a $100.

Prices at Bethpage Black for the Ryder Cup last year were egregious and Adare Manor in 2027 continues the same theme.

Without sounding like Karl Marx, elite sport has been hijacked by a capitalist class intent on sucking every penny they can out of it.

Golf's surge in popularity has been as much of a curse as a blessing - the price of clubs has skyrocketed, memberships have risen and the cost now extends to watching the professional game, be that on the TV or on-site in person.

The way society is going, I can only see it getting worse and despite it feeling totally wrong, I struggle to see what we can do to stop it.

If I were to play devil's advocate, you could state the fact that final round tickets for The Open will cost 56% less than Ryder Cup admission. That is certainly an excuse the R&A will be able to hide behind.

Another excuse, or justification, is that the 155th Open will inevitably sell out instantly. This year's Open will welcome 300,000 spectators after over a million entered the ballot.

This is the way of the world, and the R&A has to cash in. There is going to be incredible demand and the fact is that they could have priced them at £300 and they'd still sell out...so should we be applauding the R&A for not doing that? Under 16s going free also significantly reduces costs for families.

The R&A will also justify the prices by reinvesting that money back into the grassroots game.

Would I pay £190 for final round tickets? I think I would. If it was a bucket list experience I was desperate to tick off then yes, I think £190 is just about okay. Practice day tickets ranging from £40-£70 is also very reasonable, and they could have been double that.

The £190 final round price is certainly not a 'rip off' as the experience will be incredible. Watching The Open at St Andrews' Old Course is as good as it gets. From the history of the course to the calibre of players you'll see and the buzzing town itself, it will undoubtedly be money well spent.

It's likely too much money for most people to spend on one day's entertainment, plus travel, hotel, food, drink and merchandise but that unfortunately is the way of the world. Everything costs more these days and we are just having to deal with it. Our costs are all increasing, but so are The R&A's.

Fans are never going to be happy with paying more, and if you can't afford it then there are plenty of other great events on these shores to attend for far less - like the AIG Women's Open, Senior Open, Walker Cup, Curtis Cup, Amateur Championship, BMW PGA Championship, British Masters, Dunhill Links etc, etc.

It seems the way of the world now with prices for everything rising across the board, but approaching £200 for a ticket to The Open doesn’t look great on the face of it, although it has to be said it’s about the same price as the US Open.

The PGA Championship was similar but of course those tickets came with free food and non-alcoholic drinks – which looks like a bargain.

Now, you get a lot of golf for your £190 as you could get there are 6am and easily still be watching golf 14 hours or more later, at the Home of Golf no less, so it is bucket list stuff that we’re talking about, way above a regular tournament.

But it’s not just the ticket price is it?

Getting to St Andrews and finding a place to stay all costs serious money, and the food and drink available on site always carries a hefty price tag so it’ll end up being a massive outlay.

When we talk so much about ‘growing the game’ and changing golf’s slight elitist reputation, pricing so many people out of attending the pinnacle of the sport just seems like a missed opportunity to me.

What do you think? Comment your view to join the conversation below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, we discuss what can be done about golf's distance problem.

The distance players have been hitting the golf ball has been increasing steadily for decades, and the debate regarding what to do about it has been ongoing for years already.

On the PGA Tour, the average driving distance in the 1996 season was 265.9 yards. Fast forward to the 2015-16 season and it was exactly 290 yards. To date in 2026, it's currently 303.9 yards.

With golf balls traveling greater distances, many classic courses are simply being overpowered in the modern era and the entertainment factor is sorely lacking at some events.

Not only that, but most layouts around the world have needed to be lengthened which requires more resources and places a greater strain on the planet. And given climate change is an unavoidable factor in our future, something needs to be done. The multi-million dollar question is... what?

Options like implementing a golf-ball rollback or shrinking club heads have been touted as potential routes to go down, as has reducing sweet spots or shortening shafts.

But what do you think can be done to curb golf's unequivocal distance issue? Let us know in the comments. For now, three of Golf Monthly's tour experts have shared their thoughts.

HOW WOULD WE SOLVE GOLF'S DISTANCE PROBLEM?

JF: My thoughts are, and always have been, twofold. Firstly, I would absolutely limit the driver head size to 200cc at professional tournament level, which would have a massive effect on the MOI and thus forgiveness.

If players are still confident enough in their abilities to find a centered-enough strike while swinging at 120mph+ which keeps the ball in play on a head that size then good luck to them, they deserve to be 330 yards down the fairway.

The jeopardy this would create in tournaments when, at any moment, a player could miscue and duck hook a ball 130 yards without being rescued by a 460cc AI designed club head would be intriguing to watch.

I believe this would create some necessary separation in that area of the game and truly highlight those with the highest skill level and precision of strike, while others would be forced to slow down to guarantee a reasonable enough impact to keep the ball in play.

JF: Secondly, limiting tee height or abolishing the use of tee pegs altogether would be my other way of dealing with things.

Since the advent of launch monitor technology, fitters and players have figured out the best way to optimize ball flight is by teeing the ball massively high and creating a vastly upward attack angle to launch the ball airborne.

If you can manage spin from there which everyone can now with balls and CG locations then you can enhance your carry and overall distance by significant margins.

If we took this opportunity out of play and accepted that golf was a 'ground game' rather than suspending a ball two to three inches above the surface then attack angles would change and as such distance output would be completely diminished overnight.

Even the longest of the long on tour can't even sniff carrying a golf ball 300 yards from the deck with either driver, mini driver or a strong 3 wood.

EH: As Colonial showed this weekend and Aronimink last month, you don't need an 8,000 yard golf course to test the world's best players. Distance has become far too important at many courses in the men's game instead of accuracy.

It doesn't seem like the impending 2030 rollback is going to make a massive difference, sadly, and the change required to seriously rein distance in via bifurcation would take years, so the tours are going to have to take it into their own hands. They should do that by avoiding courses which can be overpowered and therefore offer a soft touch.

Instead, the tours should focus on venues that test all skillsets and place premiums on accuracy, distance control and short game. Finding fairways is a true skill and missing them needs to be a real punishment - whether that's thick rough, deep bunkers, water or trees.

EH: It is the same into and around the greens. Too often pros miss a green and face a simple lob wedge chip shot from ankle-high rough, instead of truly having to grind hard for an up-and-down.

We also regularly see thick rough slowing balls down and stopping them from going into water and other hazards. That is not an example of testing the greatest golfers in the world hard enough and either rewarding or punishing them correctly.

PGA Tour pros are the best players in the world so they should exclusively play the on the hardest courses. Dial up the difficulty and distance won't be as big of an issue.

MC: There are a few ways in which golf can curb the distance problem and, along with the golf ball, I think equipment in general could be looked at and changed to make it tougher for the world's best ball strikers.

Technology in golf is immense, especially when it comes to forgiveness on off center strikes; however, it now means players are still able to produce impressive distances even when the ball is struck nowhere near the sweet spot.

In the days of persimmon heads and balata balls, there's no chance the shot would still fly 300 yards if not hit properly, whereas in this day and age it's quite the opposite. And it's the same with other clubs in the bag.

MC: Iron lofts can be bent so severely that a 6-iron can easily become an 8-iron. A 7-wood, or even a 9-wood, can now be introduced so that the ball can land softly on longer approaches, or be advanced further from horrible lies in the rough.

This club wasn't even a concept decades ago, neither was a mini driver, which can now be put in the bag just in case the big stick isn't behaving. Essentially, there's a club for everything and the game is, arguably, easier than ever, so perhaps a cull on 14 clubs could happen. 14 is too many, so how about a maximum of 10.

Admittedly, it would obviously be difficult to implement this, but it can't be denied that one way of curbing distance is by restricting equipment.

JL: I was all for a golf ball rollback until I saw the recent report about Cameron Young's ball conforming to the new testing conditions and still flying record distances, so either the numbers involved in a potential rollback need to be reduced dramatically (to something like 1996 numbers) or that idea can be knocked on the head.

The most common suggestion appears to be reducing the size of the driver head, which makes a lot of sense and - due to the invention of mini drivers - probably wouldn't be as hard to adjust to as people might think.

Then there is the potential to reign in the length of shafts on clubs and also reduce the size of the large sweet spot in the head, which is great for a mid-handicapper like you or I but seems quite unnecessary for the pros.

But is the answer not actually all of the above? Why stop at simply modifying the ball or dragging back the length of a golf club shaft? Change each of the aspects I've mentioned and suddenly the game looks very different at the top level.

People will moan about it, but people always do. People, and especially golfers, love to complain about something - particularly if it relates to change. I say rip the bandaid off and make wholesale changes for the good of the game.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, we get our professional golf irritations off our chests

We watch a lot of golf at Golf Monthly, and our writers have been fans of the game for decades. We live and breathe the sport and love it dearly, but there are many occasions where we find ourselves slightly irritated by what we're watching.

That's the subject of this week's Inside The Ropes, where I asked my colleagues for their pro golf irritations and also chimed in with a couple of my own.

So, what annoys you about pro golf? Let us know in the comments section at the bottom of this article.

Long player-caddie discussions

I'm becoming increasingly bored of conversations between caddies and players and I can't help think professional golf would be more interesting if these consultations were banned.

Some of the players come across as almost insecure and need the validation of a caddie to hit a shot, which can lead to painful back-and-forths that sometimes take longer than a minute.

Almost everyone feels slow play is a problem, and the caddie-player relationship does nothing to improve this. My colleague Joe Ferguson believes caddies should be scrapped in the professional game and I'm starting to get on board with that admittedly 'out there' opinion.

Rough

The lack of rough at most tour events is my second point of annoyance.

There's so much talk about how far the ball goes, but the widely employed solution of simply lengthening golf holes makes no sense.

If you make the rough thick and the fairways narrow, players will either scale back in order to find the short grass or persist with the big stick and take the gamble on.

If someone wins from the latter camp, then fair enough, you have to give credit where it's due.

But at least challenge them or make them think. It's far too easy most weeks for big hitters to whack driver 350 yards and face little to no penalty for missing the short grass.

And while I'm on the subject of length, enough of 'par 4s' in excess of 500 yards already - it's ridiculous!

Lengthy pre-shot routines

It would be easy for me to say pace of play in general, given that it's a hot topic in the professional golf world, but I've opted for pre-shot routines, particularly those that take a long time to complete.

Yes, professional golfers have probably been told to have a pre-shot routine so they're 100% over the shot, and I get that. However, when the pre-shot routine takes over two minutes to complete, and doesn't start until their playing partner has struck their shot, then something is wrong.

It's not just in the long game, but the short game (particularly putting), where we see some time-consuming routines.

Aimpoint hasn't helped the pace of play argument, with players taking an age to assess a three-foot putt. For me, though, it's the fact that the players and caddies would have played the course two-to-three times during the practice rounds, as well as every day from Thursday and Friday, it's not as if anything has changed significantly.

Professional circuits are introducing measures to help whack the time down, and one good way would be to have a time limit on pre-shot routines.

'Fore'

The majority of players, from what I've seen anyway, do shout fore when their golf ball has gone offline, but what does irk me is when they don't and simply raise their arm in the direction it's going in.

Firstly, that golf ball is hurtling towards the crowd at high speed with no warning, and secondly, it's just pure laziness. How difficult is it to shout out a four-letter word?

Professional golfers are blessed in that they usually have a spotter on every hole, but just simply raising an arm in the air after a wayward shot isn't the biggest help in the world in terms of safety, or location.

It doesn't happen often, but I'd like to see some repercussions for those who don't shout fore. Whether it's a monetary fine, or perhaps a shot penalty, it's a small notion that can make a big difference.

Birdie-fests

I despise birdie-fests. The fact that a golf tournament at the very highest level is being won at 30-under-par is simply ludicrous and, quite honestly, a bit of a farce.

Take nothing away from the players, because they can only play the golf course in front of them, but serious questions should be asked about the course set up at events where anything better than 20-under-par is winning year after year.

These are the best players in the world and we are making it super easy for them.

Let's create some proper tests of golf week-in, week-out, so that when we inevitably get to a tournament where a 20-under-par or better score wins, we can actually celebrate the enormity of that achievement rather than it becoming the norm.

Lift, clean and place

On a similar note, I would also be happy to see a reduction in the frequency that lift, clean and place is used on the PGA Tour.

For extreme weather, that significantly impacts the integrity of the competition, I can get onboard.

For a bit of rain or a few mud balls, I say get on with it - it's the same for everyone!

Scheduling

The scheduling in the professional game is shocking at times. Take last year, when the Australian Open, Nedbank Golf Challenge and Hero World Challenge all took place on the same week. I wrote at the time that it was a classic example of golf shooting itself in the foot.

Then there's the women's Major schedule, with the biggest showpiece events in the women's game regularly clashing with big PGA Tour Signature Events.

Lottie Woad recently won her second LPGA Tour title against a stacked field with a sensational performance at the Kroger Queen City Championship...which was taking place just as Aaron Rai was completing his PGA Championship glory.

Woad's fantastic win would have had far more viewers if it finished on the following Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday when the entire golf-viewing public were available.

I would love to see some innovative thinkers at tours start to look at other days to play their tournaments. Would a Monday finish be better for the LPGA Tour to get it away from constantly being up against the PGA Tour? I think so.

Hardcore fans would watch great golf everyday of the week if they could, yet currently there is nothing from Monday to Wednesday and then absolutely everything from Thursday to Sunday.

Sure, the biggest events on the PGA, LPGA, DP World and LIV Golf Tours are often played in different time zones and a weekend finish is best for on-site spectator numbers, but I truly believe they would benefit from looking at the calendar and trying their best to avoid clashing.

Formats

The PGA Tour has 48 events on its 2026 calendar, 47 if you remove the Presidents Cup, and I can count just two that aren't 72-hole strokeplay tournaments.

They are the Zurich Classic pairs event and the Grant Thornton mixed pairs tournament. That's really bad, right?

Golf has a vast array of fun and engaging formats, including the likes of match play, skins, stableford and countless other variations, yet we are fed the exact same stale format almost every single week.

The loss of match play is a tragedy and I think we need at least one singles match play event every year. I would also love to see some some elimination events where there is a cut every day and scores reset.

How about a par 3 tournament? An event on a classic course where tees and drivers/woods are banned? A 3 clubs and a putter event? A randomly drawn pairs event? Perhaps a knockout match play doubles event where the teams are randomly drawn after every round? These are just some ideas I've had right now off the top of my head.

The issue we've likely had, and the excuse for not trying new things, when tours experiment with formats is that they're often done in tournaments with weaker fields that have little interest anyway. A few innovative formats in events with strong fields and big money and points on the line would surely create a buzz.

Then we could look back and see which ones worked the best and try them again.

Do you agree with our annoyances? And what are yours? Let us know below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, we look back on the 2026 PGA Championship

The PGA Championship will be remembered for Aaron Rai's sensational finish to emphatically close the door on a stacked leaderboard.

The Englishman played his last ten holes in six-under-par to win by three following three-and-a-half days of one of the tightest leaderboards seen in recent memory.

Aronimink was expected to be blown away by the world's best but it put up a great test for the top players, with its thick rough and undulating greens resulting in a winning score of nine-under-par and just 25 men finishing the week in the red digits from the 156 starters.

So, what were our biggest takeaways from the week?

Our tour experts have their say below - and be sure to let us know yours in the comments section at the bottom of the page...

The course and set-up was spot on

I was surprised to log in to X on Friday and over the weekend and see both players and fans criticising the set-up, as I though it was spot on.

In my mind, nine-under is an ideal winning score in a Major.

I was also shocked to see so many people portraying the bunched leaderboard as a negative. It was perfect. Having multiple Major Champions and journeyman pros within a couple of shots of the lead heading into Sunday is exactly what I want to see.

I enjoy golf tournaments where there's a premium on hitting fairways, and watching players hit 350-yard drives into the rough and then struggle to hit their approaches with wedges inside 30 feet was great.

The drivable par-4 13th was an excellent risk-reward hole and having three gettable par 4s to open made the early stages exciting.

I'm normally a cynic when it comes to the year's second Major, but I thought the PGA of America got it spot on.

The perception of Rai

Aaron Rai produced one of the most impressive back-nine performances I can remember on a Major Sunday, but so many people were quick to criticise him as boring.

There was nothing dull about what the Englishman produced or how he played.

He eagled the 9th, stiffed his approach on 11, played a sublime bunker shot on 13, almost eagled 16, holed a 70-footer on 17 and hit two perfect shots into the 18th.

It was an absolutely ruthless display and I don't think he's getting the credit he deserves.

So what if he wears two gloves and has iron headcovers? Why people focussed on that when he'd just produced an all-time Major back nine was beyond me.

It was an absolute masterclass.

More than one way to skin a cat

How good was that? I’m not sure how many times the commentators reminded us over the weekend just how short Aaron Rai was compared to the rest of the field (it felt like quite a lot). Still, the slow-swinging Englishman showed that when it comes to winning on long, sprawling layouts, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Ranked 66 in driving distance, Rai certainly wasn’t one of the longest hitters at Aronimink, but he was fourth in accuracy and finished second in SG: Approach. This is his game in a nutshell: he finds fairways and plays the percentage shots.

It might not be the most entertaining at times, and it probably won’t make him a prolific winner, but, combined with his precision and patience, he proved himself the best player of the week in very difficult conditions.

It was a pleasure to see Rai stick to his game plan and execute the shots that the course demanded.

Scheffler for the career slam next month?

I’ve rarely seen Scottie Scheffler look so disgruntled. This is a player who has been so used to winning.

He’s not won since January, and that must feel like a drought. He took a pop at the pin positions, calling them "absurd" and the hardest he has ever seen, but that would have been pure frustration - he just didn’t work the greens out.

It’s not often that you see the World No.1 three-putt, but at Aronimink we saw something even rarer: back-to-back three putts. 72nd SG: Putting tells the story, and there were a few jittery strokes in there, too.

It’s a sign of just how good he is that he still finished T14, and he was the leading player in driving accuracy (69.64%).

I’m pretty confident we’ll see a different Scheffler at Shinnecock next month, and I would not be in the least bit surprised to see him complete the career Grand Slam in New York. He is, after all, the king of bounebacks.

Does golf need the rollback?

It's one of the most discussed topics in the sport right now, but did the PGA Championship show that golf really needs the ball rollback?

To begin with, it was revealed that Cameron Young's golf ball would be conforming under the proposed new testing guidelines... This is the same golf ball he used to hit a tee shot 385 yards at The Players Championship!

That shows to me it won't matter what the governing bodies come up with, manufacturers will always find ways around them.

What's more, the course set-up showed that, perhaps, it's the courses that can make a difference when it comes to scoring.

Many thought Aronimink would be a bombers paradise but, instead, we were fed a winner who was the one of the shortest, but most accurate in the field.

