In a memo sent Tuesday to PGA Tour members, the PGA Tour’s Player Advisory Council, along with player managers on the Policy Board, Proposed major changes to tour operations. These included a significant reduction in overall tour membership (a drop from 125 to 100 in how many players hold their cards based on their finish in the FedEx Cup standings each year, among other categories), smaller tournament fields, and fewer playing opportunities through sponsor exemptions. and Monday qualifiers. FedEx Cup point allocation for tournament finishes is also being adjusted and the tour’s tempo of play policy is being changed.

You can find all the details of the offer here Here. It seems almost certain that these changes will be accepted and officially implemented for the 2026 season when they are presented to the Policy Board for a vote in mid-November.

To further explore the origins and impacts of the changes, Golf Digest brought together four writers for a roundtable discussion about the soon-to-be reinvented PGA Tour.

My immediate reaction is usually positive. You may argue that the PGA Tour offers too many cards and exemptions, or you may think it is too much of a closed shop, and either way you can find others who agree. I liked the idea of ​​using fewer cards at the end of the season but not cutting field sizes. A future breakout star could be among the casualties of smaller fields. You must develop talent every step of the way. —Dave Shedloski

Some are good, some are bad; This makes it a classic compromise agreement in some respects. If you were starting a tour from scratch, would these be the rules you would focus on? Probably not. But the PGA Tour isn’t starting from scratch. He shepherds a group of players whose livelihoods are in jeopardy while carrying much of his own baggage. In this regard, these changes are at least a step in the right direction. —Luke Kerr-Dineen

Ever since the note surfaced, I’ve been trying to focus on the reasoning behind it. From where This is all happening right now. The main motivation, according to the players, is to address issues of “field dimensions and pace of play”. In my opinion, the former can only be seen as a concern for the best players; Reducing field sizes means the chance to get paid more each week. The latter is a more general concern shared by fans… but of course pitch dimensions have a direct impact on the pace of play. The big question on my mind is: Is all of this really a way to cut costs and reduce size without cutting the salaries of the best players? Or in other words, is this another inevitable response to LIV? If you’re an investor in the round, you’ll probably enjoy this; This has the dual benefit of reducing expenses and sharpening the focus on players who “move the needle.” But in practice I worry it will continue to destroy the romance in the game by making it much less democratic. I’ve seen the phrase “pulling up the ladder behind them” used a few times on social media in relation to professionals, and I can see where they’re coming from. -Shane Ryan

Thumbs up and thumbs to the side whatever. Warm. —Christopher Powers

The biggest beneficiaries are the top players and investors in the PGA Tour, as long as they can remain top players. If the tour can actually increase the pace of play, you can add “fans” to the mix, but I still have my doubts about whether pace of play is an issue that’s at the forefront of fans’ minds (compared to commercial games, for example). upload in publications). —SR

Players ranked below the top 50. They were not in danger of losing their tour card anyway and will now play against smaller fields for bigger checks. Staying in the top 50 and securing a spot at the PGA Tour’s special events just got a little easier. And unless they are particularly slow players, they will probably be fined less as well. —LKD

I’m on LKD… To me the midrange player seems to benefit the most from this. Consistent cut maker who competes several times a year. —CP

Everyone who is already inside is a beneficiary. True, they need to stay there, but they now face less competition every week. —DS

Things seem to be going tough here for the Korn Ferry Tour players. A 20 percent reduction in PGA Tour membership makes headlines, but reducing the number of KFT graduates from 30 to 20 represents a 33 percent decrease. This is in addition to fewer Q-School opportunities through the elimination of ties, as well as changes to restricted sponsors’ exceptions. It will be much harder to reach the promised land and even harder to stay there with fewer members overall. —LKD

I think the Korn Ferry Tour players are really stuck here. In recent years they have gone from 50 spots to 30 and now 20. Of course, they had a hard time getting started, but the already difficult apprenticeship process became even more difficult. But, hey, maybe you’ll get stronger players graduating along the way. —DS

Men who, unfortunately, are always a week away from changing their lives. Gruden grinders. —CP

Anyone hoping to make a career on the PGA Tour who is not yet in the upper echelons of the game. It became increasingly difficult to achieve this on tour and was already close to impossible. If I were the 125th ranked player on the tour, I would probably be pretty disappointed to be penalized for issues beyond my control. —SR

When I saw the sentence “These proposals include giving players more time to bat and reducing or eliminating penalties for bad times,” I had little hope that the pace of play would increase. —CP

Reducing field sizes and the additional penalties they plan to take due to bad times in tournament play will also help. But what’s really confusing are the changes they outline at the end of the note; all of which seem designed to give players more, rather than less, time to kick the ball, as well as reduce certain penalties. This feels like a “one step forward, one step back” situation, and they should have saved it for a different note, at least from a PR standpoint. But it’s also easy to see that players are fighting for these concessions and are in a very strong position to do so. —SR

Let’s think this through. You’re cutting greens to ensure rounds can be completed, so it sounds like you’re willing to give players more time to shoot while eliminating penalties for bad times. Isn’t that a recipe for even SLOWER laps? It looks like you’re not gaining anything. —DS

The way these rules are written makes it seem like those in power think that reducing field sizes and punishing repeated slow play offenses (with increased penalties) will solve the problem. I think this is a very generous reading that is probably not accurate. The truth is, in the eyes of many fans, the tour has a slow-play problem overall. Ask golf’s most avid observers and they will tell you that players playing at average pace are still too slow. It’s not a few bad apples. This is a cultural problem. Everyone needs to be faster and this probably won’t help that. —LKD

Certain aspects of this could make the product increasingly better, but there’s a certain unromantic element that feels very in line with the changes we’ve seen in the fight against LIV over the last two years. At best, let’s assume that the pace of play increases and the number of rounds on Thursdays and Fridays decreases. That’s all well and good, but does it solve the really big problems with fan alienation, broadcast products and a financially overextended sport? The answer to this question may be a qualified “yes”, although it may not be very satisfactory or effective. —SR

Cosmetics is a perfect word. I didn’t see anything in these proposals that would really “stir up” fans of the sport. There are still only four weeks that matter in the whole year. —CP

The main product complaints from fans seem to be: field sizes are too large, broadcast windows are too large, game pace is too slow, tour memberships are too inflated. These changes move the ball forward, albeit slightly. But on the bright side, progress is progress, right? —LKD

I tend to make the calculation that fewer players on the field means less entertainment for the crowd, so I’m not a fan of that side of the equation. However, the tour and its players looked carefully at the big picture and realized that it was beneficial to make the product more efficient at a time when other sports were taking measures to shorten their competitive windows. The final referees are the fans. Let’s see what they say. —DS