We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Why there is so much money involved in Golf?

Erky said:
That was once the case. Now, you go to a local baseball diamond, and each kid has two of his own bats ($300-$500 apiece) in a fancy backpack.
Click to expand...

I remember when I started little league I had a garage sale bat that my dad spray painted, and then wrapped the handle with elctrical tape.
 
gwengordon said:
Golf continues to be the most lucrative and revenue generating game. Can anyone tell me why this is?
Click to expand...

Golf generates money, but no way is it the most lucrative and revenue generating sport. As much as we like it...golf is a fringe sport in America...much less the world. According to Forbes, the Masters is not even in the top revenue generating sports events. http://www.forbes.com/global/2010/0...perbowl-daytona-worlds-top-sports-events.html

NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA Basketball and Football, and NASCAR must draft golf.
 
kevincgolf said:
...

If you are talking about playing golf you need a number of things to be able to play golf, more so than most sports. You need a large piece of land, which in a larger metro would be worth a lot of money. You need a number of people to take care of that land every single day. You need multiple pieces of equipment vs. other sports that require a single ball and maybe a few other items. At the high level trying to compare golf to most other sports is apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you more on that statement! Well said

Also, Golf is rather expensive to play - its not like basketball or soccer when all you need is a ball and a field/concrete slab to practice on - golf requires going to a range (drive to it), clubs which cost at least a couple hundred for a whole set, greens fees, attire, etc. etc.

So the companies need to capitalize on the people playing it - I am not sure there is another sport out there where the equipment costs more (maybe skiing?)
 
mark blanchard said:
The alignment between the demographic of those who play or watch the game and the companies who would like to reach that demographic is the closest and most direct of any major sport. That demographic also has more money per capita than the followers of any other major sport. Money chases money, that's all you need to know.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect way of putting it! The last line is especially true, money chases money
 
mark blanchard said:
The alignment between the demographic of those who play or watch the game and the companies who would like to reach that demographic is the closest and most direct of any major sport. That demographic also has more money per capita than the followers of any other major sport. Money chases money, that's all you need to know.
Click to expand...

While certain demographic trends towards golf, there are programs looking to change that here in the US. There are sports that tend to have a much more affluent demographic. Like skiing, for example. Not too many underprivileged kids take up skiing.
 
blugold said:
While certain demographic trends towards golf, there are programs looking to change that here in the US. There are sports that tend to have a much more affluent demographic. Like skiing, for example. Not too many underprivileged kids take up skiing.
Click to expand...

Yes, skiing has a very affluent demographic -- and a shrinking participant base due to dramatically higher participation costs and a hemorraging of participants to snowboarding. It's not a sport that many corporations want to hitch their wagons to at the moment. Case in point, developers have built 5 new private residential golf courses in Park City in the past 10 years and 0 new ski resorts. When's the last time you could find any skiing on TV outside of the Winter Olympics? But America can watch chubby Korean girls or retired geezers play golf on TV just about every week, whether they like it or not.

Yes, there are sports (such as the America's Cup Yachting and Polo) that have a higher per capita demographic than Golf, but they don't come close to the numbers of participants of golf. Yachters spend a ton on their sport and Louis Vuitton, Rolex and Oracle pay attention to them, but it's a drop in the bucket.

If you have kids, I agree that you'll spend a bunch of cash of soccer cleats till they turn 18 -- but then you stop. You play golf till you're 80. Adults don't PLAY football, baseball, or basketball past their 20's. They just watch those sports and pay to watch them. But adults keep playing golf and if you add up what they spend on their golf over 60 years compared to what they spent on little league jerseys for 5, there is no comparison.

I read somewhere (probably from the NSGA. They charge $400 for the data, but I'll try to find it again) that the no. 1 sport for per capita participation spending is not golf, it's Hunting & Fishing (particularly Fishing), a number which is boosted because they count spending on the specialty vehicles (boats and ATV's) needed to pursue those sports. Thankfully, we golfers don't have to buy our special sport vehicles -- we have entire fleets of them sitting washed and on call at our sporting venues!

In the end, you can't fool the marketplace. BMW, Cadillac, Mercedes Benz, all those blue chip banks and insurance companies are chasing golf and golfers for a reason. (Honestely, I hear John Hamm's voiceover more often than Jim Nantz's some Sundays.) They ain't stoopid and they are renewing their contracts. 4 of the top 12 net worth athletes are golfers and 3 of those are retired. Look at the slate of names who sponsor or advertise on golf every Sunday and compare them to the companies who open their wallets for the Goody's Headache Relief 500. When in doubt, follow the money.
 
JB said:
Are you sure about that? We have both the hunting version (although we dont hunt) and the golfing version and one has pinseeker mode and one doesnt. I would say that is a pretty big difference.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the bullseye mode is the same as the pinseeker mode.
 
Blazer said:
It is my understanding that the bullseye mode is the same as the pinseeker mode.
Click to expand...

I will bring them out to the range today. Last time I checked, the golf version was far easier to pick up the flags.
 
Golf always has been a rich man's game.
 
Badger_Golfer said:
Those are exceptions, not the rule.
Click to expand...

I have no readable information, but I would bet the many on the PGA tour came from modest beginnings and just had skill and work ethic to get them where they are.
 
gwengordon said:
Golf continues to be the most lucrative and revenue generating game. Can anyone tell me why this is?
Click to expand...

I guess it depends. How you are defining most lucrative and revenue generating? It is a $25B consumer industry but Hunting/Fishing is more than 3x lager at $76B with a similar number of participants. Snow sports generate about $3.5B per year in equipment sales vs golf's $4B.

These sports will always outpace any other sport because they have the most active participants by far. I am 37 and still play baseball every summer; I spend about $300 total on fees, bats, cleats, apparel, etc... for an entire summer. A golfer or outdoorsman spends more than that in one afternoon at the sporting goods store. Golf, hunting and snow sports are consumer driven and that is where the money will be.

However, the Masters doesn't even crack the top 15 revenue generating sporting events each year and golf is 8th on the list of major sports marketing, media and ticket revenue worldwide. Soccer is actually the largest in that category by far. Generating more than the next seven sports combined.

So, sports we can still participate in we spend money on. Sports we cannot participate in, we watch.
 
Owner of my home course shared this gem. If the course sells 4 dozen pro-v1s they make $27.

Same profit as 9 beers sold
 
blugold said:
Lee Travino, Arnold Palmer, Seve, and Rors would disagree
Click to expand...

And yet it was Lee Trevino who said, "You can make a lot of money playing this game. Just ask my two ex-wives. They are so well off that neither of their husbands have to work."

If a pro golfer came from humble beginnings and manages to make it, it's because he or his family worked on or near a course, providing him with the cheap or free access necessary to practice. In short, they were "insiders" -- poor insiders, but insiders none the less. Palmer: son of a pro at a club Arnold later BOUGHT, Trevino: caddy and range worker, Seve: scion of golfing family with two pro brothers and an uncle who played in the Masters, Rory: poor family, but dad was scratch and started tutoring him like Tiger's dad did at an early age.

Actually, Tiger is probably the best example of rags to riches in golf. But what if he didn't grow up within spitting distance of the Navy Course in O.C. with unlimited playing privileges thanks to his dad?
 
Last edited:
JB said:
I will bring them out to the range today. Last time I checked, the golf version was far easier to pick up the flags.
Click to expand...

I just sold off a Bushnell hunting laser scope (450 Sport) and bought a Pinseeker model because it was so hard to pick up flags without Pinseeker. Background clutter was the death of it. Definitely worth the extra $100 bucks to make the switch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top