Strategy played a big part in Rai's win, which is why the distance debate could have taken a blow in Philly.

Good to see some old faces back

The PGA Championship leaderboard threw up some interesting names on Sunday, but I can't deny it was nice to see some familiar faces near the top.

It's no secret that Jon Rahm's Major form has dipped in the Majors since he went to the LIV Golf League, but it looked like the Rahm of old as he finished in a share of runner-up.

Another name was Cameron Smith, whose form has dropped even more than Rahm's, with the Aussie missing the cut in six straight Majors prior to this weekend.

We know that LIV is having its funding pulled from the Saudi PIF at the end of this year, with it unclear as to what will happen, or what the players will do.

What this weekend has shown is that there is space for the world's best to be together, and how nice it is seeing them all play as one.

Hopefully it'll happen more going forward...

Were we too harsh on the PGA Championship?

Before the tournament, I wrote that the PGA Championship had lost its identity and should consider changes like moving back to August, going global or even reverting back to its match play roots. We also debated in last week's Inside The Ropes over what the best way to improve the PGA Championship would be.

But were we being too harsh?

This past weekend was a thrilling watch and was some of the best golf viewing in recent years with such a tight leaderboard.

Yet something still doesn't quite feel right. It felt a bit like a US Open Lite, which was great but shouldn't the PGA Championship stand out as its own, unique spectacle?

Despite thoroughly enjoying the tournament, I still believe it needs serious changes. Sadly, the PGA of America leadership batted off questions of moving it back to August or going global, so things will remain the same for the foreseeable future.

The schedule is far too packed and it gets lost among the Masters, US Open and the three Signature Events in between. Still, it is a Major and is usually a very entertaining week so I guess we'll just have to appreciate what we've got a bit more.

Signature Events need to go

I may a bit obsessed with my criticism of the PGA Tour's Signature Events, and I've already written today how every passing week shows why Signature Events need to go.

Aaron Rai has been inside the world's top 50 all year but was playing in the opposite-field Myrtle Beach Classic last week, which carried a $4m purse while his colleagues played in the $20m Truist Championship.

The limited-field events simply aren't fair, especially with sponsor's invites being allowed, and the likes of Rai, Kristoffer Reitan and Alex Fitzpatrick have shown this year that it isn't only the big names who can compete and win the biggest events.

Brian Rolapp says a future PGA Tour will have 16 Signature Events with 120-man fields and cuts. I hope that comes to fruition.

What were your biggest takeaways from the 2026 PGA Championship? Let us know in the comments section.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about what to do with the PGA Championship.

It's no secret the PGA Championship is widely considered a distant fourth when it comes to power ranking the men's Majors, and this is a conversation which has been talking place for several years now.

The Masters, the Open Championship and the US Open each have their unique selling points but are ordered differently in terms of importance depending on who you ask.

Yet, almost without exception, the PGA Championship sits bottom of that list and doesn't appear to be moving any time soon.

The frustration surrounding the topic often centers around the fact people feel there are three very clear and agreeable options to changing its position. Or if not promoting it, at the very least, reduce the gap to third.

One would be to move it back to August or even September - either way, a shift in the calendar. Then there is the possibility of re-introducing a match-play format, as was the case when the Wanamaker Trophy was first brought to life.

Lastly, there is the idea that the PGA Championship could be reinvigorated by traveling around the world to become 'The World's Major.'

I can already hear you saying that the PGA of America would never agree to such a move, but let's pretend for a second that new CEO Terry Clark and co. are open to the idea of an alteration and they've agreed to meet so you can have your say on the matter. What are you telling them? Let us know in the comments box below.

For now, three of Golf Monthly's tour experts have shared which option they would love to see implemented if they had the power to improve the PGA Championship.

JL: The PGA Of America's motto is 'serving the members and growing the game,' but I think they need to start proving it. While I'm sure the PGA of America does a fantastic job of taking action on those words in many respects throughout the United States, is it not only serving itself when it comes to the PGA Championship?

The consensus is the PGA of America is happy with how its flagship event is faring. How can that be the case when this week is by far and a way the least prestigious of the four?

And for an organization that resides in a country which prides itself on being number one in everything it does, the PGA of America does sure seem to be content with sitting in a distant fourth place.

The clearest way for the PGA of America to change that - and to truly grow the game as it professes to - is by joining forces with other PGA organizations (while retaining over-arching control if necessary) to take the Wanamaker Trophy around the globe.

JL: As a result, that will probably rely on the PGA Championship taking place at different times of the year, but I'd also argue that could add to its charm.

Imagine a Christmas PGA Championship in South Africa or Australia or a fall battle for the Wanamaker Trophy in Japan or South Korea.

As I've said in the Golf Monthly Tour Issue podcast, there are some incredibly passionate crowds elsewhere in the world starved of top-level golf, and I know the corporate dollar is in the US but there is plenty of money to be made elsewhere as well.

I'm also aware the PGA of America won't make the desired changes, but I'd love to see more stakeholders in golf take a real risk and show some genuine entrepreneurial spirit. That's how you really grow the game.

EH: I've already written my three-point plan for how to improve the PGA Championship and elevate it into a Major with a strong identity that differentiates itself from the other big tournaments in the game, and answering what might be the 'best' way to improve it is difficult.

In truth, I think returning it to match play, taking it around the world and moving it back to August, or later in the season, should all happen in an ideal world.

The PGA of America makes some bold calls when it comes to its Ryder Cup captains but it seems to play it very safe with its flagship championship, so I am disappointed to say that I don't believe it will many any significant changes.

EH: The best, and easiest, way to improve it for me would be moving the PGA Championship back to August, though. It is getting completely lost in the busy April-June section of the golfing calendar and overshadowed by The Masters and US Open.

Bringing back the 'Glory's Last Shot' mantra as the final Major of the year would be an easy fix to at least give it a bit more meaning and create some 'last chance' storylines.

I also think it should solely be contested on courses that make you go 'wow' instead of parkland layouts that look very similar to what we see week-to-week on the PGA Tour.

I think all of these changes are unlikely as the PGA of America seems very happy with the event as it is. Some innovative thinking is needed and until then, it will sadly remain comfortably adrift of the other three Majors.

NB: Moving the PGA Championship in the schedule is not only the most realistic option, but also the best one. The other two are never going to happen, for various reasons, the first being the bit that follows PGA in the name of the organization that operate's the year's second Major.

I can't see a world where the PGA of America takes its championship overseas, especially given how patriotic and parochial people and companies associated with the United States are.

Secondly, the fact the WGC-Match Play has been removed from the schedule tells you everything you need to know about its viability as a Major format. Television companies have so much power in this day and age and match play just doesn't create a compelling TV product.

NB: My preference would be for the PGA Championship to move back to its former August slot, or even later in the season, although, again, this won't happen as the NFL dominates everything.

Imagine having it as a season-ending tournament to replace the insipid Tour Championship. Wishful thinking, sadly!

I enjoyed its identify and branding as 'glory's last shot' and the schedule from March to July is far too congested for my liking, with Majors or Signature Events almost every week.

What changes would you make to improve the PGA Championship? Let us know in the comments box below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's about which pros the PGA Tour might want to bring back from LIV Golf.

The future of the LIV Golf League remains up in the air, despite the circuit's recent announcement that steps are being taken to secure alternative funding to the Saudi Public Investment Fund.

For the time being, the circuit ploughs on regardless. CEO Scott O'Neil is adamant the 2026 campaign will continue on uninterrupted, but the reality is no one is quite sure what will happen after that.

While it remains faint at this stage, there is the possibility that LIV could cease to exist in the short term. Alternatively, it may have to drastically scale back its operation to create a sustainable business plan.

Should that happen, some of its bigger starts might choose to look elsewhere for playing opportunities - namely the PGA Tour or DP World Tour.

But which of LIV's current crop would the PGA Tour want to bring back? After all, not everyone is going to be happy with each returning star, so Brian Rolapp better be sure about those he chooses.

While it is all highly theoretical at this stage, three of Golf Monthly's tour experts have picked out who they would prioritize from LIV's stable. Let us know who you'd choose in the comments box below this article.

EH: The simple answer to which LIV Golfers would improve the PGA Tour would be Bryson DeChambeau and Jon Rahm. The pair are LIV Golf's biggest stars and would immediately make the PGA Tour more competitive and watchable.

But I wouldn't stop there. In fact, I think LIV has lots of players that would make the PGA Tour better, in terms of competition, characters and storylines. They might not all be field headliners but they would add recognizable names and depth to tournaments.

Let's not forget that many of LIV's players are former PGA Tour winners and the fracture in the sport has hurt the tour's field strength and overall product, with many of the weaker events featuring many players casual fans have never heard of.

Don't get me wrong, the PGA Tour is still far and away the premier circuit and it has ridden out the LIV threat very well, but it does still miss some of the players who left, in my opinion.

EH: In an ideal world, I'd love to see the likes of Cameron Smith, Dustin Johnson, Joaquin Niemann, Tyrrell Hatton, Sergio Garcia, Talor Gooch, Ian Poulter, Abraham Ancer, Carlos Ortiz, Marc Leishman, Peter Uihlein, Paul Casey, Thomas Detry and Sebastian Munoz return.

They're all PGA Tour winners or at least former card holders and would add intrigue to events and returning 'villain' storylines.

Another player who would undoubtedly improve the Tour would be Anthony Kim. He might struggle, as many of the aforementioned names would too, but he would draw eyeballs and be worthy of a few sponsor's invites.

I'd also like to see Josele Ballester, Tom McKibbin, David Puig and Caleb Surratt - LIV's young guns - test themselves on the circuit. I understand these players all 'made their beds' by joining LIV Golf and the PGA Tour is full now anyway, so seeing them competing there is highly unlikely, at least in the short term. But the question was which players would improve the Tour, and I think these all would.

NB: Given LIV Golf has been going for four years, it's perhaps an indictment of the Saudi-backed circuit that only a handful of its players would make the PGA Tour stronger.

Jon Rahm, Bryson DeChambeau, Cameron Smith and Dustin Johnson are the obvious first answers to this question, even though Smith's form has completely fallen off a cliff.

Before Smith made the move, he'd just won The Open at St Andrews and he was a top-five player in the world. If someone has that pedigree, there's always a chance they can find form again.

Johnson is also a shadow of his former self and doesn't seem remotely bothered about the prospect of playing more competitive golf, but he's a big name with a resume that speaks for itself.

NB: Beyond the Major champions, I think Louis Oosthuizen, Joaquin Niemann, Abraham Ancer and Tyrrell Hatton would make the PGA Tour stronger. Oozthuizen is in his 40s now, but like Smith, he was playing golf of an extremely high standard before he made the move.

Niemann was a top-ten player in the world before his move and Ancer breached the top 20, and both players would make the tour more popular in the Latin American market. Hatton is a world-class golfer on his day, too.

There are some decent golfers outside of the aforementioned players – the likes of Thomas Detry, Sergio Garcia and Talor Gooch – but I'm not sure they'd necessarily make the PGA Tour stronger. The one player I'd love to see back is Phil Mickelson, because I think it would be pure theatre.

JL: I think there are 10 LIV golfers which would make the PGA Tour a better product right now.

Jon Rahm, Joaquin Niemann and Bryson DeChambeau should require little to no explanation while the likes of Phil Mickelson and Tyrrell Hatton are also no-brainers right off the bat if we're playing the hypothetical game (which would have to be true in Lefty's case).

Where it becomes a little more interesting is regarding names such as Louis Oosthuizen, Bubba Watson and Sergio Garcia. Yes, they're big names, but their abilities are on the wane and I'm not sure they would improve the top end of a PGA Tour leaderboard. Either way, they're probably worth going after.

JL: The final two names I believe would improve the PGA Tour right now are Cameron Smith and Anthony Kim. Smith must surely retain some of that all-conquering ability from four or five years ago, but it would still be a bit of a punt from the PGA Tour's point of view.

Then there is Kim. He undoubtedly has the entertaining personality and - proved via his LIV Golf win earlier this year - the ability is clearly still there as well.

My only questions would surround whether he has any desire to come back to the PGA Tour and how long Kim can continue to compete at the top level for now he's in his 40s and has spent over a decade away from the sport?

Do you agree with any or all of our tour experts? Share your opinion on which LIV golfers (if any) would improve the PGA Tour in the comments box below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about Matt Fitzpatrick.

As far as form goes, there is no one on planet golf who comes close to Matt Fitzpatrick right now.

Three wins in his past four starts proves that, with the latest arriving alongside his brother Alex at the Zurich Classic of New Orleans, and it also adds to the young Englishman's incredible body of work throughout his 12-year career.

Already a Major winner thanks to his US Open success in 2022, Fitzpatrick has managed to notch up a resume many of his compatriots can only dream of with huge wins all over the world.

With that said, should Fitzpatrick now be ranked among the best English golfers of the modern era? And if so, where would he place?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below this article. In the meantime, three of Golf Monthly's tour experts have had their say.

EH: It's tricky to assess where Fitzpatrick ranks in the all-time English golfer list as he is still active and has plenty of years left, but I would be inclined to put him above the likes of Paul Casey and Ian Poulter already considering he is a Major champion and a US Amateur champion.

I think he has a long way to go until he surpasses the achievements of Justin Rose, Lee Westwood and Luke Donald, but Westwood and Donald never managed to win a Major so Fitzpatrick has them both in that regard.

We haven't had a multiple Major-winning Englishman since Sir Nick Faldo, and it looks like Rose or Fitzpatrick could achieve that. If he does, I think Fitzy will go down as one of this country's greatest ever golfers.

MC: For me, Fitzpatrick is comfortably inside the top 10, if not in-and-around the top five, greatest English golfers in the modern era.

Since 2015, he has only had two seasons without a win and, during that decade, a Major, two Signature Events, two Rolex Series tournaments and three DP World Tour Championships have been added to his trophy cabinet.

These are high-caliber events, and that doesn't even include the four Ryder Cup appearances during that time frame.

The reason why I rank Fitzpatrick so highly is that he has done it on both sides of the pond. It's not solely the DP World Tour where he has had success.

Yes, the likes of Ian Poulter and Paul Casey have more worldwide wins and victories on the DP World Tour, but neither have as many PGA Tour victories or, crucially, a Major.

Fitzpatrick still has time on his side and, as of writing, he is behind Justin Rose and Lee Westwood (Nick Faldo and Laura Davies also) for me, but given his recent form I can see that changing rapidly.

Westwood never claimed a Major, but 25 DP World Tour wins, three Race to Dubai's, a World No.1 ranking, longevity of four decades and an incredible Ryder Cup career has him above Fitzpatrick.

If the latter can earn himself a Harry Vardon trophy, though, or even a FedEx Cup, another Major or more PGA Tour wins, I'd say Fitzpatrick will be fourth behind Rose.

JL: I would put Fitzpatrick inside the top-10 best English golfers of the modern era (since 1970), but he's not done enough just yet to crack the top-five.

His Major win and growing list of PGA Tour victories is lifting him up the list quickly, mind, and his ranking may well be even higher by the end of the year - especially if he adds to that US Open triumph.

Personally, I think Fitzpatrick has been hugely underrated for a long time anyway and his recent success is more like him fulfilling his potential, in my eyes.

He still has some way to go in terms of longevity, but if he can continue winning and eventually reaches 30 pro titles then maybe he could be talked about alongside the likes of Laura Davies, Justin Rose, Luke Donald and Lee Westwood.

He might also need to put some pressure on the World No.1 spot at the very least, but - right now - the World No.3 should be considered among the very best pro golfers England has ever produced.

Feel free to share your opinion with us in the comments box below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about LIV Golf.

From the moment LIV Golf became a reality, there have been those who support it and those who wish it would disappear as abruptly as it seemingly arrived.

But until recent days, the chances of LIV Golf becoming a thing of the past seemed extremely unlikely. Then came the reports.

Monday Q Info claimed a "bombshell announcement" was coming. The Financial Times said the Saudi PIF was planning to withdraw its financial support at the end of the year.

A story from The Telegraph noted LIV executives were being summoned for an emergency meeting. Could the end really be near for LIV Golf?

LIV's CEO Scott O'Neil said absolutely not. The defiant chief insisted the team-based circuit would plough on regardless and boasted it is in a "wonderful position."

Speaking on LIV Golf's Mexico City TV broadcast last week, O'Neil admitted there would likely be some kind of "structural change" to come but vowed to see the breakaway league into its new era.

O'Neil also indirectly asked critics whether they felt LIV had been good for the sport overall. He felt it had.

O'Neil said: "I know there's some people rooting against LIV Golf. I understand that, okay. But is golf better without LIV Golf? Should all the best events in the world be in the Continental US? Is that right?

"Should we be targeting 60-year-old men, or should we put some focus on the global game? Should we put some focus on this next generation of fans?

"If I am a PGA Tour player, I want LIV to survive. These prize purses are pretty good. Competition is good for business.

"If I'm a television network, I'd love LIV Golf to survive. It's good television. If I'm a reporter, it certainly makes the news a little more spicy, or has occasionally.

"If you're a fan, you want more golf around the world. If you're outside the US, we are outside the saturated market and we're in markets that are dying for this kind of action. So I think there's a lot more to gain with LIV Golf here than LIV Golf gone."

It's a well-made argument, certainly. But is O'Neil correct in his assessment? Is the world of pro golf really better with LIV as a key part of it?

Four of Golf Monthly's tour experts have shared their view (and you can express yours in the comments box below).

EH: I think O'Neil is correct on many fronts that the golfing world is better off with LIV in it. LIV Golf has been amazing for the players, both its own and those on other tours, who are making more money than ever before.

LIV forced the PGA Tour to make huge changes, and many of them are for the better, so it has ultimately been good for the legacy US circuit which has ridden out the storm very well.

It has been good for markets like Adelaide, Hong Kong and South Africa, too, as well as the Asian Tour and the elevated International Series, whose players have benefitted from the Saudi money trickling down.

LIV has also been very good for the four men's Majors, which were elevated as the only weeks where all of the best players played against the best.

EH: But I do not believe LIV has been good for fans. The fact is the sport has been fractured, and no matter the type of argument you hear, that is a huge negative.

Big events from the PGA Tour have been missing many top players and big characters, and I personally continually think ‘What if?’ in regards to many pros.

While LIV has been good for almost all circuits, I think it has damaged the DP World Tour, which has faced an aggressive and richer rival in the 'global' scene. The European circuit has lost a lot of its legends and top players to LIV as well as venues like Valderrama.

So has LIV Golf made the game better? I would say yes, but I think the game can now move forward without it if it does not find new financiers as - despite forcing good change within the sport - it has not grown a big enough fanbase or shown it can be sustainable without the Saudi billions.

