PGA Tour’s provocative new ad suggests the ‘5th major’ debate is heating up again

Should the Players Championship become golf’s fifth major?

That’s the question the PGA Tour not so subtly wants to ask you.

The Tour released a provocative new Players promo video Thursday afternoon during late coverage of the WM Phoenix Open, which felt like an exercise in subliminal messaging.

The opening shot – a reverse reflection of JJ Spaun – serves as a throwback to last year’s dramatic, rousing Players finish, where Spaun made an inspired charge before his hopes ended in perhaps golf’s most famous lake.

Next up is Sepp Straka staring at TPC Sawgrass’s iconic island green 17th. (Why Straka? I’m not exactly sure, but my best guess is that he had the steeliest look the Tour had ever had.)

Then along come the recent major Players champions, Scottie Scheffler (who won in 2023 and 2024) and then Rory McIlroy (2019 and 2025) and then Justin Thomas (2021), the three most recent tournament winners in good standing who are also three of golf’s hottest stars (you won’t be shocked to hear that the 2022 champion, Cameron Smith, now of LIV Golf, is not making a success appearance).

The shots are desaturated, cloudy, moody and dramatic. A voice floats over the scenes.

I can’t get you out of my head

Suddenly you’re underwater, then halfway and then you’re rising into the air. The island green appears in front of you, and the stadium surrounds it. There are a lot of people there.

There’s Corey Conners. There is a ball in the water. There’s Tony Finau. Another splash. There’s one player in fear, and then another. There’s Collin Morikawa, so tormented he’s taken off his hat. Another splash. A hole-in-one from Shane Lowry. (Remember them?) A Brooks Koepka grin. (Remember him?) A jump from Ryan Moore. (His days as one of the faces of the Tour may be numbered.) Then, boom. Uppercut fist pump from Tiger Woods, punctuating the iconic ‘Better-than-most’ moment.

And then comes the slogan.

MARCH IS BECOMING IMPORTANT

It’s barely visible on screen; blink and you could almost miss it. But the message seems pretty clear.

That the players are described as “big” is a strong suggestion to say the least. The greenlighting of this particular slogan doesn’t happen by accident – ​​especially not for a PGA Tour under new CEO Brian Rolapp, who is in his first full season on offense. In recent weeks, the Tour has recruited several players from LIV and put forward plans to reinvent the schedule under the leadership of visionaries like Tiger Woods and Theo Epstein. The latest development is just a piece of marketing material, but it suggests something bigger: Rolapp is expanding the size of the Tour’s vision board, testing the limits of its new momentum.

The ‘Players-as-fifth-great’ discussion is not new. It certainly predates my arrival in the world of golf media. Based on conversations with smart people, the Tour has hesitated many times over the years about the seriousness of the ‘big’ name.

Still, it’s easy to see why the Tour would want the players to become a major. By most objective measures, the PGA Tour is the strongest and richest Tour in the world – but when we look at ownership of golf’s premier events (the majors), it comes up empty. The PGA Tour does not own the Masters, PGA Championship, US Open, the Open Championship or even the Ryder Cup. I doubt Rolapp is particularly happy with that structure. I doubt the Tour’s private equity partners are either. They would like to own all four majors. They would at least like to be owners An.

And here we are, with the Tour using its marketing materials to once again test the waters of the major championship discussion. Is this a trial balloon – or the start of an organized campaign? Looks like we’ll find out soon.

Update: I emailed the Tour asking for comment on the new advertisement. Just as we published this story, they sent the following statement. The second sentence seems…suggestive:

“Fans and players have long debated the status of THE PLAYERS Championship as a major. We understand that it is not up to us to decide. Ultimately, it is up to our sport and its fans to recognize what the professionals who play the game already know.”

In the meantime, it’s worth reviewing five questions about what a theoretical Players-as-fifth major would mean.

1. Who actually decides on the main subjects?

Oh boy, good question. The short version: some golfers and some writers. It was murky for a while, but it’s been a largely settled debate for decades.

There was a time, pre-masters, when the American and British amateurs were considered majors. In 1930, just four years before Augusta National’s first invitational tournament, Bobby Jones won those two plus the US Open and Open Championships and was considered a Grand Slam winner.

