What the PGA Tour wanted with the signature events was to bring more star players together. They also framed the format—smaller fields, bigger purses, no cut—as a counterpunch to LIV, though officials have insisted it’s bigger than that. What actually happened, however, was the birth of a two-tier system (now official!), where regular Tour stops increasingly feel optional.

Sports Business Journal’s Josh Carpenter reported that the Tour schedule will see many changes in the coming years, including a two-tiered system. This promise was first floated during the Truist Championship. Before we get into the nuts and bolts of this discussion, here’s what this system will offer the fans, the media, and, of course, the players.

The proposed “first track” would include 16 elevated regular-season events, three playoff tournaments, and the four majors, so 23 events in all. These 16 Track 1 stops would expand to 120-man fields. How the Tour would make these 16 events sound “signature” is a conversation for another time. But, as per the report, the Tour is expected to earn some $30M annually from these new signature events. The “second track” tournaments, meanwhile, would run about 140 players, though the blueprint for those events is still fuzzy.

Currently, the PGA Tour has 13 events penciled in for 2027. As of now, the next season’s schedule seems similar to this year’s. So, hoping players suddenly stop withdrawing or skipping events would be a monkey’s paw wish.

That also means regular Tour stops will take the hit, and they’ll feel the sting far more than the signature events.

The case for the regular PGA Tour stops

Consider this week’s Charles Schwab Challenge (regular Tour stop).

Both Scottie Scheffler and Jordan Spieth are sitting this one out, despite previous ties. Spieth is skipping it for the first time in his career. Scheffler would be teeing up for a fourth straight week if he played; instead, he’s eyeing next week’s signature Memorial Tournament, where he’s the defending champion and the purse is far fatter ($20M versus Charles Schwab Challenge’s $9.9M).

Meanwhile, Wyndham Clark pulled out of the Colonial event after winning last week’s CJ Cup Byron Nelson. With that win, remember, he has locked himself into the remaining signature events. So, there’s little incentive to grind another week. Matt Fitzpatrick, the winner of the RBC Heritage, is another example. He won the event, skipped the Myrtle Beach Classic and the Truist Championship, before playing the PGA Championship. He skipped the CJ Cup Bryon Nelson, and isn’t present for the Charles Schwab Challenge either.

Or, take the example of Aaron Rai. He played the Myrtle Beach Classic, played the PGA Championship and won it, and then skipped the CJ Cup Byron Nelson (regular Tour stop).

These regular stops are in danger, to put it in one way. Only one top-20 player, Scheffler, showed up at the CJ Cup Byron Nelson, for instance. The tournament director, Jon Drago, has even said he’d consider moving his event date if necessary. But next year’s PGA Championship is already slated for May 20–23, barely 15 miles west of TPC Craig Ranch.

Tony Finau said wryly of the tournament’s future, “This tournament could be in some trouble. You just have to see what could happen and what the Tour is thinking.” He was one of the dozen players who attended Rolapp’s meeting at TPC Craig Ranch. Fans are concerned.

And honestly, it makes complete sense.

The problem isn’t that players withdraw after a win. Not really. It’s that the system practically nudges them to. Win a regular event, earn exemptions and entry into signature tournaments, and you suddenly unlock far bigger paydays. Taking the following week off stops being indulgence and becomes plain business sense. It’s not like pros haven’t skipped signature events, but the incentive to grind through back-to-back non-signature starts, well, evaporates.

Ironically, Scheffler may represent the exception proving the rule. His commitment to the Byron Nelson still carries emotional weight because it is not mandatory. Fans notice that. It stands out precisely because selective scheduling has become normal.

That matters because golf has traditionally depended on continuity. Fans grew attached to Tour stops because stars showed up consistently. Colonial Country Club matters because Ben Hogan cared. Bay Hill matters because Tiger Woods treated it seriously. And the Byron Nelson matters because Texans wanted to see the best players in Dallas every year.

Now the incentives are changing. Why play four straight weeks when one signature event can provide more money, more points, and stronger fields than several regular tournaments combined?

It’s no secret the big names pick and choose. So when events like the Cognizant Classic or CJ Cup Bryon Nelson get elbowed aside by $20 million purses, while offering roughly half that prize money, what shot do these smaller events really have? Especially, considering that Rolapp and his team are going to make sure the “Tier 1” events have fatter purses than “Tier 2.”

Between the Masters in April and the PGA Championship in May, three signature tournaments clog the schedule, with two more clustered around the U.S. Open in June. Signature events were meant to concentrate the star power, but stacked so tightly against the majors they risk thinning the top-tier turnout, leaving regular stops to feature the game’s “smaller” names.

Little wonder the signature events or the schedule itself draw ire from the players.

Erik Van Rooyen said he hates signature events, the concept of them. 2009 U.S. Open champion, Lucas Glover, said, “I’ve been on record as saying I was not a fan of these when they hatched the idea of them.”

At the Cadillac Championship, Rickie Fowler said, “April basically through the end of the year, it’s kind of nonstop. You try and get a week off here and there.” Scheffler gave a more personal reply, adding, “I’m like, physically and mentally, I can’t do this for two weeks in a row.” So did Justin Rose, Tommy Fleetwood, and others.

So there it is. Non-signature events now occupy an awkward middle ground. They remain crucial lifelines for journeymen, rookies, and players fighting to keep their cards, yet for established stars, many have become convenient to skip. You can see it in scheduling patterns.

Consider World No. 33 Patrick Cantlay, whose calendar has been pared back significantly. Or take Rory McIlroy, who’s made no secret of wanting to play as little as possible. 19 events in 2024, 16 in 2025, and just seven so far this season (majors included). Last year, he called the tour’s official events “definitely too many,” and this season he’s again pushing to trim his schedule.

Now, throw Rolapp’s proposal into the mix, and the season compresses to about 24–26 events, smaller than now. A player aiming for the minimum schedule would wind up in roughly seven signature events. Choices.

And the Tour may have unintentionally encouraged it. In fact, there are some reports. Several sources say players eligible for Tier 1 events will be heavily discouraged from teeing off at Tier 2 tournaments. It’s not hard to see why. Signature events come with gigantic purses, and the sponsors footing those bills expect marquee names in the lineup.

But that split is bound to stir up friction inside the Tour, and it cuts both ways for players who cherish their hometown stops. Think Scheffler, Spieth, and the CJ Cup Byron Nelson. What happens if the event is put in “Tier 2”? The PGA Tour will reduce the purses of these events, which in itself will be discouraging enough to not consider them.

The problem, of course, is the money.

Consider the Zurich Classic of New Orleans. Its field felt thin because a clutch of richer events piled up nearby, and even McIlroy withdrew. The event offered a $9.5 million purse. That is no longer crazy money. It now settles into second-tier territory. Most regular stops offer purses in that range ($8.5M to $10.5M), with opposite field events offering even less (around $5M or less).

It’s honestly a sad state of affairs.

A big part of the Tour’s charm has always been its unpredictability. Unknowns could Monday‑qualify; journeymen could suddenly be in the hunt. We could have our own David vs Goliath storyline. Tour stops forged their identity through repeat visits, local loyalty, and tradition. Now, many of those tournaments are scrambling to stay relevant in a system that gently nudges the biggest stars to treat them as optional.

But when elite players carefully ration their starts, the emotional weight of many non‑signature events shifts. What happens now? You can expect headlines to shift from “withdrawal” to “non‑consideration.”