Phil Mickelson Slams Reporter, Calls Story a ‘Drive‑by Shooting’
**Phil Mickelson** blasted a Skratch article on 3 July 2026, calling the piece a “drive‑by shooting” after it alleged he showed a nude photo to a fellow golfer’s ex‑wife and was forced out of multiple clubs. His representatives demanded corrections, insisting the departures were his own decisions.
Skratch published a story earlier this month that said Mickelson flashed a nude, erect photo to Ashley Perez, the ex‑wife of pro golfer Pat Perez, and invited her to his bedroom while her then‑husband slept. The article also suggested Mickelson was expelled from a golf club over alleged misconduct with a female employee and hinted at infidelity tied to abrupt membership terminations.
A spokesperson for Mickelson issued a statement rejecting the allegations as “false rumors.” The team emphasized that Mickelson was never expelled or forced to surrender any club membership; all resignations were voluntary. They also criticized journalist Alan Shipnuck for presenting speculative claims as fact, especially the suggestion that Mickelson used a “young man in the pro shop” to fake a golf round for his wife’s benefit.
The clash pits a high‑profile golfer against a media outlet founded by the PGA Tour, highlighting tensions after Mickelson’s move to LIV Golf. The team warned that Skratch’s “corporate bias” could color its coverage, arguing that sensational headlines outweigh verified information. For Mickelson, protecting his reputation is critical as he navigates the LIV landscape and seeks to maintain sponsor confidence.
Mickelson’s spokeswoman did not deny the specific claim that he showed Perez a photo, but noted he had “apologized for his conduct” without admitting every allegation. She stressed that responsible journalism should not amplify unverified sensational details while downplaying challenges to the story’s accuracy. The team also highlighted that the “Find My” feature cited by Shipnuck is a common family tool, not a covert tracking device.
The team hinted at possible legal action, noting Mickelson has already retained defamation counsel. Meanwhile, Skratch has not issued a rebuttal, leaving the narrative unresolved. As the story circulates, other outlets may pick up the controversy, potentially influencing public perception of Mickelson’s off‑course behavior and his standing within the LIV Golf community.
The episode underscores how athletes’ personal lives can become flashpoints for media scrutiny, especially when former affiliations (PGA Tour) intersect with new ventures (LIV Golf). Mickelson’s aggressive defense signals a willingness to challenge narratives he deems inaccurate, a stance that could shape future reporting standards for high‑profile golfers.
Phil Mickelson’s team has drawn a hard line against what they call a click‑bait narrative, demanding factual integrity and warning of legal consequences. The dispute remains open, with the golfer’s reputation hanging in the balance as the story continues to unfold.