Phil Mickelson, through a spokesperson, has issued a detailed response to the latest misconduct allegations against him, offering his side of the story in a statement that readers can evaluate for themselves.
The statement addresses the central claims in last week’s investigative report by golf journalist Alan Shipnuck, adding a new chapter to one of the most closely watched controversies in professional golf while leaving readers to judge its credibility.
Shipnuck’s June 28 article, built on interviews with 19 sources, alleged a years-long pattern of inappropriate conduct by the six-time major champion, as detailed in the report published by Skratch. The allegations include a 2015 incident in which Mickelson allegedly showed a nude photo of himself to Ashley Perez, then the wife of pro golfer Pat Perez, along with graphic sexual talk at dinner gatherings and abrupt departures from three Southern California golf clubs.
Portions of the spokesperson’s response first surfaced in a July 1 New York Post report. The full text went to Front Office Sports, and FOS writer David Rumsey made the complete statement available on X (formerly Twitter) Thursday morning.
Full Phil Mickelson Statement Via Spokesperson
Read the full statement, below, followed by analysis of its key points:
“Alan Shipnuckâs journalistic stock-in-trade is the anonymously-sourced drive-by shooting, heavy on implication but unsupported by any on-the-record sources.
Shipnuck has spent years attempting to position himself as the definitive authority on Phil Mickelson. This story demonstrates precisely why he is not.
The clearest example is Amy Mickelson. Mrs. Mickelson is not a public figure. She did not choose this spotlight, and there was no legitimate journalistic reason to drag her into it. Shipnuck nevertheless gave anonymous sources a platform to speculate about her marriage, her motives and decisions they had no firsthand knowledge of.
Shipnuckâs reporting suggests that Mrs. Mickelson orchestrated Mr. Mickelsonâs departures from golf clubs. That is false. Mr. Mickelson has never been forced by his wife or by any golf club to surrender his membership. Those decisions were his alone.
The anonymous source offers nothing to establish firsthand knowledge of Mrs. Mickelsonâs role. Instead, the sourceâs personal assumption about her involvement is presented as fact, and that unsupported speculation has since been repeated by other media outlets as though it were established truth. It is not.
Likewise, Shipnuck attempts to portray an ordinary “Find My” family feature, used by millions of families every day, as something sinister. It wasnât. Anonymous speculation is presented as meaningful insight when it is nothing more than unsupported opinion.
Another reporting failure lies at the heart of the articleâs central premise.
Shipnuck writes that Mr. Mickelsonâs departure from The Farms “seems to be part of a larger pattern,” then immediately points to his “abrupt departures” from the Madison Club and The Bridges, relying on anonymous sources to suggest those departures were involuntary.
The clear implication is that Mr. Mickelson was forced out of multiple golf clubs.
He wasnât.
Mr. Mickelson has never been expelled from a golf club. His membership has never been revoked by a golf club.
Yet the article never tells readers that. Instead, it relies on implication and anonymous sourcing to leave readers with an impression the reporting itself never establishes. The article never says Phil Mickelson was kicked out of a golf club because it canât. Instead, it is written to leave readers with that impression without ever having to report it as a fact.
The same reporting failures appear elsewhere. Shipnuck repeats an allegation regarding a photograph while downplaying a critical fact contained in his own reporting. During a private call in which Mr. Mickelson reached out to apologize for his behavior, he immediately challenged the central premise of that allegation by asking, “You mean topless?”
That distinction matters. Mr. Mickelsonâs willingness to apologize for his conduct should not be misconstrued as an admission of every allegation made against him. Responsible journalism does not amplify the most sensational characterization of a disputed event while minimizing the fact that the allegation itself was challenged.
Skratch is free to report aggressively on Mr. Mickelson. That is not the issue. Transparency is.
Readers deserve to know that Skratch was not founded as an independent golf publication. It was created by the PGA TOUR, operated as a PGA TOUR-owned media brand for nearly a decade, and in 2024 was contributed by the PGA TOUR to Pro Shop, a new media company in which the PGA TOUR retained a minority ownership stake and became a strategic partner. As part of that transaction, the PGA TOUR also contributed Skratchâs business and team, along with access to TOUR content, highlights, archival footage, and on-site filming rights.
