Did Tiger Woods endorse CBD as saving his golfing care career?
Executive summary
No—there is no credible evidence that Tiger Woods formally endorsed CBD gummies or that he publicly credited CBD with “saving” his golfing career; multiple fact-checks and reporting identify “Tiger Woods CBD Gummies” as an unauthorized scam that used his name and image without his permission [1] [2]. Reporting that links Woods to CBD tends to rely on fake review pages, unauthorized marketing and tenuous mentions of athletes chewing gum, not on a verified statement or an official endorsement from Woods or his representatives [1] [3] [4].
1. The viral product claim: a manufactured endorsement, not a Woods announcement
Beginning in 2022 several websites and social-media accounts promoted a product called “Tiger Woods CBD Gummies,” but investigative reporting and fact-checking found no record that Woods authorized or endorsed such a product; Snopes explicitly reported that the PGA star never endorsed any CBD gummies on any websites and that the pages were part of a coordinated scam campaign [1]. Sportskeeda likewise described the Tiger Woods CBD Gummies as a scam and placed the offering among a pattern of unauthorized celebrity-name promotions [2]. Domain and account activity described by those reports show multiple handles and pages created around the same time to push the product, which is a hallmark of commercial spoofing rather than legitimate celebrity marketing [1].
2. How the scam worked: fake reviews, stolen images and redirect sales
The counterfeit campaigns frequently used Woods’s photo and fabricated “reviews” to give credibility to links that often redirected to unrelated CBD brands such as Smilz or Eagle Hemp, a distribution pattern noted by Snopes and other outlets; this is consistent with broader scams that have previously misused names like Dr. Mehmet Oz and Keanu Reeves for the same purpose [1]. Consumer-safety and reporting sites warned that these pages invaded search results and Google News and that clicking such ads could lead consumers to unverified products sold by third parties rather than a legitimate celebrity-branded line [1].
3. Where ambiguity arises: athletes, gum chewing and the CBD conversation
Some coverage and niche newsletters have tied elite golfers to CBD more generally—discussing how cannabidiol is allowed under WADA and noting players chewing gum or using CBD products for recovery—but those accounts do not amount to a Tiger Woods endorsement or a claim that CBD “saved” his career [3]. One outlet reported athletes chewing gum and made speculative links to CBD benefits, but that reporting stops short of documenting a formal Woods-sponsored product launch or testimonial [3]. The difference between a player using a product for personal reasons and a verified, contractual endorsement is critical and absent in the record provided [3] [4].
4. Why this matters: money, brand risk and who benefits from the story
Tiger Woods’s marketability and long history of lucrative sponsorships make his name a high-value target for fraudsters; Woods has endorsed household and luxury brands across decades—Nike, Gatorade, Rolex and more—and his history of being a powerful marketing asset explains why scammers weaponize his identity [5] [6] [7]. The scam beneficiaries are the makers of unverified supplements and affiliate marketers who profit from traffic and sales; reputable fact-checkers and consumer-protection observers flagged those beneficiaries while emphasizing the lack of an official Woods endorsement [1] [4].
5. Reporting limits and the bottom line
Within the provided reporting there is no primary-source quote, press release, contract filing or verified social-media post from Tiger Woods or his official representatives endorsing CBD products or stating CBD saved his career; fact-checks conclude he did not endorse the named CBD gummies and warn consumers about fraudulent pages [1] [2] [4]. If further substantiation exists—such as a direct statement from Woods, his agent, or a credible corporate partner—it is not present in the supplied sources and cannot be affirmed here [1].