There's always been some issues with sponsor exemptions on the PGA Tour, but the debate has been heightened with the introduction of lucrative Signature Events, so should they still be allowed?
Players have to work extra hard to qualify for Signature Events, which have increased prize funds and just 70 players in the field, and that makes the extra places for sponsor exemptions such a hot topic.
The debate raged last year when Adam Scott got three straight exemptions and Webb Simpson got four invites into Signature Events during the season - both of which came in for criticism.
News that both Jordan Spieth and Rickie Fowler missed out on Arnold Palmer Invitational exemptions raised the question again this year - as they are two of the PGA Tour's biggest draws yet failed to qualify by right.
So where is the balance? Should big names get in to these big events just because they draw a crowd or should the field just be limited to those who qualify?
The Golf Monthly news team have their say...
Should Signature Events have sponsor exemptions?
Sponsors exemptions are completely justified as they are the ones stumping up the money and hosting the tournament, so they are well within their rights to add whoever they wish to their event.
Signature Events have been a very divisive introduction from the PGA Tour, as they’ve almost split the circuit into two separate tours with top players now almost exlusively only playing in the eight Signature Events, the four Majors and the Playoffs - where they earn the most money as well as more FedEx Cup and OWGR points.
The tour prides itself on being a pure meritocracy where you have to earn your status, and sponsor’s invites clearly go against that. However, Signature Events only allow for four exemptions and they go to players who by-and-large have earned their stripes.
I’m not the biggest fan of them but ultimately they are done to improve the tournament and the sponsor is well within their rights to invite whoever they want to sell more tickets and drive more viewers, which I’m fine with.
If a player doesn’t qualify and isn’t happy about not being invited, I’m afraid they just have to play better.
My initial reaction was 'no, of course not, it's not fair' because Signature Events offer such elevated prize money and FedEx Cup points. But then, if sponsors are apparently being asked to pay through the nose to fund the PGA Tour during these uncertain times, don't they have the right to invite who they want?
On the flip side, should these tournaments not be a reward for good, consistent play the season before? Ultimately, I think they should, and that's why I don't believe sponsor exemptions should be on offer at Signature Events.
At the moment, players seem to be given invites into these tournaments because of their name and reputation based on what they have achieved over their careers so far, rather than what is going on right now.
Top-70 pros who are right on the precipice of breaking through may be seeing a potential outside chance of moving to the next level taken away from them just because they're not as famous. But how do they become more famous if they're not given that chance to do so?
To those who say 'play better' - these guys are trying but just when they could be given a chance to make that next step, it's taken away from them in favor of someone whose best stuff could well be behind them.
Ultimately, Signature Events should include a field of the 70 most in-form golfers the PGA Tour has to offer, not who has the most Instagram followers.
Tricky one this one, as I'm usually a big believer in the meritocracy of having to qualify for events like these - but they are meant to be showpiece tournaments and on this occasion I'm OK with organisers and sponsors being able to add a few others to the field.
All we hear about these days is about the biggest and best players competing more often, and this is another way that some crowd favourites and big draws can be added to an already quality field to make an event even better.
And we're meant to be all about what's best for the fans these days, right? So adding a Jordan Spieth or a Rickie Fowler will only enhance a big event - and after all sponsors are the ones stumping up the cash to support these events so it's only right they have the chance to make their tournaments more popular.
Saying that, I'd like to limit the amount of exemptions one player can have to maybe one or two a season, but for me they don't really present a problem.
Yes, players who just miss out on qualifying will not like it, but it's maybe up to them to play a bit better or try and enhance their popularity to attract some of these invites in the future.