NB: I strongly disagree with Scott O'Neil and I suspect if he were answering objectively, he'd say the same thing.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I enjoy all men's professional golf aside from the majors less than I used to before the Saudi-backed circuit arrived.

The DP World Tour has some extremely average fields for a large portion of the year, meaning I don't watch it from February all the way through to June; I dislike the PGA Tour's Signature Events, which only came out in response to LIV as a means of placating those who stayed put; and I've only ever watched an hour of LIV since its inception in 2022.

NB: While I appreciate some people do enjoy it, and the television coverage is far superior to the other tours mentioned here, I have no interest in it at all.

The fact it's billions of dollars in the hole, the viewing figures are modest at best and the team element hasn't caught on at all suggest it's very much been a failed venture.

The only people who have benefitted in the world of golf are fans in places like Australia and South Africa, the past-their-best players who lined their pockets and the agents who facilitated the moves.

I can't see a cogent argument for the golf world being better off with LIV in it.

JL: I see what O'Neil is saying, but I don't think he's ultimately correct in saying pro golf is better with LIV around. The best players in the world are not playing together very often at all, and that is certainly not a good thing.

Has LIV Golf been good for other areas of the game in driving up tournament purses? For the players, absolutely, but I have concerns over the financial sustainability of the game in that regard.

Has LIV aimed golf at a younger audience? Yes, and that in itself is a good thing, but certain aspects of its set-up feels beyond forced and unnatural and could arguably be shutting off a different demographic - so is that actually any better?

JL: Ultimately, I don't think pro golf is better with LIV in existence as I would prefer a more unified game.

However.

LIV has highlighted some extremely important factors which need addressing moving forward if the sport is to thrive as it can. The sport's potential is massive, but it won't grow if it never leaves the United States.

Yes, there is a lot of capital floating around in the US, to say the least. But the game doesn't end there and that insular view is not helping anyone but a select few.

JL: Focusing purely on the game of golf, look how good LIV Golf Australia and LIV Golf South Africa were, for example. Why could the DP World Tour not have made that happen? What is it missing?

Without going into too much detail on other areas of potential improvement, the PGA Tour should take a long, hard look at itself in terms of how it runs its events as well. The broadcast at certain times is woeful and it does nothing to disrupt the sleepy narrative that some fans cannot stand.

But, to answer the over-arching question here, I don't agree with O'Neil that pro golf is better off with LIV in it. What I would say is, those who run the game at its highest level need to take this chapter in history as a shock to the system and change for good or golf will continue to shoot itself in the foot for decades to come.

MC: In all honesty, I'm not LIV's biggest fan and if I were to weigh out the positives and negatives, I would say the latter edges it.

Yes, the circuit has done some good. The taking on of a more worldwide schedule is the main stand out and, even though the DP World Tour also does this, it doesn't possess the star power of players attending the events like LIV does.

LIV's broadcast has also been a big plus, while the tournaments are very well put on, showing what's possible at a golf event.

MC: Overall, though, I don't think the golf world would be hit too hard if LIV wasn't in it.

Purses have inflated massively - to near unsustainable levels might I add - since its arrival on the pro golf scene, while the team aspect, in my opinion, really hasn't taken off and is more of a hindrance than help.

It might appeal to a younger demographic, but the unseriousness of it, such as music blaring out, low viewership numbers, sickening amounts of cash and a victim complex when it came to the OWGR and playing in PGA and DP World Tour events means that, for me, it wouldn't be the end of the golf world if LIV wasn't in it.

What do you think? Is pro golf better off with LIV as a part of it? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments box below.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about the fallout from The Masters.

Another Masters Tournament is in the books, and what a championship we just witnessed.

Rory McIlroy successfully defended his title at Augusta National, but it was not without its drama as a six-shot lead disappeared on Saturday and multiple players battled it out with the Northern Irishman for the Green Jacket during the final round.

While the likes of Justin Rose, Cameron Young, Russell Henley and Sam Burns all had their opportunities to clinch immortality, it was McIlroy who crossed the finish line ahead and transformed himself from a five-time Major winner to a six-time champion.

The question in a lot of people's minds now is 'what next?' Can the man who struggled to add a fifth Major for so long now kick on and cement himself as one of the sport's best ever?

On the flip side, what about those who didn't quite manage their aims? While there can only be one winner, the tales of those who fell short make for equally interesting deliberation. Can Justin Rose recover from his latest heartbreak? What happened to one of the pre-tournament favorites Jon Rahm?

We will answer each of those questions and more in this week's Inside The Ropes. And if you have any thoughts on any of the subjects we touch on, please feel free to use the comment box below this article to share your opinions.

IS RORY MCILROY THE GREATEST EUROPEAN GOLFER EVER?

EH: Now McIlroy has matched Sir Nick Faldo's total of six Majors, I genuinely believe he can lay claim to being Europe's greatest ever golfer.

The stats certainly point to him when you add up his entire body of work, from Majors, to being the only man from his continent to win the career slam, his Ryder Cup record, PGA Tour wins, time spent as World No.1 and his season-long FedEx Cup and Race to Dubai titles.

When you add it all up, he's on top. He is also 36 and remains in his prime years with plenty more achievements to come.

JL: My reservations over anything like this are always centered around a desire not to be led by recency bias - people understandably find it easier to put current achievements into context more easily.

But, either way, looking at cold, hard figures and stats while comparing the careers of players like Nick Faldo and Seve Ballesteros, it all paints McIlroy as the best European player ever in so many categories.

I'd say it's close, but McIlroy is now the best ever. Should he win two or three more Majors, there won't even be a reasonable debate.

WHAT NEXT FOR RORY MCILROY?

EH: Phil Mickelson didn't win his first Major until the age of 33, so McIlroy sitting there with six Majors at 36 is very, very impressive.

He struggled with knowing what to do after completing the career grand slam last year but he has clearly reset his goals with has his eyes now set on winning as many Majors as possible to create a legacy as one of the sport's greatest ever players.

It almost seems unfathomable that he won't win another Green Jacket, and I would be surprised if he didn't complete a second career slam in winning the US Open and The Open again in the next decade. That would take him to nine Majors, but I can now see him even surpassing that.

If he stays healthy, he will have something like another 50 chances to win Majors. If I had to make a prediction, I would say his total number could be in the 10-12 range. I think getting the slam out of the way and that Masters monkey off of his back could be the catalyst for a magical back nine in what is already a phenomenal career.

JL: I really think he can win at least one or two more Masters Tournaments during his career. Last week's performance was far from his best and McIlroy still emerged victorious, so I can see him edging closer to Woods and Nicklaus for overall wins at Augusta.

To be honest, part of me wonders how he ever misses out on the top-10 when the course so clearly suits his game.

Otherwise, McIlroy will probably want to wrap up the record number of Race To Dubai wins as soon as possible.

It will be tough this year with Patrick Reed still 500 points ahead and playing regularly on the DP World Tour, but I wouldn't put it past the six-time Major winner to find a way late in the year once he returns from the PGA Tour.

CAN JUSTIN ROSE BOUNCE BACK?

EH: Yes, Justin Rose can bounce back and he will. Like McIlroy, all Rose cares about these days are the four Majors. I believe he is too talented, too professional and has put in too much work to be denied.

Assuming he keeps his spirits high and continues believing in himself and grinding, I am confident he will win another Major. He is just too good.

JL: Plain and simply, I think he can and I know he will. I've already a piece outlining why last week wasn't the end of Rose's Major chances, and I fully believe every word.

Not only do I think he could still come good in the year's remaining Majors, but the Englishman's fantastic sense of perspective - not unlike his compatriot Tommy Fleetwood's - will stand him in great stead to continue competing for titles on the PGA Tour.

Don't you worry about ol' Rosie. He'll be back.

IS LIV GOLF HURTING JON RAHM?

EH: I looked clear as day to me that Jon Rahm is missing out by not playing on the PGA Tour. I wouldn't necessarily say LIV Golf is hurting his Major chances but I would say that not playing on the PGA Tour is.

If he had played Pebble Beach, Riviera, Bay Hill and TPC Sawgrass this year I think he would have been faster out of the blocks. Had there been a LIV event at Augusta National last week with their usual 57-man field and music blaring, he would have challenged for the title.

He has had 29 top-10s in 30 LIV Golf starts yet he has three top-10s in his eight Majors since joining LIV. He is under pressure as he has to justify playing in the league as opposed to the Tour, and that must be getting to him.

He is not having to worry about missing cuts when he plays or competing against the likes of McIlroy, Scheffler, Schauffele, Fleetwood, Young and the rest of the PGA Tour's top stars.

I would not be surprised to see Rahm take the Koepka route back to the Tour next year to aide his Major chances, as I truly believe he is a generational talent who can win many, many Majors.

JL: For me, this is one of the great mysteries of modern golf. I just cannot understand why Jon Rahm is statistically ranked as the best golfer on the planet for 2026 and inhabits the top-10 on LIV Golf leaderboards with such unflinching regularity but isn't able to perform at Majors.

Plenty of LIV Golf's critics will say Rahm is playing on "easier" courses every week and that isn't helping. But I don't know for a fact that's true. They're still tough enough to keep him fine-tuned, surely?

Even if they're not, he's still more than good enough to be able to adjust at the four biggest championships and play better than he has been doing.

At The Masters, Rahm said it was his decision making that let him down and he would be changing his preparation for next year. What exactly that entails is anyone's guess, but Rahm needs to start performing at the Majors or the LIV Golf-shaped stick people are using to beat him with is only going to become bigger and stronger.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS?

EH: The Masters is far and away the best individual golf tournament in the sport. McIlroy, Young and Rose all surged into the lead and they all went backwards each time.

Why? Because there is absolutely nothing like Augusta National and the back nine on Sunday at The Masters. The pressure is like nothing else in the game, and it feels like a Major where only the best can truly contend in the latter stages.

While the PGA Championship is trending down as the no.4 of the four Majors, I think The Masters continues its climb as a comfortable no.1 to be regarded as the most important tournament a male professional golfer can win.

JL: My AOB relates to Max Homa. As a fellow super-fan of legendary TV show The Office, I love to see Homa playing well and it's been sad to see him struggle for form over the past couple of years.

Strangely, The Masters has been a saving grace of sorts during that time with a T3rd finish in 2024 and a T12th last year.

But with two missed cuts on the PGA Tour prior to rocking up at Augusta National and having notched just one top-20 this term (T13th), external hopes were not that high on my end.

Nevertheless, rounds of 72, 70 and 71 were preceded by a five-under 67 which left Homa T9th - a result which can hopefully kick start his season and beyond.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about The Masters.

The relief radiating out of Rory McIlroy following his first Masters victory in 2025 was palpable, with what looked like a lifetime of pent-up hope - which morphed into near expectation - draining out of him once the final putt disappeared.

The realization of his actions hit McIlroy like a train. He sank down to his haunches and almost melted, the water flowing out of his eyes like a gushing Rae's Creek.

The reaction was completely understandable, mind. It was a conversation that dominated Masters week every single April for well over a decade - 'when will McIlroy win The Masters?'

He'd won the other three Majors and was the dominant force in men's golf for years. Therefore, fans and experts alike felt it was only a matter of time. Yet, with every unsuccessful year passing by, the pressure seemed to rise.

McIlroy came so close to ending his strife on a few occasions, but a couple of runner-ups and a handful of top-10s were never enough to dampen the noise.

But then he did it. Defeating Justin Rose in a playoff, one of the most popular golfers on the planet allowed his fans to live vicariously through him for a few moments in celebrating the monumental achievement.

His tears were the patrons' tears. His roars of delight were echoed around the world. The way McIlroy greeted his daughter Poppy was the way plenty who had followed his career wanted to say congratulations. It was a universally popular success.

12 months later, who is next in line to give the fans the most emotional of victories? Who has been through so much that only a Green Jacket would be just reward? Who would a Masters win mean the most to this time around? Below, we've shared a handful of names we believe fit the bill.

WHO WOULD A MASTERS WIN MEAN THE MOST TO?

BROOKS KOEPKA

When I ran through the list of names entered into The Masters field this year, I came up with eight to 10 genuine contenders who fit this question.

Without going into detail on all of them, there are some who have been questioned over their ability to close tournaments of late and then there are others who would prove to be extremely popular champions - subsequently cementing their status as true greats of the game.

But the name I've come up with is an interesting one, I think. Contrary to popular opinion, I believe Justin Rose could and would look back on his career with immense satisfaction and pride whether he earns a Green Jacket or not.

However, I don't think I could say the same for Brooks Koepka. The five-time Major winner is a born champion and - to me - The Masters is the one tournament he would love to win, even if he never hoisted another trophy again in his career.

He took a risk going to LIV and he's taking another risk coming back. The 35-year-old has also suffered greatly away from the course over the past year or so and I think if he were to somehow discover some of the old magic, we could see a side to Brooks that maybe even he didn't know was there.

Koepka has been through so much in his career and in his personal life that I think a Masters victory would hold more meaning than any of his rivals.

JUSTIN ROSE

Any other year in recent times, the answer would be obvious, but with Rory McIlroy finally winning the Green Jacket last year, it leaves a few other contenders in my mind.

I can see how a Masters win would mean the world to Bryson DeChambeau, given his dedication and the close calls he’s had in the last two years, but I could also make a case for Collin Morikawa or Brooks Koepka considering how often both have contended at Augusta National recently without getting over the line.

But for me, no one will want it more than the man McIlroy beat last year, Justin Rose.

His Farmers Insurance Open win in January proved he’s still one of the best in the business, but at 45, time isn’t really on his side, at least where Majors are concerned.

Only Phil Mickelson has won a Major after turning 50, so surely Rose will need to do it before long if he’s to add to his 2013 US Open title.

Not only do I think the title would mean more to Rose than anyone this year, but he’d be a worthy champion, particularly after last year’s near miss and the classy way he dealt with his playoff defeat.

And who wouldn’t want to see him tee it up at Augusta National decades from now with a lifetime exemption to his name? Get it done, Rosie!

MATT FITZPATRICK OR JUSTIN ROSE

Every golfer wants to win The Masters, perhaps more than any other event. But, when I was asked this question, my instinctive first thought was Matt Fitzpatrick. He's a golfer who's consistently been around the top levels of the game, but has never truly been recognized as one of the very best.

He's had a strong start to 2026 and looks to be in his best form in years after winning the Valspar Championship and coming second at The Players. With a baby on the way, too, now would be a perfect time for Fitzpatrick to land the ultimate prize and prove he's one of the world's best.

Another player that immediately came to mind was Justin Rose. He was the nearly-man last year amid Rory McIlroy's glorious win, and that wasn't the first time the veteran has fallen at the final hurdle at Augusta National.

Rose has been playing some delightful golf for a couple of years now and looks like he's brimming with confidence every time he steps out, but at 45-years-old, I can't help but feel it's a case of now or never for the Brit.

He's not won a major since 2013, and bringing that Green Jacket home now would be a stunning way to crown a brilliant career.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about Team USA's next Ryder Cup captain.

For the second Ryder Cup in a row, the countdown to the biggest team event in golf has ticked past '18 months to go' and Team USA remains without a captain.

Keegan Bradley was only officially unveiled in July 2024 before an error-strewn week at Bethpage Black in September 2025 was almost saved by a remarkable near-comeback in the Sunday Singles.

Whether it was a relative lack of preparation time or simply the PGA of America picking the wrong man at the wrong time, Team USA cannot afford another calamity this time.

At this stage, it's far from a sporting disaster, but every week that passes by without a leader potentially increases Team Europe's chances of retaining the trophy for another two years.

After all, blue-and-gold chief Luke Donald is already preparing for a third-straight crack at maintaining his 100% Ryder Cup record and he must be feeling quietly confident of doing so given the current situation.

Under growing pressure, the PGA of America is acutely aware it must fill the position of Team USA captain sooner rather than later.

However, the governing body's task has probably just been made that little bit tougher by the likely withdrawal of Tiger Woods from the running due to his latest round of personal problems.

But if not Woods, then who should be Team USA's Ryder Cup captain at Adare Manor in 2027? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments below. In the meantime, here is who some of the Golf Monthly team would choose.

STEVE STRICKER

If I'm on the PGA of America board, there's only one name I'm realistically interested in proposing at this stage - Steve Stricker.

Team USA has been beaten up too many times now in recent iterations and they just need someone who is going to win the Cup back rather than planning for the future with a younger name.

Who better than the man who orchestrated an absolute hammering of Team Europe in 2021? OK, there were a few key caveats involved, but Stricker's no-nonsense approach and previous experience would at least give the visiting team a fighting chance, I feel.

He would believe in them and fill them with confidence but tell each player what they needed to hear if necessary as well.

It will be a tough task to dislodge the trophy from European hands away from the States, but with a truly dedicated captain who knows how to get the job done, Team USA would head over to Ireland fully prepared.

BRANDT SNEDEKER

I think Stewart Cink will get the call as captain, due to his popularity, his status as an international Major winner and his experience in the Ryder Cup. He was a vice captain on away soil in 2023 and again at the Presidents Cup in 2024.

The 2009 Open champion made five appearances for Team USA in the Ryder Cup and four in the Presidents Cup. He is a well-respected, experienced head who looks to be the obvious choice.

However, in saying that, I believe Brandt Snedeker should be the leader in Ireland. Snedeker is the 2026 Presidents Cup captain and I simply believe a sensible change in strategy for the US would be to keep the same skipper for both the Presidents and Ryder Cup.

It would allow for continuity, team building and the chance for the Presidents Cup to become somewhat of an official 'test run'.

STEVE STRICKER

Personally, I think Team USA will opt for someone who has held the captaincy role previously and, given his success in 2021 (albeit in front of a partisan US crowd due to Covid-19 travel restrictions), I suspect that Steve Stricker might get the call up for 2027.

An historic performance at Whistling Straits showed that he is capable and, given his playing time is on the PGA Tour Champions circuit, he would have more time to take on the captaincy, given that Keegan Bradley will be playing on the PGA Tour.

USA did go for youth with Bradley in New York, and I could see that being a potential option again, but given that Brandt Snedeker is on captain duties for the Presidents Cup and Bradley is still a regular on the PGA Tour, I think Stricker will take the role on, based on past success and playing time.

WEBB SIMPSON

I don't see any stand-out candidates to be the USA's next Ryder Cup captain. There's no way it'll be Tiger Woods given his recent statement, so that leaves Keegan Bradley – he deserves some credit for America's battling performance on the final day at Bethpage Black – and his vice-captains from last year as the most viable options.

It's far too big an ask for Gary Woodland given what's he's going through, and I'm not sure Kevin Kisner is captaincy material.

Jim Furyk had a terrible Ryder Cup record as a player and he lost convincingly in France in 2018 when he was captain, so that leaves Brandt Snedeker and Webb Simpson.

