{{ubiquityData.prevArticle.description}}
{{ubiquityData.nextArticle.description}}
In a phone call with Global Golf Post last week after distance discussions resurfaced, the USGA’s John Spitzer, managing director for equipment standards, made reference to golf equipment manufacturers and their position on the issue.
“I would certainly not expect all of them to be behind us because we’ve never experienced that in my 23 years with USGA and equipment standards,” he said. “I think you’re going to find there is going to be some general support in many of these areas.”
The topic was back in the spotlight because the R&A and USGA provided an update to their joint Distance Insights report, this one concerning research topics and proposed equipment standards changes.
“Some will have specific concerns but in general there is a feeling, even among manufacturers, that distance has grown significantly and it’s becoming a problem,” Spitzer said. “I would not expect giant pushback like you’ve seen in some of our earlier proposals, years and years ago for instance with the spring-like effect.”
If that’s true, that manufacturers believe there is a distance problem, I didn’t hear it from senior level executives at the leading manufacturers with whom I spoke during the ensuing days.
In fact, what I heard was real concern with where the rulesmakers are headed.
... Costs could be substantial enough to cause smaller golf equipment brands to opt out of making tour-level equipment. They just won’t be able to afford it.
And the concern had less to do with the proposed equipment standards changes, although they were troubling to a degree for all in those conversations.
Of equal or greater concern are coming research topics. One of those areas is “the potential use of a Local Rule that would specify the use of clubs and/or balls intended to result in shorter hitting distances.” In other words, our game could be headed to bifurcation. One set of equipment standards for the elite players, another set of standards for the rest of us.
The day after the press release was sent by both the R&A and USGA, Rory McIlroy was asked his take on the situation. And he firmly endorsed bifurcation, saying, “I would be all for that. If they want to try to make the game more difficult for us or ... try to incorporate more skill to the game, yeah, I would be all for that, because I think it only benefits the better player, which I feel like I am.”
As Ron Green Jr. writes elsewhere in this issue, McIlroy has emerged as the conscience of the PGA Tour, if not the global professional game. He is lobbying to become chairman of the PGA Tour’s Player Advisory Council. When he speaks, people listen.
However, he is uninformed about the real economics of two sets of rules. He has not considered the real costs incurred by a manufacturing concern to make equipment that will not be commercially available. And those costs could be substantial enough to cause smaller golf equipment brands to opt out of making tour-level equipment. They just won’t be able to afford it.
Begin with the notion, as McIlroy suggested, that it’s just the pros playing on tour. It’s not. According to the R&A and the USGA, changes could apply to all elite players around the world. So that brings in LPGA players, college athletes, mini tour players, club professionals, and skilled juniors. They all meet the definition of “elite,” and therefore would be expected to play different clubs and balls than you and me in a bifurcated era. Depending on how you define this universe, it could be as many as 10,000 athletes.
One estimate I saw last week suggested that the costs for all manufacturers combined could be in the $25 million range. This promotional expense is doable for the big four of the golf equipment manufacturing community – Callaway, Titleist, TaylorMade and Ping. They have the scale and attendant resources to fund these costs should they choose to do so.
Outside that circle, there are few if any manufacturers who can take on those incremental costs. So the Cobras and Wilsons of the world may well have to go to market without tour players, and likely without any following among club professionals or amateurs headed for the professional game.
Now to consider the golf ball. The manufacturing of golf balls is a demanding combination of art and science. It is not inexpensive. If there is to be a standardized ball, will all ballmakers want to do so? And if the rulesmakers require such a ball, should they not contribute to the cost, as happens with Major League Baseball and their sole ball supplier, Rawlings?
As we as a game contemplate equipment rules changes that disrupt the longstanding connection between what the best players in the world use and the commercial marketplace, all issues need to be fully vetted and understood. The economic impact on golf equipment brands is one of those issues.
E-Mail Jim