PGA Tour’s provocative new ad suggests ‘5th major’ debate back on

Should the Players Championship become golf’s fifth major?

That’s the question the PGA Tour not-so-subtly wants you asking.

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

The opening shot — an upside-down reflection of J.J. Spaun — serves as a callback to last year’s dramatic, splashy Players finish, where Spaun made an inspired charge before his hopes ended in arguably golf’s most famous lake.

Next there’s Sepp Straka gazing at TPC Sawgrass’ iconic island-green 17th. (Why Straka? I’m not exactly sure, but my best guess is his was the steeliest stare the Tour had on file.)

Then recent big-name Players champs tick past, Scottie Scheffler (who won in 2023 and 2024) and then Rory McIlroy (2019 and 2025) and then Justin Thomas (2021), the three most recent in-good-standing tournament winners who are also three of golf’s most popular stars (you won’t be shocked to hear that 2022 champ Cameron Smith, now of LIV Golf, does not make an appearance).

The shots are desaturated, overcast, moody, dramatic. A voice drifts over the scenes.

I can’t get you out of my head

Suddenly you’re underwater, then halfway out, then rising into the sky. The island green appears before you, and the stadium around it. There are a lot of people there.

There’s Corey Conners. There’s a ball in the water. There’s Tony Finau. Another splash. There’s a player in anguish, and then another. There’s Collin Morikawa, so agonized he’s taken off his hat. Another splash. A hole-in-one from Shane Lowry. (Remember that?) A grin from Brooks Koepka. (Remember him?) A leap 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 tagline.

MARCH IS GOING TO BE MAJOR

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

The Players being described as “major” is, at the very least, a strong suggestion. Greenlighting this particular tagline does not happen by accident — especially not for a PGA Tour under new CEO Brian Rolapp, who has started his first full season on offense. In recent weeks, the Tour has recruited multiple players back from LIV and pushed forward plans to reimagine the schedule under the guidance of visionaries like Tiger Woods and Theo Epstein. The latest development is only a piece of marketing material, but it suggests something bigger: Rolapp is ratcheting up the size of the Tour’s visionboard, and in the process, testing the limits of his newfound momentum.

The Players-as-fifth-major discussion is not new. It certainly predates my arrival in the world of golf media. Based on conversations with smart people, the Tour has vacillated on the seriousness of the “major” moniker many times over the years.

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 wealthiest Tour in the world — but if we’re judging by ownership of golf’s most important events (the majors), it comes up empty. The PGA Tour does not own the Masters, PGA Championship, U.S. Open, the Open Championship or even the Ryder Cup. I doubt Rolapp is particularly pleased about that structure. I doubt the Tour’s private-equity partners are, either. They would like to own all four majors. At the very least, they’d like to own one.

And so here we are, with the Tour using its marketing material to test the waters of the major championship discussion again. Is this a trial balloon — or the beginning of an organized campaign? It appears we’re about to find out.

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

“Fans and players have long discussed THE PLAYERS Championship’s status as a major. We understand that is not for 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 running through five questions on what a theoretical Players-as-fifth-major would mean.

1. Who decides the majors, anyway?

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

There was a time, pre-Masters, in which the U.S. 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 U.S. Open and Open Championship and was considered a grand-slam winner.

The modern Grand Slam, per 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 preferred sportswriter, 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, too (I type, wistfully, imagining this power), but the power to make such pronouncements was derived primarily from the rise of golf on TV, which elevated stars like Palmer and Jack Nicklaus into authority figures. Of course, that leaves a deep irony in the formation of the modern slam: The majors are each 90-plus years old, but the Grand Slam may not yet be 70.

There was still some murkiness around the Grand Slam the ’60s and ’70s, when it was unclear whether Nicklaus should count his 1959 and 1961 U.S. Amateur titles as majors. But eventually a common vernacular emerged around the four big events: the Masters, the PGA, the U.S. Open, and the Open Championship. Horse racing has its Triple Crown, and golf has its Grand Slam, an epic foursome of tournaments stretching from the beginning of spring through the end of summer.

The majors are “official” in certain ways; they’re referenced in handbooks, Hall-of-Fame criteria, media guides, Wikipedia pages and the like. But there’s also no organization or individual in charge of amending their definition. It’s a funny thing to think about. They’re the majors because we all agree that they are.

If the Players isn’t a major, what is it?

The Players isn’t a major and hasn’t been a major — but it is the next best thing: the second line in the counting stats of PGA Tour players. Justin Thomas has two majors plus a Players. Rory McIlroy has five majors plus two Players. Yes, this is a bit bulky. Rolapp’s quest is for “simplicity,” and this could be simplified. But it’s also the way things are; the Players is the PGA Tour’s biggest event … but it’s not a major.

It is worth emphasizing just how good the Players has become. It’s not just No. 17; TPC Sawgrass is a terrific tournament venue. I’ve written that it’s the Florida Masters; we return every year to a familiar, iconic venue with famous hazards, big-time champions, and highlight-reel moments. Sub out Rae’s Creek for the island green, and sub out Augusta’s historic manor clubhouse for the towering Ponte Vedra palace, you get the idea. The crowds are terrific, it’s the event in town, the broadcast feels big and it seems to get bigger every year.

What’s the case for the Players as a major?

I guess I sort of just made that case. Iconic venue, memorable moments, 50-plus years of history, big-time winners, a massive purse, elevated TV coverage, enormous crowds. It’s objectively one of the best tournaments on the golf calendar.

About the biggest thing working against the Players as a major is its field. The majors have gained strength in the 2020s because they’ve served as the only mutual meeting ground for stars from the PGA Tour and LIV. In some ways, it could be argued that what makes a major in 2026 is that all the best players are in attendance. Currently, the Tour only welcomes Tour players to compete in the Players.

But there’s an intriguing potential subplot here. This is pure speculation, but if the Players wanted to achieve major status, could it create an eligibility category for top LIV players and serve as a crossover event transcending tour rivalry? I dunno. But it does seem like you’d need to open up the field in some way to seriously enter the conversation.

What’s the case against the Players as a major?

There was a quote, some years ago, from John Feinstein on Golf Channel: “When 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 decade. I’d argue that has only served to muddy the waters as to the important tournaments on their schedule. Five majors is one too many.

Here’s where I’ve landed: I’m fine with the Players being a major in the abstract — but I’m not okay with five majors. Whether via a duel or a hostile takeover, the Players has to demote another major to elevate itself.

What would happen if it became a major?

We’d need to do some serious arithmetic, for one thing. Nicklaus won three Players, so he’d suddenly have 21 majors. Woods won two of ’em, so he’d be up to 17 total majors but even further behind Jack.

Fred Couples would jump from one major to three, as would Steve Elkington, as would Hal Sutton, as would Davis Love III. I’m guessing we’d have their votes.

Perhaps the biggest change would be among those whose current major total is zero. Matt Kuchar would suddenly be a major champ. So would Rickie Fowler. And Si Woo Kim. And K.J. 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 major totals hold, as neither player overlapped with the Players. Cross-generational scorekeeping is tough. Apples and featheries.

I imagine we’ll hear more from the Tour in the coming weeks. I imagine we’ll hear from Rolapp himself at the Players itself. I’m curious what he’ll have to say — and whether the M-word is part of it.

“>