Both are well-liked individuals who still play on the PGA Tour and competed in multiple Ryder Cups, but I'd be tempted to lean towards Simpson.

He had a reasonable record as a player and he's a player director on the PGA Tour's policy board, so I'd give him the nod.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about those tour rules we would love to change.

If you're anything like us, watching tour golf every week will often spark a thought in your head about how - if you were commissioner or CEO - a couple of little tweaks here or there would make the game so much better for everyone involved.

Don't get me wrong, the leading tours have continued to evolve in recent years as they strive to create the most watchable event for the fans and offer up the most competitive and enjoyable tournament for players.

There has been the soft introduction of range finders, the area relating to preferred lies has been reduced and shot clocks are slowly being brought in to speed up play.

But still, there remains several ideas on the table which - if brought to fruition - we believe would elevate tour golf beyond its already lofty heights. Below, we've lifted the lid on a handful of rules we would love to see changed on tour right now.

ABOLISH THE TIO RULE

My first change would be to abolish the Temporary Immovable Object rule. We see players regularly hitting into grandstands and taking free drops because a temporary structure has been built for the tournament.

I think grandstands and leaderboards should be considered as part of the course during tour events, and players who hit into or behind them should need to take penalty drops. They know they're there, so they should know to stay away from them.

It would make the courses more difficult and also increase safety for fans. If there's water left and a grandstand right, is it really fair that a player can just bail out into the grandstand for a free drop? I think not.

ONE PUTTER STYLE FOR EVERYONE

I'd also like to see a number of equipment restrictions in the pro game, and one I've recently landed on is on the putting green. It was after I heard Rory McIlroy talking about how you have to be so much more precise with a blade putter, so I think all pros should have to used bladed putters - with a maximum length of 36 inches.

These are the best golfers in the entire world, so benefitting from zero torque technology with high MOI designs takes away some of the skill.

Players back in the day were not putting with incredibly stable space ships, so I would propose limiting putter tech to a minimum on tour and let's find out who the best putters really are.

30-SECOND SHOT LIMIT

The most obvious place to start is slow play. In my view, if it takes you more than 30 seconds to hit your shot when it's your turn – measured from the time your playing partner's ball finishes to when your ball strikes the club face – you should be given a one-shot penalty.

If you're the first in the group to play, the situation is slightly different and this rule wouldn't apply. But if you're the second or third, there's simply no excuse.

BAN CLOSE-RANGE BALL MARKING

I'd also introduce a ban on balls being marked within three feet of the cup. A professional golfer should be able to hole a putt from extremely close range without going through the tedious process of marking and painstakingly realigning.

Finally, I'd abandon two-balls over the weekend and stick to three-ball golf for all four rounds – I think it makes for more exciting viewing when there are more people in each group.

STOP CADDIES USING AIMPOINT

This article has arrived at a great time because it's something that's bothered me for a while, and then I saw Gary Woodland's caddie Brennan Little doing it at the Texas Children's Houston Open on Sunday.

I want a rule introduced where no one other than the player is allowed to use Aimpoint to read a putt. To be clear, I don't want Aimpoint banned. I have no problem with the technique.

But what I can't stand is caddies straddling putt lines for players and holding a couple of fingers up while the pro continues to check out his intended start line.

Bin that off right now. I don't want caddies to be allowed to do anything more on the greens that discuss a line and speed with their pro. End of story.

ON-COURSE OUTBURSTS SHOULD BE PUNISHED

My other rules proposal is one that will make anyone who knows me personally drop their jaw and utter the phrase involving the words "pot, kettle and black."

Nevertheless, I believe that tour pros should face a stroke penalty for every tantrum/paddy/strop they have on course. Any thumping of the turf with their club? Penalty. Smashing their bag? Penalty. Snapping a club. Penalty.

Control your emotions better, people. The first incident should be a one-stroke penalty, then two strokes for a second infringement at a tournament and so on.

Tour pros are role models and their actions have wider consequences than they might realize. It's time for the tours to take meaningful action on this subject.

NO ROUGH-FREE EVENTS

This example actually irritated me at the PGA Tour event in Houston this week... where is all the rough?! Call me a traditionalist, but missing the fairway should carry some consequence.

Cutting it down to something the resembles a fairway at most member's clubs is a joke when you consider the field that is playing the event. These are the best players in the world, so why aren't we serving them penal rough that actually offers jeopardy for errant tee shots.

Gary Woodland ranked outside the top-40 for driving accuracy this week, and runner-up Nicolai Hojgaard ranked 65th in the same category out of the 70-odd players that made the cut.

How can the top two on the leaderboard get away with spraying it all over the place and still contending at a PGA Tour event? It's scandalous.

On a side note, I am actually so pleased for Gary Woodland, and this is not personal, but the example that I shared did make me cross.

I would introduce a rule that says the rough must be at least 3 inches long at every PGA Tour venue. Then players will be forced to really demonstrate their skill off the tee.

Are there any that we've missed? Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below!

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for various members of the Golf Monthly team to share their honest thoughts on some of the biggest talking points in the game. This week, it's all about our dream golfing fourballs.

Everyone has their dream fourball, right? You talk about the line-up with your buddies out on the course or when you're watching the golf on a Sunday and imagine what it would be like if you were lucky enough to spend four hours with *them*.

Some might pick the legendary Major winners, just to witness their greatness up close, while others would love to tee it up alongside their favorite characters from the current crop.

The point is, not everyone is going to pick Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy. Talk about pressure, by the way...

Below, a number of the Golf Monthly team have chosen their dream fourball and explained a little bit about why each player made the cut. Please tell us your own version in the comments box below this article.

I could pick Nicklaus, Woods or McIlroy - of course I could. I could also go for Annika Sorenstam, Charley Hull or Nelly Korda. And as lovely as I'm sure those people are, I just want to have a good time out there and I don't want any real pressure.

As a result, I've gone for three of the nicest pro golfers I can think of. David Howell is the leader of that particular pack, and he's also the man who inspired me to follow the sport in the first place. We hail from the same place in England and I've had the good fortune to speak to him a fair few times over the years.

Then there's arguably the most popular tour pro in the modern game, Tommy Fleetwood. He appears to do everything in exactly the manner you'd hope someone would, and he's a world-class player to boot.

Finally, I would love to invite Joel Dahmen along. I found his appearance on Full Swing absolutely fascinating and I think he'd be really cool to play golf with. I'd love to speak to him for a few hours and understand him even better as a person. Plus, he is obviously unbelievably good at golf, and that would be really cool to see.

• Joel Dahmen
• Tommy Fleetwood
• David Howell

I know including Tiger Woods lacks some originality, but I'd love four hours in his company to attempt to dig a little deeper and find out some fascinating tidbits from his life and career.

Playing with the best golfer who's ever lived (sorry Jack) wouldn't be a bad second prize if he failed to divulge anything of interest, either.

I've been a huge fan of Justin Rose for his entire career and followed his journey very closely, so it would be a real treat to play 18 holes with the affable Englishman.

My Harold Varner shout is a bit rogue, but I've heard stories about him being wacky and very entertaining during practice rounds.

As someone who doesn't take themselves too seriously and enjoys a bit of banter, I think he'd be the perfect fourth member.

• Justin Rose
• Harold Varner III
• Tiger Woods

I remember the impression Seve Ballesteros made on me as a youngster. For me, he combined utter fearlessness with boundless charisma, making him stand out a mile.

He was a magician on the course, while I doubt there was a room he walked into where he didn’t command attention. So he’s one of my picks.

On another day, I’d probably opt for Tiger Woods here, but instead, I’ve gone for someone of a similar temperament who always intrigued me, Nick Faldo.

His precise approach to the game didn’t always make him easy to warm to, while his media portrayal as an aloof figure rubbed plenty up the wrong way, but I always admired his bloody-mindedness.

I’ll never forget watching on TV after he confounded his critics to win the 1992 Open at Muirfield, then let them know what he thought about them in his victory speech.

Nowadays, I don’t think anyone in the game is more fascinating than Rory McIlroy, which is why he’s my final pick. I love the fact that when he’s on song, he can take rivals out of contention in the space of a few holes. But he’s flawed, too, and can just as easily do something that leaves you completely baffled.

But that just makes him human, and for me, it’s what sets him apart from others who operate at a similar level. He’s not perfect, he wears his heart on his sleeve, and for all the talent, fame and fortune, you get the impression he’s still one of us.

• Seve Ballesteros
• Nick Faldo
• Rory McIlroy

My dream fourball is the perfect blend of vibes and feeding my unhealthy obsession with Tiger Woods.

If anyone has the chance to play a round of golf with any player of their choosing and they don't choose Tiger Woods I would unfortunately have to judge you scathingly.

Tiger is the greatest player to ever hit a golf ball, in my opinion, so I would love to see him go about his business on the course - up close and personal.

I would also go for Viktor Hovland, because he seems like the nicest guy in golf and his sense of humour is fantastic, and Tyrrell Hatton because I love his honest and slightly self-depricating approach to the game.

You haven't asked me this, but I am going to tell you anyway, the pairs match would be Tiger and I (obviously) against Viktor and Tyrrell. I'm so getting in Hatton's head!

• Tyrrell Hatton
• Viktor Hovland
• Tiger Woods

In my head, they are all personal friends of mine, in reality I’ve been swayed by some fancy hairdos.

Paul Way had a ridiculous combo of Popeye-like forearms and a wedge haircut that anyone who lived through the 80s would be proud of. Tommy Fleetwood is the nicest and most normal person on the planet (and brilliant company to play golf with, he humbly bragged).

Then there is Robert Rock who is everything that we should look for in our golfing heroes; the hair, lack of polyester trousers, a swing helped by Mac O’Grady and some good old-fashioned modesty and cool.

I think I’d feel under less pressure partnering Rock. The stories, across the years, would be phenomenal.

• Tommy Fleetwood
• Robert Rock
• Paul Way

As self-appointed President of the Golf Monthly Rory Fan Club, I simply have to pick Mr McIlroy. I want to see that low stinger driver shot he's perfected in person, but we can also bond about our mutual love of Manchester United and perhaps discuss Ireland's stunning 42-21 away win over England in the rugby last month.

Our third is none other than Seve Ballesteros because, well, Seve.

Rounding out the four ball is a newcomer to the golf scene in Lebron James. Not only will he be the worst golfer in the group which will make me look better, he'd keep the vibes high and no doubt share some interesting stories.

Myself and Rory can also ask him his thoughts on Manchester United's stunning 2-1 victory in November over Liverpool, the club he co-owns.

• Seve Ballesteros
• Lebron James
• Rory McIlroy

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's tour experts to share their honest opinions on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, we're looking back on The Players Championship.

Cameron Young birdied the 17th before parring the last to pip Matt Fitzpatrick by a single stroke and secure his biggest win to date at The Players Championship.

The famous PGA Tour event is regarded as the men's game's unofficial fifth Major due to the strength of field, history and the iconic course, and it once again delivered a thrilling climax in front of huge galleries.

A big week like that always throws up plenty of storylines, so what are our main takeaways from the 2026 Players Championship?

Here, our news team points out their key observations from this year's staging of the PGA Tour's flagship event...and let us know your view in the comments section below.

Rollback

When Ludvig Aberg struck his drive 306 yards down the middle of the 11th fairway, it looked like just another striped tee shot from the world class Swede.

Yet the slow-motion replay showed an impact right out of the toe, which fanned open courtesy of some cutting edge MOI tech to stop the ball hooking left into trouble.

It made me, and many others on social media, question why the world's top players are able to benefit from such amazing technology. Yes, it's great for us average Joes who play the game for enjoyment, but should the top 0.01% of the world's golfers be playing with clubs that are so easy to hit?

The golf ball is being rolled back some 5-10% in 2030 - which I now do not think is going far enough after Cameron Young hit the longest drive in shotlink history down 18 (375 yards) to leave a flick of a wedge into the green - but driver heads surely need looking at, too.

The top players are so, so good that seeing them stripe their 460cc drivers 300+ yards down the middle almost every time just doesn't seem right anymore. Let them show off their skill by hitting smaller-headed clubs like some of the best players who came before them.

The Players is all-but a Major...now it needs LIV Golfers

TPC Sawgrass again produced a superb final day and the event as a whole is head and shoulders above anything else the PGA Tour puts on. I'm a big fan of the Genesis Invitational and events like the WM Phoenix Open and Pebble Beach Pro-Am but they're not in the same league as The Players.

The course is just so good for tournament golf, with the final three holes always showcasing drama. Add in the thousands upon thousands of fans along with the huge money and points on the line, and we're already at a place where it's pretty much a Major already.

The Players is undoubtedly the fifth-best in the world and I genuinely think it will be classed as on-par with a Major in the coming years if Bryson DeChambeau, Jon Rahm and some other big name LIV Golfers are allowed back.

The PGA Tour is lacking stars and big characters right now. Cameron Young played so well but did not even manage a smile or fist pump after winning while showing zero emotion throughout. That's fine but it doesn't exactly get you excited the way a DeChambeau or Rahm do.

Trending

We're a good way into the season now and we're starting to see some trending players ahead of Major season.

I'd be inclined to bet on Xander Schauffele and Brooks Koepka for the Masters based on what we've seen so far.

Schauffele, who was so good in his Baycurrent Classic win last year, gained strokes in all departments of the game (including over 7 strokes with his irons to rank 1st in Approach) and finished just two back in 3rd-place despite a 74 on Saturday.

He's got a good Masters record and looks to be trending very nicely.

Koepka also seems to be getting back into the swing of things and would have finished inside the top-10 had it not been for a double-bogey on 18.

He still has some work to do on the greens (losing 1.155 strokes to rank 53rd) but he has now been T9 and T13 in his last two starts. They're very good signs ahead of Augusta, where he has twice finished T2nd.

He has two more events before The Masters so will be heading into Major season very sharp. I would not be surprised to see him as a six-time Major champion by the end of the year.

The Players should stand alone as The Players

The big talking point has been around whether The Players Championship should be a Major and, for me, based on what I've seen over last week, it shouldn't.

Personally, I believe men's golf should remain as four Majors, with The Players Championship remaining as a standalone tournament in itself.

The Majors are the Majors and The Players is The Players. TPC Sawgrass is a great canvas, so keep the tournament as it is, we don't need the change and another Major in the US.

A first-time Major winner for The Masters

Looking at The Players Championship leaderboard, just three Major winners appeared in the top 10, with those being Matt Fitzpatrick, Xander Schauffele and Justin Thomas.

For me, there are so many players coming into form (Young, Bridgeman, MacIntyre to name a few), and being consistent, at this point of the year.

Bigger names are also not firing as much as we would imagine, so I think this will be the year where someone slips on the Green Jacket as a first-time Major winner.

'Fans' please start behaving

Speaking of Augusta National, it is one of my favorite tournaments for many reasons, with one being down to the fact that those in attendance are forced to behave themselves. You kick off, or shout something stupid like "mashed potatoes," then you're asked to leave.

Unfortunately, since the Ryder Cup, it seems that those in attendance at most golf events have become more and more boisterous and, with it, more disrespectful.

Yes, US fans will be supporting their American counterpart, but to boo Fitzpatrick in the final stages was just wrong. Players are there to win, but also put on a show for the fans, so don't ruin it by acting unruly.

Sawgrass shines

Despite being one of the shortest par 72s on the PGA Tour, in many ways TPC Sawgrass is the perfect golf tournament host.

The closing stretch in particular is phenomenal – the gettable par-5 16th ranked as the easiest hole on the course and a chance to pick up shots before hanging on for dear life hitting to 17 and then closing with the brilliant 18th, the hardest hole.

Overall it’s the volatility of Sawgrass that is its brilliance. With five par-4s under 425 yards it shows length isn’t everything as big numbers lurk everywhere. It’s played as the hardest PGA Tour course so far this season overall and the 191 double bogeys and 36 triples or worse was by far the most.

And last season only the US Open at Oakmont saw more of those big numbers. If only more courses were like this.

A different Cam Young

Cam Young took 94 starts to win his first PGA Tour at last year’s Wyndham, he took just 11 more to claims his second, and a huge one at that. He finished 5-11-T4-T9-10 after his Wyndham win last year and went T7-T3 before winning at Sawgrass.

Being one of the few bright spots for Team USA at the Ryder Cup was another huge confidence booster and you only have to look at how Young played 17 and 18 at Sawgrass to see why this new Cam Young is a different man.

He’s got six top 10s in his last 15 Majors and now with a mindset to go with his talent he’ll be a big force in golf’s big ones this year.

Ludvig Aberg can bounce back – and maybe at The Masters

Ludvig Aberg’s Sunday collapse could break some golfers, but he looks to have the mental toughness to get through it – and as he put it himself it was mainly two bad swings that cost him.

His post-round interviews were excellent, showing the right amount of disappointment but also positivity and self-analysis, and sometimes these bitter losses can spark an extra determination to win – think Cam Young, Tommy Fleetwood and even Xander Schauffele.

If Aberg can use this in the right way he certainly has the game to go win a big one, and why not at Augusta where he’s finished second and seventh and where taking the par-5s apart is key to victory.

Aberg had three eagles and was 11 under on the par-5s at Sawgrass.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's tour experts to share their honest opinions on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about The Players Championship.

Every year around early March, or maybe even just before, a debate is sparked on planet golf - should The Players Championship become a Major?

The conversation has been taking place for years now and even the pros themselves have often weighed in - take Russell Henley just last week, for example. The Georgian was the latest to outright say he considers The Players a Major.

Meanwhile, greats of the game like Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy have positioned themselves just on the other side of the fence, building up the TPC Sawgrass-based event as "one of a kind" but stating that it doesn't need to hold Major status.

Those in favor of making it so point to the fact The Players has the prestige, the history, the prize money, the field and the host course to rival any of the other four biggest championships in men's professional golf.

However, those against would argue The Players is purely a PGA Tour-centric event, its field cannot be considered of a Major standard if certain tours are not invited or even allowed to compete and that there are countless other tournaments which have hold more history in their fairways.

The debate is a good one, though, with a healthy number of worthwhile points belonging to either side - ideas which are constantly evolving as the golfing planet keeps on spinning.

Let us know in the comments whether you believe The Players Championship should be designated as a Major? Meanwhile, some of Golf Monthly's tour experts have had their say...

It pains me to say it as a traditionalist and knowing just how messed up the history books will become, but I do think The Players should become a Major. I mean, it already is when you look at the money, world ranking points and other perks players get for winning it.

I say that with the caveat that it cannot currently demand Major status without inviting LIV Golf’s top stars as a Major has all of the best golfers in the world and The Players does not currently have that.

Once that is sorted out, which it eventually will be, I think the men’s game will finally have five Majors. Fans won’t like it but it is inevitable.