None of those relationships mean Skratch cannot report independently. They do, however, create a corporate relationship that reasonable readers may consider relevant when evaluating an extensive investigation into Phil Mickelson, one of the most consequential players ever to leave the PGA TOUR for LIV Golf. A simple disclosure would have allowed readers to evaluate that context for themselves.
Taken together, these reporting failures expose an article that prioritizes a compelling, click-bait narrative over an accurate one. Anonymous speculation is elevated over firsthand knowledge. Implication is used where facts fall short. Private family members are falsely drawn into public narratives without evidence. Context that undermines sensational allegations is minimized. Readers are left with conclusions the reporting itself never actually establishes.
Credibility is not earned by publishing the most provocative narrative. It is earned through transparency, verification, and a clear distinction between fact, inference, and speculation. Those standards protect readers just as much as they protect the people being written about.
Readers should demand more. Journalism should, too.”
Mickelson Statement Rejects Golf Club Expulsion Claims
“Mr. Mickelson has never been expelled from a golf club. His membership has never been revoked by a golf club. Those decisions were his alone,” the statement reads.
The passage answers the Shipnuck report’s account of Mickelson’s exits from the Madison Club, The Bridges and The Farms Golf Club. Sources at the first two clubs told Skratch Golf that his personal conduct drove those departures, while a June 11 Golf Digest report from Joel Beall and Tod Leonard says that Mickelson was told to leave The Farms over alleged inappropriate physical contact with a female employee.
The statement also rejects the suggestion that Amy Mickelson, Phil’s wife of three decades, engineered any of those exits. It calls that claim false, describing it as anonymous speculation from people with no firsthand knowledge, and argues that Amy Mickelson, a private citizen, never should have been pulled into the story at all.
Statement Addresses Nude Photo Allegation
On the Ashley Perez incident, the statement leans on a detail from a recorded apology call between Mickelson and Pat Perez. When Pat Perez described a “naked photo,” Mickelson interjected, “You mean topless?” a challenge the spokeswoman says got buried in the reporting.
“Mr. Mickelson’s willingness to apologize for his conduct should not be misconstrued as an admission of every allegation made against him,” the statement continues. The distinction between owning past mistakes and conceding every disputed claim runs through the entire document.
The statement’s other major thrust has nothing to do with the allegations themselves. It targets the outlet that published them.
Mickelson Camp Attacks Skratch Over PGA Connection
Skratch, the statement notes, was created by the PGA Tour, operated for nearly a decade as a Tour-owned media brand, and was contributed in 2024 to Pro Shop, a media company in which the Tour kept a minority ownership stake. That history, the statement argues, deserved disclosure in an investigation of Mickelson, the most prominent player ever to defect from the PGA Tour to join LIV Golf. But the statement stops short of claiming the PGA relationship dictated Shipnuck’s reporting.
No Threat of Legal Action on Statement
Notably absent from the 738-word statement is any threat of a lawsuit against Skratch, Shipnuck or any other entity. The statement reads largely as an indictment of Shipnuck’s methods and credibility, not a claim that Shipnuck wrote or did anything legally actionable. Mickelson attorney Tom Clare struck the same tone in earlier comments, telling journalists to “do better” without mentioning litigation.
It should be noted that the absence of a threat to sue does not imply that Mickelson or his spokespeople admit the truth of any allegation.
“Credibility is not earned by publishing the most provocative narrative. It is earned through transparency, verification, and a clear distinction between fact, inference, and speculation,” the statement concludes.
Skratch stands behind its reporting, editor Ben Boskovich said, as quoted by The Palm Beach Post. The outlet gave Mickelson, his wife and Clare three days to respond before publication, and Shipnuck has defended the piece as a public service. His reporting, Skratch has said, was vetted by top media attorneys and a fact-checker.
Mickelson himself has maintained silence, choosing to respond through spokespeople. The statement gives no indication he will personally respond, emphasizing instead that his attention remains on a private family health matter, the same reason given for why he has been absent from LIV Golf and withdrawn from all four major tournaments this year.
Like HEAVY’s content? Be sure to follow us.
This article was originally published on HEAVY
The post Phil Mickelson Allegations: Read His Full Statement and Decide For Yourself appeared first on HEAVY.