Golf & Governance

At U.S. Open site Pinehurst, the restoration of historic sandy waste areas reflects the USGA’s emphasis on water conservation. Getty Images

Pinehurst, N.C.

Last week, at the U.S. Golf Association’s annual meeting here, incoming President Thomas O’Toole Jr. spent a good portion of his inaugural remarks trying to nail down exactly what it is that the USGA does and should be doing. For an esteemed, 120-year-old organization, that may seem like a curious thing to have to focus on. But it reflects the strange, haphazard way that golf is organized and the desire of the USGA to reach beyond its traditional functions to address some pressing problems, in particular the slow leakage in the number of golfers.

The game’s three main ruling bodies in North America—the USGA, the PGA of America and the PGA Tour—have overlapping interests, but their individual mandates are entirely different. Because golf, unlike other sports, has no strong-willed über-commissioner to force concerted action, each organization has to figure out independently what it can do best.

Golf would be easier to govern if it were a modern corporation. Heaven forbid, of course, that “GOLF” actually was a Nasdaq symbol, or that the game’s primary raison d’être was to maximize shareholder value. There might be no place for throwback hickory clubs in a world like that, or for Dogpatch munis charging $7 a round, or John Daly’s pants. But smart, top-down management might better address some of golf’s excesses, like silly-fast greens, slow play and the paucity of places for kids and beginners to have fun.

USGA incoming President Thomas J. O’Toole Jr. USGA

Historically, O’Toole said in his speech, the USGA’s two core purposes are to conduct “exemplary” championships, such as the men’s and women’s U.S. Opens that will be contested at Pinehurst in back-to-back weeks this June, and to write and administer the rules of golf in collaboration with the R&A of the U.K.

In recent years, the USGA has hammered out a third core purpose, to enhance its services in support of the game. That is where the organization’s turf research and handicapping efforts come in, as well as recent pushes like a big data-collection project to help improve the pace of play. Another recent priority: maintaining courses with less water and other resources.

The USGA certainly has a lot of money to work with: $300 million in the bank, the finance committee reported, and operating revenues last year of $157 million, mostly from the U.S. Open and TV rights. Starting in 2015, when its new 12-year contract with Fox Sports goes into effect, the USGA will average $88 million a year from television, more than twice what it gets now.

By tradition the association is conservative, so don’t expect anything too radical. “The USGA sees itself as golf’s priesthood,” course architect Robert Trent Jones Jr. told me. Several times in his speech, O’Toole referenced the association’s mission statement—drafted “on that cold December evening in New York City in 1894″—as if it were biblical text. USGA executives often invoke “ancient and honorable traditions.”

That leaves the USGA in a somewhat conflicted situation. When asked at a news conference about recent calls by some to attract new players with alternative rules and nonstandard equipment, O’Toole straddled the fence. He acknowledged such initiatives might help, but added, “We’re not going to call them ‘golf,’ nor are we going to bring them in our governing of what we do in golf, nor will we have them operate under our golf rules.”

O’Toole did promise that he is committed to making golf more welcoming to everyone. He singled out minorities, women, juniors and golfers with disabilities.

“The game has a significant legacy of exclusion and elitism that we must collectively work to overcome. We must take responsibility for our own shortcomings as an organization, both past and present,” he said. Specifics await more study.

If the USGA is golf’s priesthood, the PGA of America is commerce and the PGA Tour is showbiz.

The PGA of America, with its 28,000 club and teaching pros, has the closest personal connection to recreational golfers and should be their biggest advocate. The more happy golfers in the world, the more lessons, tee times, gloves and shirts PGA members can sell. As a practical matter, however, individual PGA pros are too busy to spend much time focusing on long-term, good-of-the-game initiatives. Most work for mom-and-pop courses, driving ranges, municipal agencies (your local muni) and private clubs, many with rotating, short-term volunteer leadership. The PGA of America itself is a kind of trade association with no compulsory power.

The PGA Tour is essentially a labor union devoted to the interests of its few player-members. Yes, it would love to see more everyday golfers: That might increase attendance at tournaments and the size of its television audience. But the connection is indirect and, in any case, the Tour has little sway over the recreational game except as a role model—an awful one, when it comes to speed of play.

What might a single, hypothetical golf authority be able to accomplish? It could force PGA Tour pros to play faster. It could shut down the weakest golf courses and organize the rest to better serve their communities: luxury courses for those who could afford it, midprice but challenging courses for avid low-handicappers, laid-back tracks for casual golfers and fun short courses for kids and beginners, with loss-leader introductory programs to fill the pipeline.

It isn’t going to happen, of course. Nor should it. Golf’s hodgepodge structure is part of its charm. But maybe it is useful to think about.