The Players has a strong identity now, arguably stronger than the PGA Championship, with a very good history, a seriously strong list of winners and an amazing golf course. It is a Major in almost every department already.

International fans also will not like four of the five Majors taking place in the US, but the reality is that is where the money, viewership and best players all are.

The Players at TPC Sawgrass is one of the best tournaments in the world and with Brian Rolapp at the helm of the PGA Tour, funded by SSG’s billions, I can only see it growing to the point where it cannot simply be classed as the ‘next-best’ tournament anymore.

I hate this debate with a passion. No, it shouldn't be a Major. Why does it have to be? It's simply a PR stunt from the PGA Tour, which is effectively trying to add a Major tag to an event LIV Golfers are excluded from.

I'm not a fan of the Saudi-backed circuit at all, but events can't be Majors if they omit some of the best players in the world. History and tradition bring meaning to professional sport, and men's golf has four Majors. That's the way it should always be.

If that changes, records and historical data would need to be recontextualised. What for? So the PGA Tour can claim a PR victory. It's a nonsense debate and I truly wish it would stop.

It's a pretty emphatic no from me, for a few reasons. Firstly, I don’t think men's golf needs a fifth Major as four is enough already, they’re the best events in golf with years of history and tradition and I just don’t see the need to manufacture a fifth one at The Players.

And also, I don’t really see anything wrong with The Players as it is – it's a brilliant event with a stellar field (although it could be slightly better with a few LIV players sprinkled in there) played at an iconic venue that’s seen some great finishes down the years.

It’s a top tournament that doesn’t need Major status, it has it’s own special place in golf - so just let the Majors be the Majors and the Players be the Players, they’re the cream of the crop in golf just as they are so why mess with them?

It has to be a no from me, if only because The Players belongs to the PGA Tour. None of the other four Majors are run by a tour, and I think it would be an extremely sad day for the sport if and when that changes.

The Players is the crowning jewel for the PGA Tour, and it can make the event as fancy and shiny as it wants. It can add in more money or change the field size, but money doesn't buy you status - at least not in this case - and unless everyone is allowed in, that's an easy rejection in my eyes.

Without delving too deeply into changes to Majors, if there were to be any alterations, the PGA Championship should be taken all around the world like The Olympics - that's how you really grow the game.

But, returning to the question at hand, The Players can only ever be the best event of the year on the PGA Tour and nothing more. It's arguably LIV Golf Adelaide on the PIF-backed circuit and possibly the BMW PGA Championship on the DP World Tour.

Those tournaments are what The Players should measure itself up against, not the Majors, and I for one hope that never changes.

Personally, I don't think you can class a competition as a Major if players from certain Tours aren't allowed to play in it.

Yes, The Players Championship possesses the best field in golf, but that's because the PGA Tour benefits the most from the Official World Golf Ranking. When the likes of Bryson DeChambeau and Jon Rahm from LIV Golf aren't in the field, or even allowed in the field, then can you call it the best field in golf?

I've said numerous times, but the US having another Major would be wrong, in my eyes. They already possess 75% of the big four, so adding another Major to the US would make it 80%.

Money and viewership is the issue, but if a Major event could be held in Australia, South America or Asia, then it would be so much better and enhance golf's global reach.

The world is full of amazing golf courses and fans so, if a fifth Major were introduced, I'd rather it be in these regions than the US.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's expert team to share its honest thoughts on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about our unpopular tour golf opinions.

We all have an opinion on the game of golf. Whether it's the pro game or the amateur side, there are so many thoughts and feeling expressed on a daily basis in clubhouses and online all over the world.

There are many subjects in the game that most people agree on. Then there are topics which offer a completely different thought depending on who you ask. In addition, there are the areas of golf which divide us all down the middle.

However, the beauty of humans - at least in principle - is that we can all enjoy a healthy debate about whatever we think and hopefully learn a thing or two along the way.

But what about those opinions which you know do not fit into the majority of golfer's thinking? Do you ever bring it up or just quietly imagine speaking to an imaginary crowd who all cheer and clap when you illustrate your point?

If you're in the latter camp, you've come to the right place. Feel free to take that weight off your shoulders by dropping your unpopular opinion on golf in the comments box below.

Perhaps you'll gain some unexpected support or even take on a new point of view from a fellow reader. In the meantime, some of the Golf Monthly team have shared their unpopular golf opinion - specifically on the tour game.

THE DP WORLD TOUR IS THE BEST CIRCUIT

There. I said it. The DP World Tour is the best pro golf circuit on the planet. Better than the PGA Tour, better than the LPGA Tour, better than the LIV Golf League and so on.

There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the stories that are told each week are often of players looking for their breakthrough moment - their first win on tour or even their first big pay check after struggling to make ends meet for so many years.

I know there aren't as many top-50 golfers as other circuits, but these guys are still world class, only with a sense of fallibility which leads to higher levels of entertainment. I like the "thrill" - for want of a better term - that comes with surfing the emotional rollercoaster these players and stories offer up.

For me, more so than the PGA Tour and LIV at least, the DP World Tour gives a platform to "real" people who might not even be recognized if they walked into a local grocery store, for example. There's a level of humility to the competitors, and I like that.

On a similar note, the prize money isn't absolutely ridiculous like it is on the other two big tours. Players are changing their lives through manageable chunks instead of earning $4 million and acting like it's nothing. Plus, DP World Tour players mostly celebrate their wins with real emotion, too, something that seems to happen less and less elsewhere.

I'd also like to give a shout out to the DP World Tour's social media team and support staff as well, while I'm here. The content they put out to engage fans is so good time after time. It's imaginative, funny, entertaining - everything you'd want - and they include all levels of players, not just the big names.

Another reason it's the best tour in the world is that the circuit travels all over the globe, giving fans and players an opportunity to learn about other cultures and take the game to those who often watch on from afar. I know LIV does this to a certain extent, but there are only 13 events whereas the DP World Tour is almost year-round.

You might say that there are tours which do individual things better than the DP World Tour, but nowhere does it better as a collective.

THE PGA TOUR IS NOT GOOD FOR THE GLOBAL GAME

I'm not sure the PGA Tour is good for the global game. The DP World Tour is a shadow of its former self and the fields it attracts between February and July are generally poor and devoid of top-50 players in the world.

The riches and world ranking points on offer in America from the start of the year until the FedExCup have effectively rendered the DP World Tour a feeder circuit in that time, which is such a shame, because the 'European' circuit visits some fantastic golf courses and stages events with real history and prestige.

The other issue is there's even less motivation for American players – hardly the most intrepid bunch to begin with – to travel the world and be ambassadors for the game globally.

Frankly, it's ludicrous how many world ranking points the PGA Tour awards and tying this almost exclusively to the strength of the field is negligent. Sadly, golf has become all about paying the players top dollars and keeping sponsors on side.

Is the circuit better that it was ten years ago? Absolutely not. The Signature Event model is awful and schemes like the Player Equity Programme and now-defunct PIP show the tour is more focused on placating its players than improving the fan experience.

Is the solution a much-touted World Tour? I'm not sure, but I do know I enjoy watching the PGA Tour much less than I used to.

TIGER ISN'T DONE YET

My unpopular tour golf opinion is that I still believe Tiger Woods has more left from his playing career. I can’t confidently say he’ll win another Major or finally secure an 83rd PGA Tour title, but I also can’t say he won’t.

I know the vast majority of golf fans believe he is done and even some of his biggest supporters would be more than happy to see him call it a day, but I am ready and very excited for the prospect of his latest return this year.

In my eyes he is the greatest golfer to ever live and if Phil Mickelson can win a Major in his 50s and Davis Love III can win on the PGA Tour at 51 then Tiger Woods can do the same.

The car crash in 2021 did an awful lot of damage and it has clearly been very difficult to get over, but if he can just have two or three years without any further major setbacks then I believe he still has some special weeks left in him.

Feel free to call me delusional in the comments, but we’ve seen time and time again that you should never, ever doubt Tiger Woods.

He has the mentality of no other golfer and would surely love to show his growing son Charlie what a world class Woods senior looks like again.

BAN IT. BAN IT ALL.

I could write a book on my takes surrounding tour equipment and how pampered the pros are, but you won't want to read all of that so I'll focus on putters. Any putter longer than 35" should be banned.

Sorry Akshay, no more broom putter for you. Sorry Adam Scott, learn how to putt with a proper putter.

AimPoint? Yeah, ban that too - what a load of nonsense it is to watch professionals do the cha cha slide on the green before hitting each putt.

Part of the skill of golf is reading putts with your eyes, so lets enforce it at a time in which equipment has made the game deskilled from what it once was.

Hell, why don't we ban mallet putters whilst we're here? Get the blades out again, ladies and gentlemen.

CREATIVITY HAS GONE FROM THE PRO GAME

For me, creativity in professional golf has disappeared and, nowadays, the majority of pros play the same shot shape and bomb it as far as possible before sorting out their problems.

I've spoken about it previously, but using a half set of clubs would sort the wheat from the chaff as it would require players to use creativity and feel instead of brute strength.

14 clubs is too many and, today, there's a club for every problem. Personally, I'd much rather see a player have to produce something with a 7-iron than hit a normal shot with an 8-iron.

We love when professionals get creative and, by reducing the amount of clubs they can use, that would certainly bring out the best in them...

Feel free to leave a comment below this article letting us know your own unpopular tour golf opinion!

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's tour experts to share their honest opinions on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about Jon Rahm.

In the recent news that the DP World Tour had given eight players conditional releases to play in conflicting LIV Golf tournaments during the 2026 season, Jon Rahm's name was conspicuous by its absence.

Laurie Canter, Thomas Detry, Tom McKibbin, Adrian Meronk, Victor Perez, David Puig, Elvis Smylie and even Tyrrell Hatton were all included in the list of players who had agreed to the various conditions set out by the European circuit dictating their relative freedom this term. But no Rahm.

The key conditions which the DP World Tour insisted the group agreed to included paying all outstanding fines for previous DPWT breaches in full, playing in additional stipulated DP World Tour events and withdrawing all pending appeals.

While a minor restriction on their schedule in the short-term and a tough hit on their bank balance were among the clear drawbacks to the offering, the upsides of the deal appeared plentiful and convincing.

For a start, they would not being fined for competing in the big-money league - a ruling which was upheld by an arbitration panel in 2023 - and each European pro would have a chance to freely qualify for the Ryder Cup from September without the concern that they may be prevented from doing so.

Nevertheless, Rahm was not for moving and stayed true to his word about having "no intention" of settling the fines - which are believed to be roughly $3 million at this stage.

Part of the reason for this is because Rahm stated he would not have played in the DP World Tour's conflicting events anyway. Going back through the schedules since the start of 2024, with the exception of a few events, he may have a point.

The other significant factor is that Rahm doesn't feel he should be penalized for playing in LIV events in the same week there was no DP World Tour event scheduled. Also fair enough.

The Spaniard has suggested he would be happy to pay off a percentage of the penalty but appears to feel the full amount is beyond the pale. He has, therefore, opted to ask that all of his fines are cleared.

The unfortunate truth for Rahm is that it doesn't look as though he will have his way in the end. And should that happen, he could well lose his DP World Tour status for good and - with it - his chances of ever playing in the Ryder Cup again.

So, the question now is, should Rahm swallow his pride and have the fines settled or should he continue to stand up for what he believes is right - even if the situation becomes tougher?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below. In the meantime, our tour experts have had their say.

I will caveat this response by saying I have no inside information on the discussions that have taken place between Rahm and the DP World Tour, but yes, I think he should have swallowed his pride and paid off his fines.

It's not as if he's short of money - he was paid several hundred million dollars to make the move, so he's not struggling financially.

Perhaps he's being stubborn and feels someone of his stature shouldn't have to pay fines to compete on a tour he's been loyal to, but he was aware of the repercussions of moving to the Saudi-backed circuit and still decided to do it.

If you're not a member of the DP World Tour, you're not able to play in the Ryder Cup, so I suppose this shows how much the tournament really means to him.

He now has three children, so perhaps he's fine playing on LIV and in the Majors and isn't looking to fill his time with extra tournaments, but it does feel like a decision he may come to regret.

However, I'd be stunned if he didn't turn out for Team Europe at Adare Manor, so I'd anticipate more twists in this protracted saga.

My view has always been that Rahm should pay his fines, but it feels like he believes he is above the rules and awaits an exception to be made in order to keep him on the Ryder Cup team.

To be honest, I think that will probably happen. He knows the DP World Tour wants him to be a member and play in its biggest events as well as the Spanish Open, but refusing to pay shows a lack of respect to the DP World Tour and perhaps an underestimation of how important it is.

It is not the best or most lucrative circuit in the world but it is a historic and important tour with a wonderful legacy, and remaining a member is the only way he can play in the Ryder Cup.

If he loses his appeal and still refuses to pay up, the tour is well within its rights to crack on without him at Adare Manor, which would be a huge shame and damaging to Rahm’s legacy.

I think Rory McIlroy was right when he said Rahm and Hatton have the chance to prove they would pay to play for Europe. Just pay up, he can make the money back and more in a single week on LIV Golf.

There is clearly more to this story than meets the eye and I would imagine and hope that things get sorted out fairly soon, as I, along with all other golf fans I’m sure, am bored of hearing about the off-course politics.

There's so many different ways of looking at this, but with the Ryder Cup in mind and Rahm's eligibility to play in it, I think the Spaniard should pay the fines imposed by the DP World Tour.

We've spent however long reporting on the Americans and the fact that they want to be paid for playing in the event, so it just shows the error of their ways if Rahm does pay up.

Yes, Rahm is a big player who does still move the needle, despite his winless run from the end of 2024. However, no one player is bigger than the professional tours and, with his refusal to pay the fines, it does give off a sense of entitlement.

Obviously, I don't know the full details between Rahm and the DP World Tour, but players knew that, if they went to LIV, they would be fined and potentially risk losing their memberships.

Given that Hatton has accepted the charges and, in doing so, has remained eligible for the Ryder Cup, it seems that Rahm is testing the Tour's resolve. If he loses his case, which reportedly he will, then he will need to cough up the money anyway to remain a member.

Personally, I see him teeing it up in 2027 at Adare Manor, but there's still 18 months left to go until that happens. What occurs between now and then is anyone's guess, but to clear the air and wipe the slate clean, I think the person with a reported net worth of nearly a quarter of a billion should be alright finding a measly $3 million fine...

I completely understand Rahm's position is all of this and, to a certain extent, I do have a bit of sympathy for him because sections of his defence are perfectly valid.

However, he knew the risks when he joined LIV and he possibly felt that because of his status in the game, the rules wouldn't exactly apply to him and he could even draw the game back together. Unfortunately for Rahm, neither of those things have turned out to be true.

Either way, a lot of the talk in regard to Rahm paying his fines relates to the amount of money he has racked up and how easy it would be for him (or the PIF) to pay it. For me, that's a moot point. It doesn't matter whether he's been fined $1 or $1 billion, this whole scenario is about sending a message.

The DP World Tour is saying players can't expect to pick and choose when being a member suits them. Pros can choose their schedules within the European circuit's offering, but they can't swan in and out whenever they feel like it. If they do, that's a fine.

It has been legally decided that this will be the case for anyone, no matter their status. Really, the question ought not to be: 'Should Jon Rahm pay his fines?' He obviously isn't going to with the way the situation currently sits. Ideally, the question ought to be: 'Should the DP World Tour stand firm no matter what?'

I think they should. Rahm apparently isn't playing ball because he thinks he's bigger than the tour. If that's the case, say goodbye to ever playing for Team Europe again.

Personally, I would rather lose to Team USA with a group of players who wholeheartedly believe in the tour that helped make them and shape them over a group of more talented individuals who put themselves first.

If the European Tour group feels likewise, this is the time to prove it. For Jon Rahm, he needs to decide which is more important to him - money or legacy.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's tour experts to share their honest opinions on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about Anthony Kim and his chances of Major glory.

Anthony Kim is a professional winner once again. And who would have predicted that as recently as a few months ago?

His triumph at LIV Golf Adelaide was as surprising as it was well-received by planet golf, but there was very little evidence to suggest a victory was on the horizon across his first two comeback seasons after a 12-year hiatus.

Yet, it happened in Australia off the back of Kim organizing his own return to LIV via the Promotions event in January and a decent display in Riyadh to kick off the year earlier this month.

With hardware in his trophy cabinet for the first time in 16 years, fans on social media are now calling for Kim to receive an invite into The Masters in case he doesn't qualify.

Meanwhile, Phil Mickelson has said it would be great for the 40-year-old to be given exemptions into all four Major championships this year off the back of his LIV success.

Lefty, who has won six Majors since turning pro in 1992, even went as far as saying he wouldn't be surprised to see Kim win one of the four big championships before calling time on his career.

Across a five-year span between 2007 and 2011 where he teed it up 15 times in Majors, Kim managed a best result of third at the 2010 Masters. He recorded two further top-10s and missed the cut on four occasions.

At this stage, it would be a tall ask for Kim to even qualify as No.203 in the world. Reaching either the US Open or Open Championship is certainly reasonable via qualifying, but The Masters is invite only and Kim would likely have to make up another 140 spots or so to book his tee time.

Alternatively, breaking into the world's top-100 should be enough for the former University of Oklahoma golfer to try and improve his poor record at the PGA Championship.

But should the five-time pro winner find himself in the field at The Masters, PGA Championship, US Open or The Open Championship, would he have a legitimate shot at success?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below. Meanwhile, our tour experts have had their say.

Kim’s story has been truly remarkable and his comeback win is a moment I’ll likely never forget. Thanks to the 23 OWGR points he has earned, he has moved to within touching distance of the top-200 and an invitation into the PGA Championship now seems a very sensible idea as a LIV Golf tournament winner.

The PGA of America, which runs the US arm of the Ryder Cup, has obvious history with AK, and it even sent out a post on X to congratulate him. The championship is struggling with its identity and interest compared to the other three showpiece events in the men’s game, and it always offers up invitations to fill out its large field.

Kim in the field, making his first Major start since the 2011 PGA Championship, seems like a no-brainer to me. It would drive TV ratings and while some might call it a publicity stunt, it would be far from it. The 40-year-old just carded a bogey-free 63 to beat Jon Rahm and Bryson DeChambeau in his first time back in real contention for 15 years.

Can Kim become a Major contender again? 100% yes. He has proven his work ethic can get him from propping up LIV’s leaderboards to topping them, and I think the confidence he must now have in his game coupled with his “1% better” each day mentally means he can have a golden few years ahead. Can he contend in Majors? Yes. Can he win a Major? Yes.

Whether he will is another question and qualifying for them isn’t exactly straightforward, but if we’ve learned anything these last two years it’s that Anthony Kim is not someone you should doubt.

Do I think Anthony Kim has a chance to contend at a Major championship? Yes. But that comes with a few caveats.

