How a few tweaks could make a major difference in Presidents Cup’s future

MONTREAL – If not now, if not here, then when?

That’s what the International Presidents Cup team leadership has to be wondering.

This year’s matches at Royal Montreal were supposed to prove that the beleaguered Internationals were finally making progress in the competition that has been unfailingly one-sided. They’d made purposeful attempts to foster team unity and camaraderie under the shield, bridging different cultures and languages and personalities. They’d tabbed a national hero, Mike Weir, to serve as captain. They were competing in golf-mad Canada for a true home game. And they’d assembled one of their strongest (and, most importantly, deepest) rosters to date.

But as tight as the competition appeared at times on Thursday and Saturday afternoon – and the overall holes-won differential for the week was just plus-1 for the Americans – the end result was the same.

Actually, not really: This wasn’t just another U.S. victory, its 10^th in a row and 13^th in 15 tries. The seven-point spread was the most lopsided home loss in the history of the cup.

Still, afterward, Weir trotted out an all-too-familiar refrain about the state of the competition: “The margin was so close. That’s what makes it tough because we know how close it was. A couple things go our way, and it could have at least started the day quite a bit different, and who knows if we would have been in such a deficit.”

So, again: If not now, when?

Sure, Weir, as a first-time captain, made a few critical errors that harmed his team’s chances of an upset. He leaned too heavily into his trio of Canadians (their combined career record: 5-17), and he’ll rue his head-scratching decision to send out the same eight players for two Saturday sessions despite minimal morning success. And though the partisan crowd came to life late in the event, it was a non-factor Thursday, when the Americans, clinging to narrow leads in all five matches, turned in a clean sweep for the first time in 24 years.

Future editions don’t inspire much confidence either, with no guarantee there’ll be a reunification of the sport by the time the next matches are played in 2026 outside Chicago. Though the Americans are also missing a few notable names because of LIV, they’re polarizing presences with spotty match-play records. The Internationals, conversely, have been decimated by the arrival of the rival league in 2022, and it’s undeniable that talents such as Joaquin Niemann, Cameron Smith, Louis Oosthuizen, Dean Burmester and Abe Ancer – all inside the top 12 in LIV’s points standings this past season – would have helped fortify a roster that, despite its improvement, still spotted the Americans an average 22-point gap in the world rankings.

That talent divide can’t be overcome with more passion or cohesion.

It must be addressed with the format.

A decade ago, the PGA Tour agreed to reduce the number of available points from 34 to 30 – the thinking being that the fewer points on offer, the less depth plays a factor.

But they can go even further – and that doesn’t have to mean foundational changes.

Reduce the total points from 30 to 28, putting the competition in line with the Ryder and Solheim cups.

Or trim the rosters from 12 players to 10, narrowing the talent gap on the back end.

Or shorten the number of competition days from four to three, creating quicker turnarounds that produce momentum swings and force captains into snap decisions.

There haven’t been significant tweaks to the format since 2015, and it’s unclear why the Tour has yet to lean into further changes to at least increase the possibility of more parity with the ledger now reading 13-1-1 in the Americans’ favor.

Any lobbying for change, of course, puts International team leadership in an awkward position publicly. From Weir to Ernie Els to Trevor Immelman, these are proud champions and respected voices who would essentially be conceding that they need help leveling the playing field. This year’s dozen players wouldn’t verbalize that preference either; all top-61 players in the world, they could look at any of the matches (particularly in singles, when they won just 4 ½ of the 12 possible points) as chances to erase the deficit.

That’s why the decision should come from above.

“We’ve just got to play a little better, get a little sharper,” Els said.

From Tom Kim’s histrionics to Patrick Cantlay’s putt in the dark, the Presidents Cup once again produced its share of memorable moments. But that was more a product of the team match-play format that always delivers compelling TV. The Tour shouldn’t mistake the event being entertaining for being competitive.

The Presidents Cup has become predictable, patterned, procedural: the Internationals talk a good game about this time being different, keep it close for much of the match, and then lose by a handful of points. That should be concerning to a Tour that, with the introduction of the deep-pocketed Strategic Sports Group, should be incentivized like never before to elevate one of its crown jewels.

“This thing is coming, I promise you,” Els said. “We’ve just got to give it some time.”

How much longer can the Tour afford to wait?

The Internationals will be a massive underdog in two years’ time at Medinah – the U.S. team’s average margin of victory at home since 2005 has been nearly five points – which will only extend what is now (gulp) a decades-long run of lopsidedness.

It’s been 26 years since the Internationals’ last win. Twenty-one years since their last tie. Nine years since they last lost in the final match on the course.

Long past time for subtle, but meaningful, change.