The modern Grand Slam, according to our in-house expert Michael Bamberger, had its roots in the 1930s, but didn’t become a ‘thing’ until 1960, when Arnold Palmer and his favorite sports journalist, Bob Drum, decided on the four events during a flight to St. Andrews… or so the story goes. There were other top players involved in choosing the majors, and other top sportswriters as well (I type wistfully, imagining this power), but the power to make such statements was derived primarily from the rise of golf on TV, which elevated stars like Palmer and Jack Nicklaus to figures of authority. That, of course, leaves a deep irony in the formation of the modern slam: the majors are each ninety years old or older, but the Grand Slam may not yet be seventy.

There was still some uncertainty surrounding the Grand Slam in the 1960s and 1970s, when it was unclear whether Nicklaus should count his 1959 and 1961 U.S. Amateur titles as majors. But eventually a common language emerged around the four major events: the Masters, the PGA, the US Open and the Open Championship. Horse racing has its Triple Crown, and golf has its Grand Slam, an epic quartet of tournaments that stretch from early spring to late summer.

The majors are ‘official’ in some respects; It is referenced in textbooks, Hall-of-Fame criteria, media guides, Wikipedia pages, and the like. But there is also no organization or individual responsible for changing their definition. It’s funny to think about. They are the majors because we all agree they are.

If the Players aren’t majors, then what? is It?

The Players are not and never have been a major is the next best thing: the second line in PGA Tour player counting statistics. Justin Thomas has two majors plus a Players. Rory McIlroy has five majors plus two players. Yes, this is a bit extensive. Rolapp’s quest is for ‘simplicity’, and this can be simplified. But it’s also the way things are; the Players is the biggest event on the PGA Tour…but it’s not a big event.

It’s worth highlighting how good the players have become. It’s not just No. 17; TPC Sawgrass is a great tournament location. I wrote that it is the Florida Masters; we return every year to a well-known, iconic location with famous dangers, great champions and highlight reels. Head to Rae’s Creek for the Green Island, and head to Augusta’s historic mansion and clubhouse for the towering Ponte Vedra Palace, you get the idea. The crowds are great, that’s what it is the event in the city, the broadcast feels big and seems to get bigger every year.

What is the case for the players as a major?

I think I just made that case. Iconic location, memorable moments, more than 50 years of history, big winners, a huge wallet, extensive TV coverage, huge crowds. It is objectively one of the best tournaments on the golf calendar.

About the main thing that works in return for the players as a major is his area of ​​expertise. The majors have gained momentum in the 2020s as they have served as the only joint meeting place for PGA Tour stars And LIV. In some ways you could say that’s a major in 2026 all the best players are there. Currently, the Tour only welcomes Tour players to participate in the Players.

But there’s an intriguing potential subplot here. This is pure speculation, but if the players wanted to reach major status, could this create an eligibility category for top LIV players and serve as a crossover event that transcends tour rivalries? Don’t know. But it seems like you have to open the field somehow to seriously participate in the conversation.

What is the case in return for the players as major?

There was a quote from John Feinstein on Golf Channel a few years ago: “If you go to Denny’s and order the Grand Slam, they don’t give you five things, do they?”

You get the idea. A grand slam means four wins in tennis, a grand slam means four runs in baseball, a grand slam means four things at Denny’s. In golf, the Grand Slam means four events.

The LPGA added a fifth major last ten years. I would say this has only served to muddy the waters regarding the important tournaments on their schedule. Five main subjects is one too many.

This is where I end up: I’m fine with the Players being a major in the abstract, but I’m not okay with five majors. Whether it’s through a duel or a hostile takeover, the players must demote another great to elevate themselves.

What would happen if it became a major?

To begin with, we need to do some serious math. Nicklaus won three players, so he suddenly had 21 majors. Woods won two, so he would have seventeen majors in total, but even further behind Jack.

Fred Couples would jump from one major to three, just like Steve Elkington, just like Hal Sutton, just like Davis Love III. I suspect we would have their votes.

Perhaps the biggest change would occur among those whose current headline total is zero. Matt Kuchar would suddenly be a major champion. Rickie Fowler would do that too. And Si Woo Kim. And KJ Choi.

Scottie Scheffler would suddenly have six majors. Rory McIlroy would suddenly have seven. On the other hand, Ben Hogan and Gene Sarazen would see their key totals maintained as neither player overlapped with the players. Keeping scores between generations is difficult. Apples and feathers.

I imagine we’ll hear more from the Tour in the coming weeks. I imagine we’ll hear it from Rolapp himself at the Players themselves. I’m curious to see what he has to say – and if the M word is part of it.

“>