One, I didn't think he could have even won a LIV event a few months ago, so his rapid ascension means everyone is now surely reassessing what they believe Kim is capable of.

Two, most pros are capable of contending at one Major championship. The number of golfers who have enjoyed their 15 minutes of true fame at the four biggest events is as long as the proverbial piece of string.

I fully believe now that Kim could enjoy a run over one week. What I'd be interested to see is if he could do it regularly. And that is a very different question indeed.

Number three - in terms of caveats - is that I think he will have to do it over the next three years, maximum. We know his body has been through a lot over the course of his life and even the most disciplined 40-year-olds struggle to battle it out at Majors on a consistent basis.

If he hasn't put himself in position to at least have a chance of winning a Major before 2029, I really don't think it will happen for him.

The jump between a 'regular' tour event and a Major is a big one but, in my opinion, every player is capable of winning a big-four championship with their best game alone.

However, what makes winning a Major so difficult is the mental side of things. You may play your best game at the time, but if you can't hold it together, you aren't going to win.

Certainly, Kim has shown how tough he is mentally - not just with his win in Adelaide, where he took down the league's two biggest stars, but in all of the resilient work he has done since returning.

Therefore, that makes me think there is a small chance the 40-year-old could challenge for a Major at some point down the line, especially with his new lease of life and recent victory.

The problem is when you compare him to the likes of Scottie Scheffler, Rory McIlroy, and others from the PGA Tour... I'm not making a dig at LIV, especially when DeChambeau, Koepka, Rahm and Smith have all won Majors in the last four years; however, a win for Kim in a 57-man event, and a top-10 at the Saudi International, doesn't suddenly warrant a Major-contender tag.

I loved watching Kim in Adelaide and felt that his win will be the feel-good story of 2026. For me, though, he needs to get at least another few months of consistent, strong results under his belt before even thinking about playing, and contending, in the Majors.

I'll be honest, I thought Anthony Kim had next to no chance of doing anything meaningful on the course when he was handed a wildcard spot on LIV Golf for the 2024 season. I've had to eat humble pie in the wake of his thrilling victory in Australia and I've written in depth about his redemption story, too.

His return to the winners' circle is one of the most impressive achievements in the history of professional golf, and yes, I'm aware of the magnitude of that statement.

Not long ago, he could barely walk into rehab and while he was playing in the Majors, he was taking trips to the toilet mid-round to consume drugs and/or alcohol. He's been to the very bottom, but his wife and child have helped bring him back from the brink.

He started playing decent golf towards the end of last year and he finished third at the LIV Golf promotions event in January to earn a place for the 2026 season.

In Australia, he produced a final-round 63 in the company of Jon Rahm and Bryson DeChambeau, who took 11 more shots than Kim. And this wasn't LIV Golf Riyadh, with two men and a dog watching - it was proper golf in a proper atmosphere in front of tens of thousands of fans.

It's going to be very difficult for Kim to win a Major – not least because he doesn't have a spot in the field for any of them – but you could argue he's already done the hardest bit. Going from here to winning a Major seems far more achievable than returning to the winners' circle after an all-consuming drug and alcohol addiction.

He's 40 years old, so time isn't necessarily on his side, but we've seen Justin Rose play sublime golf into his mid-40s and Phil Mickelson won a Major at the age of 51. If Kim stays hungry, then why not? He's proved that on his day, he still has the ability to mix it with the best.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's tour experts to share their honest opinions on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about Signature Events.

A third year of Signature Events on the PGA Tour is set to begin this week with the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am, but discontent regarding the $20 million tournaments continues to bubble under the surface.

Ever since Signature Events were introduced to the schedule as 'Designated Events' in 2023 in a bid to curb the threat of LIV Golf, a number of players, fans and analysts alike have vented their frustration regarding the PGA Tour's group of exclusive tournaments.

Erik Van Rooyen once said he "hates" Signature Events while Lucas Glover has been a long-time opponent of the elevated competitions despite regularly being a part of them.

Those who dislike Signature Events point to reduced playing opportunities and smaller fields which consequently reduces the interest factor for those competing and watching on TV.

Then there are the qualifying criteria which, while offering chances to those in the best form, can still leave some of the best PGA Tour members in the world sitting on their couches instead of strengthening the fields through no real fault of their own.

Add in the fact that only three of the eight Signature Events have a cut in them and critics have plenty of evidence to say these tournaments are not really working.

On the other hand, supporters argue that Signature Events encourage the best players in the world together far more often than normal and the huge pots of guaranteed money up for grabs is a significant plus point for players.

Regardless, the general consensus seems to be that there are more downsides to Signature Events that upsides at the moment. So, what can be done to improve them?

Are there any obvious changes that the PGA Tour could make or, actually, are they fine as they are? Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below. In the meantime, our tour experts have had their say.

HOW TO IMPROVE SIGNATURE EVENTS

The way for the PGA Tour to fix Signature Events would essentially be to remove them. They are not improved by limiting the field, which I believe makes them unfair.

Tony Finau, the World No.105, received a sponsor’s invite this week while Michael Brennan (37th), Kristoffer Reitan (38th) and Rasmus Hojgaard (40th) all failed to qualify. They’re not Majors and should be open to every player who holds PGA Tour status, or at least 120 of them.

Removing a cut is also something I don’t feel strengthens them, either, so the key ways to fix them would be to increase field sizes and ensure they all have 36-hole cuts.

I am hopeful this plan is in the works under Brian Rolapp and think this could be the final year of Signature Events in this guise at least.

I'll be honest, I've never been a fan of the Signature Event model, and see it more as a financial reward for those who have remained on the PGA Tour circuit.

As we see at this week's AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am, there are certainly better players who should be in over those who secured sponsor's invites, and that's one of the key ways it can be fixed.

How is it that Nicolai Hojgaard, who is World No.50 and 18th in the FedEx Cup, is listed as the 10th alternate, while Billy Horschel and Tony Finau, who have made a total of three cuts in eight starts between them this year, are listed in the field?

The AON Swing 5 and Next 10 does at least help with narrowing down the players who are in-form, but the main problem lies with the fact that it's a limited field, no cut event.

Because only a certain number of players can qualify, it means that there will always be worthy individuals missing out. The reason I enjoy the traditional PGA Tour events is that when a cut is implemented, it still matters. Who doesn't love someone grinding to make the weekend while under immense pressure?

To me, the Signature Event model is somewhat of an exhibition. Inflated purses and points make it important for the overall FedEx Cup standings, which is not great, given that it's almost a free week for those who are already in a strong position.

Basically, it's harder for players to play their way out of the Signature Events than it is for players to play their way into it, and that's the problem. If there was actually jeopardy, such as a 36 hole cut, there would be far more excitement and eyes on it, I believe.

I think the PGA Tour should eradicate Signature Events. I've never been a fan of them at all – they're simply a vehicle by which to pay the top players more money.

They came about in response to LIV Golf's arrival because many of the top players, such as Rory McIlroy, felt they were under-compensated. In my view, these events have just made what preceded them slightly worse.

Full-field events are always better as there's more potential for drama and great storylines. There's a reason why the Tour Championship is one of the worst events of the year and a tournament I pay very little attention to until Sunday afternoon. I don't care if the top players feel they deserve a bigger slice of the pie – they're absurdly rich as it is.

The way to make the PGA Tour even bigger – and thereby attract more commercial revenue – is to create more compelling tournaments. Signature Events don't deliver on this brief as far as I'm concerned.

I think Brian Rolapp, the tour's new CEO, is making all the right noises when it comes to the schedule. The number of tournaments should be reduced, thereby making what's left stronger without any contrived initiatives aimed at lining the pockets of multi-millionaires.

Give us more players, give us a cut and banish two-ball golf on a Thursday and Friday.

Call me a traditionalist, but I want to see a cut at PGA Tour events. Maintaining the integrity of the competition is crucial at the top-level, so giving the best players in the world a free hit eight times a year to haul world ranking points and ludicrous amounts of cash without having to 'earn it' in the first two days of the competition seems unfair.

I'm also not a huge fan of the way that sponsors exemptions seem to be handed out to players that perhaps aren't in great form, but are big names in the game, so therefore their role in the event is pretty irrelevant.

They aren't going to win, or even add much of a competitive improvement to the field, so why not invite three or four players who have just narrowly missed out on qualifying for the Signature Events in order to boost the strength of the field?

I would suggest that sponsors exemptions should be limited to a certain OWGR ranking band just outside of the field qualification parameters, meaning the field isn't diluted by a player ranked in the 100s just because they won a major once upon a time or have a few PGA Tour titles to their name in distant past.

Given the rumors which are circulating about a potential new-look PGA Tour and the general ill-feeling towards them, it does feel to me like it's only a matter of time until Signature Events disappear - certainly in their current guise.

But if Brian Rolapp was to stick with the idea, I'd suggest a couple of key changes. He can keep the name, but a few of them on this year's list could lose their status and just become regular tour events.

I would nominate the Pebble Beach Pro-Am, the Arnold Palmer Invitational, the Memorial Tournament, the RBC Canadian Open and the Scottish Open as the new five Signature Events - with an emphasis on the most historic and prestigious titles on the circuit.

I would remove the inflated payouts and ensure each tournament on the full schedule before the Playoffs offers around the same amount which gives tournament directors the chance to operate with realistic and sustainable budgets.

However, I would retain the increased number of FedEx Cup points on offer at the five new Signature Events as an incentive to ensure the top players competed against each other more often.

Finally, all five of them would have cuts and feature 120 players with room for the up-and-coming rookies and the five most in-form talents in the game. Sorted.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's tour experts to share their honest opinions on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about TGL.

TGL is into its second season of existence and the competition shows no signs of slowing down, recently launching a women's version ready for later this year and preparing to unveil at least one more men's team before 2027.

Started with the idea of showcasing elite-level golf to a new audience in two-hour primetime TV slots, the tech-infused competition was met with a mix of intrigue and derision at first with fans hoping to learn more about their favorite players as well as what goes into shot selection on tour.

Critics, on the other hand, felt TGL might well be a one-trick pony whose bubble would burst after the novelty wore off.

Those involved with TGL believe the league is in a good place and is continuing to grow while people in the opposite camp are already questioning its shelf life.

Looking at TV ratings for some sort of guide on TGL's success, they have been solid if unspectacular so far.

And while dipping marginally in season two, TV numbers have remained strong enough. Plus, the ratings for TGL have even surpassed the likes of the Grant Thornton Invitational and PNC Championship in some cases, according to Sports Business Journal.

But, the question has to be asked, is TGL really working as originally intended? Is it attracting the audience it set out to or is it really only a matter of time until investors begin to develop itchy feet and spokespeople fade into the background?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below. In the meantime, our tour experts have had their say.

IS TGL WORKING AS INTENDED?

I think TGL suffers with the same issue as LIV Golf when it comes to its teams, as launching a number of new sports franchises with no history or meaning is tough to get on board with as a fan. Is anyone really an Atlanta Drive or LAGC supporter? I doubt there are many.

The league was launched at a seemingly all-time high of golf content, competing with the PGA Tour, DP World Tour, LIV Golf, LPGA Tour and many others along with the emergence of YouTube golf, which has a huge following. Then there’s NFL and the many other sports that draw huge fanfare, so I find it very difficult to see how TGL can be a true success.

Sure, it has commercial support, big names backing it and has gained some solid TV ratings, but I would be surprised if it is still here in 5-10 years. Traveling to Florida on a Monday is not ideal for the players’ tournament preparations, either, especially for the Europeans who play all over the world.

The PGA Tour players might be enjoying it at the moment after likely earning good money for joining, but it may start to become a bit of a drag. While I am sure there are many kids who love watching it, my feeling is that there is far too much golf for a limited number of eyeballs and I believe the league is a tough sell.

To answer the question of whether TGL is working, you'd probably have to ask someone who is actually interested in it. That's not me being a curmudgeon, but as someone who's already massively invested in top-tier professional golf, I'm definitely not the target market.

I appreciate the innovation and I enjoyed the first broadcast or two, but I haven't watched it since then. I think it suffers from too much repetition – the venue, the players, the green and the concept. Even with 'new holes' appearing, fundamentally it's still professional golfers hitting a ball into a screen.

I also can't stand the awkward interactions between the players and the interviewers. I was concerned last year the novelty would wear off pretty quickly, and if TV ratings are anything to go by, that appears to be happening.

I don't have any insider knowledge, but I'd be surprised if it's been a commercial success. However, I'm sure there are thousands of children out there who have enjoyed it and might become lifetime golfers as a result.

Does that mean it's working? I'm not sure – you'd have to ask those at the top of the pyramid.

I don't think TGL is working, no, because - fundamentally - it was designed to attract new people to the game by showing off golf on a different platform in bite-size chunks. How can it be working if the TV viewing figures are continuing to drift?

And that's another problem with it. It's on TV. If the target market is apparently young people, why is it not on YouTube where the majority of people under the age of 25 are now regularly consuming media?

Additionally, there was a natural intrigue in season one due to the novelty of the product, but fans have seen what it's all about now and plainly they aren't that fussed.

Would anyone be upset if TGL disappeared tomorrow? Aside from those who have invested money into it, I dare say there wouldn't. In that sense, I agree with Elliott that it's similar to LIV.

But where I think TGL differs to LIV is that I really believe people would completely forget it in five years. That wouldn't be the case with LIV.

As far as TGL goes, there are too many things wrong with the overall product. It's so often only on at times which suit a US market, it only features male pros (many of whom are really not very entertaining) and - as has already been noted - it's so repetitive.

Would TGL not have been far more entertaining with YouTubers or as a mix of pros across the men's and women's game? Personally, I don't see the current format living on for more than five years at absolute most.

Put simply, TGL isn't working. It's time to try something else.

I'm conflicted on this, because I don't tend to watch very much TGL - but when I do I tend to enjoy it.

Perhaps it's the time difference for me here in the UK, or the fact it's not in a regular viewing slot like the PGA Tour (Thursday-Sunday) that I can set my schedule around.

The highlights packages are also pretty sub-par in my opinion, so I don't really attempt to go back and watch the coverage.

I'd also like to see them play some real courses, as opposed to the TGL-designed holes which are pretty farfetched. Have at least one iconic hole from around the world in each match, like the 17th at TPC Sawgrass, and I'd be more likely to make time to check in on proceedings.

I think the idea behind it is a good one, and I like the attempt to be inclusive and to innovate, but they still aren't getting it right and I can't really put my finger on why.

For me, TGL isn't my cup of tea, as I think it's catered towards the more casual golf fan who wants a quick fix and doesn't want to watch the seven-hour broadcast you get in actual professional tournaments.

The set-up of it is impressive, the arena, flashing lights etc, and on the whole it does show off a different side to those competing in it, even though the camera is continuously jumping between players, shots and interviews.

Is it working though? On the whole, I would say less so now, given that the novelty of hitting into a screen can only last so long, the problems with the technology is still a common occurrence and players still aren't wearing matching team gear (obviously a sponsor thing).

TGL isn't something I'd tune into, but if it's being watched by younger golf fans then great. Personally, I think it's still missing the mark though, and the fact that LPGA Tour stars weren't introduced from day one was a huge miss.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's tour experts to share their honest opinions on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about Patrick Reed.

Where will Patrick Reed play the majority of his golf in 2026? Will it be LIV - where he has been since 2022 - or will Captain America return to the historic circuit based out of TPC Sawgrass?

Could he, perhaps, even ply his trade on the DP World Tour with a view to re-joining the PGA Tour in 2027 through the Race To Dubai rankings?

In all likelihood, based on Reed's own words, the 2018 Masters champion will probably sign a new contract with LIV and play for the 4Aces once more.

However, said contract remains free of the 35-year-old's signature and some of his comments in recent days have only served to muddy the water in relation to what he might do.

Sparked by Brooks Koepka's move back to the PGA Tour, Reed was asked by Golf Digest's Evin Priest and The Telegraph's James Corrigan prior to the Dubai Desert Classic whether he would, hypothetically, consider making a return to the PGA Tour one day if offered the same terms as his former Ryder Cup teammate.

Reed confirmed he would - saying "of course" - and went on to call the PGA Tour the "best in the world."

He said: "I always enjoyed my time out there on the PGA Tour. Let's be honest, out there, it's the best tour in the world. Look at what they've done in golf. I could see myself playing there at some point again. But right now, you just never know; everything's so fluid.”

Then, in his winner's press conference at Emirates Golf Club, Reed shared that he was technically a free agent as it stands but predicted he was more than likely to be in the field for LIV Golf Riyadh on February 4.

Asked if he may have played his final LIV event last season, Reed replied: "Not that I know of. Not right now. Really just all kind of depends on everything. I mean, I haven't talked to the team back home or anything like that. But at the moment, I plan on teeing it up there in Riyadh, and I'd be surprised if we're not."

Although the 12-time pro winner briefly calmed any gossip around his future, Reed later went on to comprehensively outline his hypothetical plans if he left LIV Golf, suggesting he has given the idea more than a brief moment's thought.

He said: "Yeah, I mean, if I ended up not playing on LIV this year, obviously it would be one of those things that I would be out here playing more on [the DP World Tour] and trying to secure one of those spots in the Top 10, and allow myself to get back on the PGA Tour."

So what will Reed do in 2026 and beyond? And, to that end, should the PGA Tour drop the drawbridge to allow him back on a similar basis to Koepka? Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below this article. Meanwhile, four of our tour experts have had their say.

If I were Patrick Reed, I'd be actively pursuing a return to the PGA Tour. He revealed after his win in Dubai that he still hasn't signed his LIV Golf contract for the 2026 season, which means he's technically a free agent.

He sounded receptive to the idea of a PGA Tour return just last week and I'd be surprised if Brian Rolapp didn't want him, given he's a past Major winner, a very good player and, importantly in this era of identikit (some would say boring) golfers, a bit of a pantomime villain.

Reed has already made a huge amount of money from LIV, but that doesn't seem to be what motivates him. He plays all around the world – he competed on LIV, the Asian Tour and the DP World Tour last year – and clearly loves competing.

Now seems the right time for a return to the PGA Tour, especially given there's precedent. However, it remains to be seen what terms, if any, would be offered by the PGA Tour as Reed hasn't won a Major in the last five years.

If he's welcomed back, it would potentially open the door to several other LIV players in Reed's tier, which could cause some issues, including upsetting the PGA Tour membership.

I wrote last week, when we were discussing whether the PGA Tour should tweak its Returning Member Program to lure more LIV golfers back, that there were 10 or fewer players on the PIF-backed circuit that who most people would actively like to see come back.

In my eyes, one of those is Patrick Reed. Love him or loathe him, Captain America stirs the emotions in golf fans and increases the value of any field he is in given his past record and victory at The Masters in 2018.

From the PGA Tour's point of view, I think it would be extremely prudent for it to strike while the iron is hot. And until Reed scribbles his signature on that new LIV Golf contract, he is up for grabs.

I feel it would be a really good move if the PGA Tour could follow up the signing of Brooks Koepka by bringing as many of that aforementioned top-10 back from LIV as it can. Plus, now that one has gone, perhaps it's only a matter of time until more follow.

As far as Reed goes, I can't help but feel he wouldn't be making all of this noise about contracts and potential future plans if he wasn't at least seriously considering it or - at most - actively pursuing it.

Reed's actions appear to signal a 'come and get me' plea to the PGA Tour, which could benefit the DP World Tour as well if he opts to play there all season before earning one of the 10 dual status cards in November.

Either way, it doesn't seem like Reed is 100% committed to the LIV Golf League, and that would concern me if I was on the team-golf circuit's side of the fence...

Patrick Reed has clearly been seriously considering his options given the fact he has not yet renewed his deal with LIV Golf.

I think Reed is worthy of the PGA Tour rewriting its Returning Member Program and get him back instantly given he is a Masters champion and just won the Dubai Desert Classic, and Brian Rolapp could well be working on that behind the scenes right now - although I am doubtful.

Reed is clearly a world class player and the fact he is ranked 29th in the world while playing on LIV Golf shows that. I think he should leave LIV, play a year on the DP World Tour, try and win the Race to Dubai and earn his PGA Tour status back for 2027.

He has a young family so surely would enjoy spending a bit more time in America, and he could still balance both the PGA Tour and DP World Tour. If Reed plays primarily in Europe this year, he will surely win another one or two tournaments and return to the PGA Tour as a hot property.

He can win out on the PGA Tour next year and return to the world’s top-10, play in all the Majors, The Players Championship and Signature Events and automatically qualify for the Ryder Cup team. He will still be earning shed loads of cash, get to spend more time playing on home soil and be recognized as one of the game’s best golfers.

Reed fell outside of the top-100 last year, failed to qualify for two Majors in 2024 and missed the 2023 and 2025 Ryder Cup teams due to, in the most part, playing on LIV Golf, and that surely didn’t sit too well with him. While a return to LIV seems inevitable, I certainly would not be surprised to see him go the other route.

We never know what goes on behind the scenes but, when it comes to what Patrick Reed should do, I think he should try and make his return to the PGA Tour - whether that's via earning his card on the DP World Tour, or by liaising with the PGA Tour's commissioner, Brian Rolapp.

Personally, I think Rolapp would want him back on the PGA Tour, given he's a big name and a character that will draw eye balls to the event. Therefore, I think the PGA Tour would benefit going after him, since he is playing some excellent golf.

What do I think will happen? Well, given that Reed is comfortably inside the top-50 of the World Rankings, and is set to play in DP World Tour and Asian Tour events, I can't seem him falling out of Major qualification (he's automatically qualified for The Masters thanks to his 2018 win).

Because of this, I think he will remain on LIV for now, especially as his 4Aces side are coming together nicely with the addition of Thomas Detry and captain Dustin Johnson signing on until 2029. This is despite Reed recently saying he'd "definitely" consider leaving LIV to return to the PGA Tour.

I think the best move would be to try and get back on the PGA Tour, but as Reed continues to play some great golf, he may well stay put where he is, given that his game doesn't seem to be as affected as some.

Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's tour experts to share their honest opinions on the biggest subjects in the game. This time, it's about LIV Golf's winter transfer business..

The LIV Golf League's 57-man roster for 2026 is now complete and each of the teams - as well as the five Wild Cards - can begin preparations in earnest ready for the first event in Riyadh early next month.

But if we rewind a few months, the situation for LIV was very different after six non-reserve players were relegated from the league following 13 individual events.

In the weeks that followed, Brooks Koepka left in favor of the PGA Tour and three more players lost their spots in the league after finishing in the Open Zone.

But in a bid to continue its evolution, LIV at least partially rebranded three of its franchises and added a whole heap of new talent during the transfer window, including Thomas Detry, Michael La Sasso, Victor Perez and Laurie Canter.

So, with seven completely new faces and a handful more returning to replace the 10 who have left LIV Golf, has the PIF-backed circuit made progress during its off-season or slipped backwards?

Let us know in the comments box below. In the meantime, four of Golf Monthly's tour experts have had their say.

LIV Golf only brought in six new players prior to the start of the 2025 campaign, before adding US Amateur champion Josele Ballester mid-season, so almost double the new faces this year is a big win for the league as its fans will be able to see a number of new players and it just simply freshens up things.

Brooks Koepka’s departure is a body blow for the league, though, and it has also lost a big name and ticket seller in Henrik Stenson as well as Kevin Na - so three captains in total have gone.

Reports stated Akshay Bhatia, Si Woo Kim and Marco Penge all turned down LIV Golf this winter, so that is a loss for the league and a bad look that it is now struggling to poach mid-tier PGA Tour players after signing the likes of then-Masters champion Jon Rahm and Cameron Smith right after he won The Open and was World No.2 - although, I do think that says more about the strength of the PGA Tour currently.

The new players are all solid, highlighted by WM Phoenix Open winner Thomas Detry and NCAA Division 1 champion Michael La Sasso - who could well be their best piece of business.

We’ve seen David Puig, Caleb Surratt and Ballester join straight from college and go on to have success so La Sasso could do the same and make a name for himself once he’s found his feet.

Anthony Kim seemingly making a huge leap with his game and managing to earn his spot back is a big win for the league and will certainly make me and many other fans tune in if/when he finds himself in contention.

There have been no big, big names arriving for the second year running (I have written how LIV has changed its strategy this year) but that’s no surprise as it targets a more global tour instead of trying to rival the PGA Tour in America.

Overall, losing Koepka is a bit of a disaster but 12 new players is a good freshen-up and means 12 chances to create stars, so I would say it has been a mildly successful offseason. I’d give them a 6.5/10.

It's safe to say that LIV Golf's off-season hasn't been the best. The loss of Koepka is the first instance of the PGA Tour poaching one of its players back and, while those who have joined the League have some wins behind them, they're not exactly the marquee players we've seen over the last few years.

From the outside, it seems that LIV Golf is focusing more on the worldwide game. The experienced Europeans who have joined will be more comfortable with the worldwide schedule, while the younger individuals can learn from the experienced heads that make up a large portion of LIV's roster.

I don't think LIV will go anywhere anytime soon but, what it should maybe worry about is losing its younger crop of players. In my opinion, the younger names have jumped to the circuit to build up their profiles and make themselves more of a franchise.

Of course, they get guaranteed competition but, if you were to look at the likes of Eugenio Chacarra, he set himself up for life with the prize money, then opted to move back to the DP World Tour and, potentially in the future, the PGA Tour, due to the fact it has the history and more opportunities of earning spots in Majors.

LIV has had a bad off-season and, the fact it was unsuccessful in signing the likes of Si Woo Kim, Akshay Bhatia and Max Greyserman, shows more players are staying loyal to the PGA Tour, knowing it has the better career opportunities.

LIV has objectively had a bad off-season. While it might seem positive because Jon Rahm, Bryson DeChambeau and Cameron Smith have opted to stay put (for now), losing Brooks Koepka – unquestionably one of the top-three assets on the roster – is a hammer blow.

Plus, there's now a precedent set in terms of a high-profile star leaving LIV and returning to the PGA Tour, which will definitely make some other members of the Saudi-backed tour think.

Patrick Reed has already admitted he'd consider returning under the same terms and Bryson's leverage is now so sky-high that it might be untenable to sign him to a new deal.

Yes, LIV has signed some new players, like Victor Perez and Ben An, but they don't move the needle. Is the roster weaker than it was at the start of 2025? Absolutely.

And frankly, if you're trying and failing to sign Si Woo Kim, Akshay Bhatia and Max Greyserman, you have issues.

If I'm honest, I don't think there is an awful lot of difference in LIV's overall roster from 2025 to 2026.

Losing Brooks Koepka was obviously a huge deal in terms of star power and LIV cannot deny that, but in the tier of players below the five-time Major winner, you could easily argue the PIF-backed circuit has made marginal improvements.

If you look at the changes from last year to this in a kind of man-for-man way, then La Sasso for Kjettrup - for example - is a clear upgrade. It could be argued that so is Perez and Detry for Jones and Ogletree.

It feels to me as though LIV is moving away from trying to sign the absolute cream of the crop from the PGA Tour and is now looking at how it can strengthen the core of the circuit. There are marginally fewer names in there which the casual golf fan has never heard of, which can only help it generate more interest.

However, as my colleagues have correctly pointed out, the fact that LIV has reportedly been unable to land the likes of Akshay Bhatia and Marco Penge doesn't exactly scream 'look at how much further along the process we are!' Then again, it was never going to win every signing battle.

Overall, the circuit has made a steady if unspectacular transfer window. While that might not be impressive as a standalone example, if it carries on making marginal gains, who knows where it could be in a few years' time?

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's tour experts to share their honest opinions on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's about the PGA Tour's Returning Member Program.

When Brooks Koepka announced he was leaving the LIV Golf League in mid-December, the PGA Tour's board sprung into action.

Koepka met with PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp to discuss his future plans and, a matter of days later, a brand new creation called the Returning Member Program had been conjured up which allowed the five-time Major winner to regain his PGA Tour status - only with a few key caveats.

It was widely received as an excellent piece of business by Rolapp and the PGA Tour because they had ultimately secured the services of one of the game's biggest talents while upsetting as few members as possible.

From the historic US circuit's point of view, the Returning Member Program also acted as a huge piece of bait for some of the most impressive fish in their biggest rival's lake.

Due to the parameters involved, only Koepka, Jon Rahm, Cameron Smith and Bryson DeChambeau currently qualify to retake their respective places on the PGA Tour through the RMP.

However, each has strongly indicated they will be staying put and DeChambeau in particular is more interested in hashing out a fresh contract with the PIF-backed league.

Although those three Major winners were happy to swim on past, another big catch appears to be very interested in latching onto the PGA Tour's hook - namely, one Patrick Reed.

Speaking to Golf Digest's Evin Priest and The Telegraph's James Corrigan, Reed was asked if - hypothetically - he would consider making a return to the PGA Tour if offered the same terms as Koepka.

Reed replied: "I mean, of course. If it were up to me, I'd play everywhere. I'm already playing on three tours, why not add one more?” he added with a laugh.

“I always enjoyed my time out there on the PGA Tour. Let's be honest, out there, it's the best tour in the world. Look at what they've done in golf … I could see myself playing there at some point again. But right now, you just never know; everything's so fluid.”

The question, therefore, has to be asked: "should the PGA Tour alter its Returning Member Program in a bid to lure more LIV golfers away?"

Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below. In the meantime, four of our tour experts have had their say.

Brian Rolapp and the PGA Tour came off very well last week with the Returning Member Program that saw Brooks Koepka make an immediate return. Bryson DeChambeau, Jon Rahm and Cameron Smith all appear to have turned it down, and the case now seems to be closed as they were the only other three men to have been considered.

I do feel it could have been branched out a little further, though, as any former PGA Tour players making the move back would have strengthened the Tour and weakened its competitor.

Patrick Reed as a Major champion could have been considered, as could former PGA Tour winners like Joaquin Niemann, Sebastian Munoz, Carlos Ortiz, Abraham Ancer, Paul Casey and Marc Leishman.

Getting these players back immediately would have been a problem to solve, but Rolapp surely could have found a way as he proved with Koepka by applying sanctions and ensuring no current PGA Tour members lose out.

Whether any other former members would have said yes is doubtful, but even one or two extra players coming back would have been a big statement and added more storylines and intrigue to events they would play and contend in.

Either way, the Returning Member Program appears to have been a success and I am sure it will return once more next year when more big LIV names near the end of their contracts.

The plain and simple answer is no, the PGA Tour shouldn't tweak its Returning Member Program to try and poach LIV Golfers back. If they were to extend the year range, where would it stop?

If they were to go back to 2018 to allow the likes of then Masters winner Patrick Reed in, many will question why they don't jump back to 2010 to allow the then Open champion, Louis Oosthuizen, in?

Tweaking the year-limit would likely lead to the thought of what was the point in the bans for joining the circuit in the first place, as would changing the criteria to accommodate those with a certain number of PGA Tour tournament victories.

Kevin Na, for example, has five wins and nearly 20 years of experience on the PGA Tour circuit. Should he be given special treatment for his long-time service, even though he was one of the first to jump to LIV Golf? No.

To me, the range of 2022 is correct as that was when the first LIV Golf event was played. What's more, I feel the Program was only constructed to lure back the players from LIV Golf that will benefit the PGA Tour. Koepka, DeChambeau, Rahm and Smith are the League's biggest draws.

If they can lure them back with this one-time offer, the PGA Tour is in an even stronger position than it already was. Obviously a Patrick Reed might help draw more eyes to tournaments, but the rules shouldn't be tweaked to do so.

The PGA Tour's Returning Member Program isn't so much a cast-iron policy as a flexible way of securing returns for high-profile LIV players who have indicated they'd be keen to come back.

The PGA Tour's CEO, Brian Rolapp, said: "This is a one-time, defined window and does not set a precedent for future situations. Once the door closes, there is no promise that this path will be available again."

As far as I see it, the path will absolutely be open again as soon as either Jon Rahm or Bryson DeChambeau decide they want to come home (I'm not sure the tour is overly bothered about Cameron Smith), although I don't envisage much tweaking as the terms need to be similar to Koepka's.

The situation becomes trickier in relation to LIV's non-Major winners. I'm sure there are players on the Saudi-backed tour who Rolapp would love to have in his ranks, but optics are in play here.

The PGA Tour always presents itself as the world's most important and powerful circuit (and it is), so it doesn't want to look desperate by pursuing non-Major winners, or those who haven't won a big-four event in the last five years, from LIV.

However, do I think Rolapp would like Joaquin Niemann, Patrick Reed, Tyrrell Hatton, Dustin Johnson, Louis Oosthuizen and possibly a couple of others back? I think so. The trouble is, finding criteria that targets the desirable LIV players but excludes others is difficult.

Is it possible to come up with a policy that allows Hatton to return without opening the doors to, say, Jason Kokrak? The other issue is upsetting the PGA Tour membership. Everyone understands why it's desirable to have Koepka and Rahm back, for example, but others would likely be met with far more opposition.

My initial feeling was yes because I think that's what will end up happening anyway.

But, after some careful thought, I really don't think the PGA Tour should budge on what Brian Rolapp said when setting out the Returning Member Program. If it does, the tour could end up in a situation where too much rule-bending is done and the members lose faith with those at the top which consequently leads to heads rolling.

My other big concern is that if the PGA Tour ultimately operates an open door policy, it runs the risk of losing some big players to LIV because they know they'll just be able to come back after a few years having earned a whole heap of cash.

I think there are certain players the PGA Tour would love to come back, but that list is limited to 10 players at absolute most.

Yes, there are a number of great players in the LIV Golf League, but - equally - the PGA Tour has plenty more. Where the PGA Tour is missing out is with the big personalities. Those players who just attract interest no matter how they're doing. I don't think LIV has that many.

In my eyes, there are no more than 10 players currently in the LIV Golf League who most people would like to see back on the PGA Tour. Even then, I forgot about half of them at first, so are they really that necessary to the product?

Rolapp and co. must believe not only that what they have already is enough to prosper but also that it has all of the tools to replace those massive stars in time anyway. If it can beat LIV to the next crop of Rahms and DeChambeaus, then there's no need to tweak the Returning Member Program.

After clinching his return to the LIV Golf League via its Promotions tournament on Sunday, Anthony Kim made a bold claim: "I'll be winning golf tournaments soon."

The 40-year-old was understandably thrilled with his latest display, a performance which saw him finish third in a field of 90 or so to secure one of three Wild Card places in the PIF-backed circuit just a matter of months after being relegated.

However, it cannot be ignored that Kim last triumphed in a professional event at the PGA Tour's Shell Houston Open back in 2010. He beat Vaughn Taylor in a playoff to scoop the third PGA Tour title of his career and fourth overall.

The following year, Kim lost in a playoff to Rory McIlroy at the Lake Malaren Shanghai Masters before ultimately disappearing from the sport around 12 months after that.

Fast forward more than a decade and the Californian emerged from the darkness to join LIV before enduring two tough seasons. While there were a couple of brief highlights, such as his T25th in Dallas, it was taking a fair bit of time for Kim's game to return.

Yet, following a T5th at the PIF Saudi International late last year, green shoots of promise had sprouted up and another excellent week most recently suggested Kim could well be set to enjoy his best year since 2010.

So, having appeared to rediscover a little bit of form at just the right time, what do we think Kim is realistically capable of in 2026? And what do you think? Let us know in the comments box below this article.

WHAT CAN ANTHONY KIM ACHIEVE IN 2026?

Kim says he will be back winning golf tournaments again soon and I believe him. He is laser-focused on getting “1% better” every day and he genuinely looks to have improved vastly since his initial comeback two years ago.

He recently finished T5th in a strong Saudi International field and then third at LIV Golf Promotions ahead of a number of quality, tournament-winning players. He made a clutch final-hole birdie on day two in Florida to make it through to the weekend and will have gained lots of confidence from that moment as well as the entire week.

His best ever LIV Golf finish is T25th and that will surely be smashed this year. I can see him recording multiple top-10s in LIV Golf and winning an International Series event on the Asian Tour.

I predict he will finish inside the top-30 on the LIV standings as well to secure his card for 2027. His comeback has been inspirational and it has been fantastic watching him return to the professional game.

I certainly don't think Kim will win this year, but I feel sure he will take significant leaps forward from where he has been over the past two seasons - his first two in what feels like a second career debut.

Kim's floor was quite low in years one and two while his ceiling was gradually being pushed higher and higher as time wore on. I think his floor will rise slightly now and his maximum capabilities are sure to continue expanding, but I'm not convinced we will see much more than a couple of top-10s out of Kim, be it on LIV or in Asian Tour events.

For Kim, it should be about marginal gains this season and ensuring he continues on an upwards trajectory. If he can do that and retain his LIV status as a result, I'd call that a win. Then, there will be plenty of highlights to come and maybe even a win on the horizon.

After the past two years, I'm delighted to see Kim returning to form and showcasing some of the old game that netted him multiple PGA Tour titles.

Certainly, he seems more comfortable in tournament play and has toiled immensely to get into that position, which has been shown by the results at the PIF Saudi International and LIV Golf Promotions.

How do I think he'll fare next year? Obviously there are some little bits that need tightening up in his game but, given his recent form, I think the American is good enough to finish inside the Lock Zone, especially as he's capable of firing in a low result, as shown by the top 10 in Saudi Arabia.

Obviously a lot can change between now and the first event in February, but if Kim keeps this caliber of game going then there is a chance he could sneak into the top 24.

He knows what it's like to lose his card and earn it back, so that'll be a big confidence booster, something that was perhaps missing from the off when he returned at the start of 2024

I think Anthony Kim will return to the winner's circle in 2026, for three reasons: he's good enough (a statement I wouldn't have come close to making even three months ago), he seems motivated and he's happy off the golf course.

That last point is arguably the most important one, because when success on the course isn't a defining feature of your life, you're more likely to achieve it.

There were a few signs he was finding his feet again towards the back end of 2025 – a top-ten finish in an International Series event, for example – but coming through a pressure-packed do-or-die tournament and playing some great golf in the process is highly encouraging.

The most exciting part is he's nowhere near being back to his best, and his affirmation that he will win golf tournaments soon speaks to how positive he's feeling at the moment. It's a great redemption story and I'm rooting for Kim in 2026.

I can almost guarantee that you didn't have Vijay Singh playing a full-time PGA Tour schedule on your bingo card for most likely golf scenarios in 2026. And yet, according to the the Associated Press, here we are...

The three-time Major winner has reportedly taken up the option to use a credit which allows him to pick up a card, no questions asked, off the back of his status as a top-50 member on the PGA Tour's Career Money list.

Those inside the top-50 have one chance to cash this in while anyone who makes up the top-25 has another bonus opportunity.

The 62-year-old, who turns 63 in February, is 17th with roughly $71.2 million and is unlikely to be usurped this season, so could come back next year as well.

Understandably, the story has caused something of a lively debate online with some people close to outraged at the 34-time PGA Tour winner for what they feel is taking a spot off an up-and-comer.

People in that camp have pointed to the selfless actions of Tommy 'Two Gloves' Gainey who earlier this week said that he had withdrawn from the Korn Ferry Tour's opening event in The Bahamas in order to allow a young player to tee it up.

However, the opposition camp would point to the PGA Tour allowing the situation to occur and commending Singh for effectively taking advantage of an extremely lucrative opportunity.

How do you feel about Singh's decision to return to the PGA Tour aged 62. Is it fair? Let us know in the comments box below. Meanwhile, three of Golf Monthly's tour experts have had their say.

I’ve got no problem with Vijay Singh at all really. He’s literally earned it with 34 career victories and three Majors during his Hall of Fame career, and these money list exemptions are just one-offs, or two-offs in Singh’s case, and aren’t used that much.

I can see the annoyance of some when a 62-year-old who hasn’t played on the PGA Tour since 2021 gets a card while the 101st best player in the FedEx Cup standings doesn’t - but, with great respect to Lee Hodges, as an entertainment product would he draw as many viewers as Singh will when he tees it up?...

And yes, in general, the meritocracy aspect should be about how good a player you are right now rather than how good you’ve been, it’s surely good to offer this reward to veterans who’ve done so much good for the Tour over the years.

Plus it is open to everyone – all you have to do is earn yourself over $70m like Singh.

I am excited by this Vijay Singh news and am looking forward to see him back out on the PGA Tour this year. He is one of this generation’s true greats, having dethroned Tiger Woods in the world rankings in 2004 when he won nine times.

At the age of 62 to have the drive and motivation to still want to compete on the PGA Tour is impressive, and I will be rooting for him to make as many cuts as he can and maybe even challenge the first page of one or two leaderboards.

I vividly remember his 6th-place finish at the 2019 Honda Classic at the age of 56, where he was just one back heading into the final round at PGA National. If he can manage to find himself in contention, he will surely draw extra eyeballs to that tournament, too.

This is a well-known PGA Tour rule and he has more than earned the right to cash in this career money exemption as a 34-time winner on the circuit.

If some feel he is taking spots of others, the players who missed out sadly should have simply played better. Good on Singh and I wish him the best of the luck this season!

Is it fair? Yes and no. If you're measuring fairness against the PGA Tour's idea of meritocracy being the guiding principle of the circuit, then not really.

But, also, Vijay Singh is one of the best golfers ever to play the game, according to the Career Money list itself, and has therefore earned this chance.

If there is any frustration over this situation, it can't really be directed at Singh. He is simply taking the lucrative opportunity in front of him. Why wouldn't you? The furore that it's created should be fired towards the PGA Tour for allowing this loophole to be taken advantage of by senior players.

Personally, I think I'd prefer to watch Vijay Singh over those just outside the top-100 last year anyway, or at least initially, so I don't mind whether it's fair or not if Singh can make his appearances count. Either way, it's entertaining for the time being.

'Inside The Ropes' is the chance for Golf Monthly's tour experts to share their honest opinions on the biggest subjects in the game. This week, it's all about Brooks Koepka.

'What's next for Brooks Koepka?' is one of the biggest questions in the game right now. The five-time Major winner recently left the LIV Golf League and is a free agent with almost every avenue open to him when, and if, he chooses to make his return.

When it was announced the Koepka was departing Smash GC - the team he captained for several seasons - the Florida-born pro said he was keen to spend more time with his family in Jupiter.

A statement read: "Family has always guided Brooks’s decisions, and he feels this is the right moment to spend more time at home."

Now back in the south-east corner of the United States, Koepka could well be weighing up his next move. Should he wish to continue playing pro golf and competing for Majors, the obvious call would be a return to the PGA Tour.

But, under current rules, the 35-year-old would not be permitted to tee it up in a PGA Tour event until the FedEx Cup Fall later this year, and that's an awfully long time to go without regular tour starts.

In the meantime, it's possible Koepka may entertain a season on the DP World Tour, with no such ban in place for competing in the LIV Golf League.

Even before that, Rory McIlroy was asked about the prospect of his fellow five-time Major winner playing in TGL, going as far as saying those involved would "find a way to include him" if he wanted to join this season.

What do you think Koepka is most likely to do next? Let us know in the comments box below. In the meantime, our tour experts have shared their thoughts.

There are three possibilities I see for Brooks Koepka’s 2026. Option one, the most likely I feel, is a return to the PGA Tour once his suspension lifts in late August after playing in all four Majors and a few DP World Tour events to keep his game in shape.

Option two would be to only play in the four Majors, and option three would be an immediate return to the PGA Tour.

The statement from the Tour indicated it would be happy to welcome him back, and this new PGA Tour under Brian Rolapp’s leadership may choose to rewrite the rules and allow the five-time Major champion and former World No.1 to return instantly.

Rory McIlroy would have no problems with that, but with fewer PGA Tour cards now in the frame and $20m Signature Events in play I’m not sure how the mid-tier players would take that.

If I was Brian Rolapp, I’d be trying to get Koepka back ASAP. In the meantime, he could well slot into Tiger Woods’ Jupiter Links TGL team considering he is a Jupiter local and clearly will have a bit more time on his hands this winter.

On the one hand, I can reasonably see Koepka returning to pro golf on the DP World Tour in the coming weeks and months before ultimately landing back on the PGA Tour in time.

But, personally, I don't believe he'll end up playing TGL - despite the valid reasons Elliott has offered up above.

On the other hand, I do wonder whether Koepka might retire. I'm not saying it's likely, but you never know what's going on behind closed doors in his personal life and things might have changed since he stated early last year that one of his aims was to win 10 or more Majors.

In addition, consider the fact that he's chosen to leave LIV Golf where he was almost guaranteed an uncapped flow of cash for however long he needed while remaining exempt into all four Majors.

Plus, LIV's limited schedule meant he was only away from home for maybe 4-5 months of the year at most (including Majors), while almost half of that time was spent in America anyway.

If the best part of eight months at home wasn't enough to satisfy Koepka's desire to spend more time with his family - the reason he gave for quitting LIV - I do wonder whether he would be happy to walk away with five Majors and very realistically upwards of $200 million earned.

I think Koepka will play a handful of events before the Major season ramps up at The Masters in April, with the American using this time out to reset mentally and psychologically.

Given the year he had in 2025, it's completely understandable why Koepka wants to be back home with his family and, given his injury struggles and the PGA Tour ban as well, now is the time that I think he'll put his mind to being back to 100% fitness.

Serving his PGA Tour ban, he should be eligible to return in the Fall. Between now and then are all four Majors and some big events on the DP World Tour, so to keep that competitive streak going, I would expect him to be present at one or two of them, like he was in 2025.

Do I think he'll play TGL? Possibly. Koepka lives in the area and, given that the TGL is expanding in 2027, it would need more players. Ultimately, it will be up to him on whether he plays, but there's no denying that the PGA Tour would certainly not say no to someone of his caliber.

Over the coming years, men's professional golf could make some major changes to its genetic make-up and appearance.

Although it seems unlikely at this stage, there remains hope in some quarters that a unification deal could be struck between the primary powerhouses and the 'f word' (that's fracture) which has been used to describe the overall state of the sport for several years now would be consigned to an awkward little corner of golfing history.

In the meantime, each of the main professional circuits on the men's side continues to try and make the best of the situation and ensure it is in the rudest health possible.

From the PGA Tour's point of view, that may mean altering itself quite considerably in order to not only survive but thrive in the hectic US sports market.

Recent reports - sparked by quotes from Harris English and cemented by words from Tiger Woods - suggested that Brian Rolapp and co. are considering removing Signature Events and creating an equal schedule of 20-25 must-see tournaments between February and the end of August.

Part of that potential change would lead the PGA Tour season to kick off (if you'll pardon the pun) after the NFL's Super Bowl has concluded, thus removing a handful of notable events which have featured at the start of every season for several years.

But are such changes necessary? After all, the PGA Tour reported several tournaments had enjoyed improvements in TV viewership throughout 2025 and golf as a whole is believed to be as popular as ever - especially since the global Covid-19 pandemic.

On the other hand, the NFL regularly possesses over 70% of the most-watched sporting broadcasts in the US each year and undoubtedly takes plenty of traffic away from golf when the two are competing for eyes.

Four Golf Monthly writers sat down to share their thoughts on the subject and ask whether the PGA Tour really needs to bow down to the NFL or if it should start boxing clever in order to fight back?

SHOULD THE PGA TOUR BOW DOWN TO THE NFL?

There is an awful lot of talk about football on the PGA Tour, and it is for good reason. The NFL is a behemoth which attracts enormous TV viewership, so I think it’s a sensible move to try and stay away from it where possible.

Losing the entire of January sounds drastic but that allows the DP World Tour’s Middle East swing to shine. The Dubai Desert Classic is a fantastic event that deserves to be THE tournament of the week so I see no problem there, as the PGA Tour’s January events are always fighting a losing battle against NFL on the same timezone and weekend.

Luckily for golf, the football season is short and the PGA Tour can really take advantage of that with a packed schedule from mid-February up to the end of August.

Make the main PGA Tour campaign as strong as physically possible and let the DP World Tour and other circuits take what’s left of the golf viewership when it’s football season, I’d say.

While Elliott certainly makes a number of fair points, I can't agree that the PGA Tour should go quietly, offer a healthy portion of its share in the game to a rival circuit and accept defeat when it comes to a battle with the NFL.

Golf has never been more popular, shown by increasing participation figures and the fact that Rory McIlroy became the first golfer in over 30 years to win the BBC Sports Personality of the Year in the UK.

I'd find it so strange if, given the position the sport is in overall, the PGA Tour opted to scale back or even walk away from what it's built.

I know the NFL is a sporting powerhouse like no other, but I don't think it's about bowing down to American Football, exactly. It should be about adapting while trying to build on the momentum golf has created for itself. That way, the PGA Tour can continue to be incredibly successful.

In my eyes, starting the season later is certainly not the answer, although I do like the idea of a more equal schedule overall. Moving forward, I think the PGA Tour should look to double down on plans to dominate the golfing scene and accept there is always going to be a pretty high ceiling dictated by the NFL.

No, I don't think the PGA Tour should almost admit defeat and bow down to the NFL, given that the off-season's FedEx Cup Fall did produce some excellent stories and has changed the path of some players' careers going forward.

We know that March to September is the peak period for the PGA Tour, but the off-season is a great chance for a number of less recognized names to establish themselves and challenge the big players.

I'll admit, the PGA Tour bowing down to the NFL might help the DP World Tour, given its big events are September to November, but the PGA Tour still needs to continue to provide opportunities to those who want to further their careers and make it into the Signature Events and Majors.

In a word, yes. The NFL is a behemoth and is utterly dominant in American sports, so it really is pointless trying to do battle with it during the climax of the season towards the Super Bowl.

The PGA Tour is much better served starting the season after the NFL showpiece, just to try and maximize the amount of coverage it could try and bring to it, as not just the Super Bowl itself but the week before also dominates the sports media landscape, and golf will hardly get a look-in.

Moving the PGA Tour opener to after the Super Bowl makes perfect sense to me.

Imagine we live in a world where all professional golfers are available to buy stocks and shares in. You've just started a job as a junior associate at an investment company and you've been given $100 to start you off. Which players are you buying?

There are the blue-chip options such as Scottie Scheffler and Rory McIlroy - players you know are going to cost a lot but they will almost certainly maintain their share price for at least the next 12 months.

Then you have golfers like Jeeno Thitikul, Jon Rahm, Nelly Korda and Joaquin Niemann who are just below that top price but are capable of featuring in the same circles as Scheffler and McIlroy.

Moving down, golfers such as David Puig, Marco Penge and Lottie Woad are clearly destined for an extremely bright future and could be worth picking up at this price before they inevitably increase in cost over the coming years.

In the comments below, let us know how you'd set up your portfolio and which players you'd be looking to buy shares in ahead of the 2026 season. To help you out, four Golf Monthly writers have written down their respective plans.

IF GOLFERS WERE STOCKS, WHO WOULD YOU BUY?

I will make Scottie Scheffler and Rory McIlroy 40% of my portfolio to ensure some safe returns as I’m confident both will continue to dominate the top of the men’s game for the next five years.

I think Jon Rahm is one of the greats of his generation with more Majors in him so I am happy to have him making up 12.5%, which is the same as Lottie Woad who will surely be a World No.1 and Major winner very soon.

Xander Schauffele and Ludvig Aberg each make up 10%, which should give a good return on investment in the medium term. Tom McKibbin will likely continue his rise in the game, especially after that superb Hong Kong Open victory recently, and I’m happy to put 5% into the Hojgaards as at least one of them will go on to win multiple PGA Tour titles, you would think.

LIV’s two other hot prospects Joesele Ballester and David Puig, both from Spain and Arizona State University, look to be future Ryder Cuppers and two of Europe’s top players who will have esteemed careers.

I think Marco Penge could be very successful in America, and Jackson Koivun is already one of the game’s top players statistically so he should be set for a very good career, too.

At this stage I have 1% left and I am going to stick that on Anthony Kim, who just finished T5th at the Saudi International and is set on getting “1% better” each day. He could well hoist a trophy next year for the first time since 2010, which would be an amazing story and give me a return on my hypothetical investment.

• $20 Scottie Scheffler
• $20 Rory McIlroy
• $12.5 Jon Rahm
• $12.5 Lottie Woad
• $10 Xander Schauffele
• $10 Ludvig Aberg
• $5 Tom McKibbin
• $2.5 Rasmus Hojgaard
• $2.5 Nicolai Hojgaard
• $1 Jackson Koivun
• $1 Josele Ballester
• $1 David Puig
• $1 Marco Penge
• $1 Anthony Kim

There are so many players coming through the ranks right now and, following his first PGA Tour win during the FedEx Cup Fall, I think Michael Brennan is one to keep an eye on in 2026, as he possesses incredible distance and an all-round game to match.

For me, LIV Golf has the better younger talent, with Tom McKibbin, Caleb Surratt, Josele Ballester and David Puig worth monitoring, given that three of those players earned big wins on either the DP World Tour or Asian Tour at the end of 2025.

In the women's game, there are so many young stars already coming through and established, but I'm going for a return of Lilia Vu. The American claimed two Majors in 2023, but has struggled with injury since. She has quality in abundance and, hopefully, with a good off-season recovery, she will be back to full fitness in 2026.

• $20 Michael Brennan
• $20 David Puig
• $20 Josele Ballester
• $15 Tom McKibbin
• $15 Lilia Vu
• $10 Caleb Surratt

I’m going big on some blue chip stock in Rory McIlroy. You could argue that his stock has never been, or will ever get, higher – but I also can’t see it falling too much in 2026 either.

Also, joining that exclusive Grand Slam club could just release the handbrake, and without that extra pressure on his shoulders he could easily freewheel his way to a fruitful season. We all know how well he can play when he’s swinging it free and easy.

I’m also allocating a decent chunk on Tommy Fleetwood – again he’s about as high value as he’s ever been, but his consistency down the stretch in 2025 means he’ll be up at the sharp end of leaderboards time and again in 2026. Plus, the Majors line up very nicely for him to go and win one in the coming season, which will see his stock rise to another level.

I’ve invested in a couple of Englishman who could make me a nice return in 2026 – Harry Hall knows all about the PGA Tour and if he carries on where he left off in 2025 he could have a seriously good season, while Marco Penge is more of an unknown commodity in the USA but has the game to thrive.

My speculative stock comes in the form of Denmark’s Rasmus Neergaard-Petersen who I’m backing to make the most of that PGA Tour card he earned in Europe.

• $50 Rory McIlroy
• $25 Tommy Fleetwood
• $10 Marco Penge
• $10 Harry Hall
• $5 Rasmus Neergaard-Petersen

Just like the others, it makes so much sense to put a third of my investment into the most consistent golfer of this generation, Scottie Scheffler.

But I'm choosing to spend 40% of my portfolio on two players I believe will be right at the top of the women's game very soon - Lottie Woad and Mimi Rhodes.

The two former Curtis Cup teammates enjoyed extremely successful stints in 2025 with five victories between them and I can see them battling it out for LPGA Tour titles before too long. Because they've not long turned pro, I think now is a great time to invest and watch those profits bloom in the coming months and years.

Harry Hall and Marco Penge are having $10 each because I think both could contend for PGA Tour titles next year and take the next step in their careers with a view to potentially playing Ryder Cup golf in 2027.

The rest of my investment is going on five players I feel it's well worth taking a punt on. Ballester, Koivun and Tan have shown more than enough promise in their fledgling careers to justify a gamble on them, while Jayden Schaper could easily fight it out for the Race To Dubai title next year now that he has two wins under his belt.

The final player in my portfolio is Max Homa. Having fallen from such a lofty position in the game, it's surely only a matter of time until the American finds his feet again, and now could be a great time to invest in him with his price unfortunately at a modern low.

• $35 Scottie Scheffler
• $20 Lottie Woad
• $20 Mimi Rhodes
• $10 Harry Hall
• $10 Marco Penge
• $1 Josele Ballester
• $1 Jackson Koivun
• $1 Jayden Schaper
• $1 Max Homa
• $1 Shannon Tan