“At last.”
That was the reaction from one prominent amateur golf executive last week to the news that the overseers of the World Amateur Golf Rankings have decided to “undertake a substantive review of the WAGR system.” And this reaction was representative of the global amateur golf community in general, based on my conversations and email inbox.
The release of this news was handled in a curious manner. A rather anodyne notice was posted at the WAGR website last Thursday, one that blindsided many important people in the amateur golf community. No one’s name was attached to the release, which was not posted at the USGA or the R&A websites. Nor was anyone quoted in the release, and few details of the review were disclosed.
When asked for more insight, the USGA provided Global Golf Post the following statement:
“The R&A and USGA regularly review the WAGR system and have implemented meaningful changes to the calculations as recently as the beginning of 2025. Given the increasing importance of WAGR in the global amateur game and the amount of feedback we have received from our affiliates, we thought it was the right time to take on a full substantive review. We are excited about the work ahead, as well as the feedback process. We will share updates as they are available.”
The R&A deferred comment.
The post at the WAGR website read, in part, “This serves as notice that we are in a responsive phase and that we will be in touch very soon to inform stakeholders of the methods of engagement (within Q4 of 2025). We anticipate that the initial report on the collation of comments and feedback will be shared in Q1 of 2026 and, depending on the scope of the feedback, we will look to implement changes as soon as practically possible.”
It isn’t just players who are trying to game the system; sometimes it happens at the federation level.
Concerns with the accuracy of the WAGR rankings have been discussed around the globe for years. If you listen to the critics, the current incarnation of WAGR has several major flaws. The most-discussed issue is that WAGR is very heavily weighted to American events, especially among college-age players. There is little WAGR can do to address this situation; the American college game is what it is. Any young amateur anywhere in the world with the requisite skill can play for some school in America, and most players who fit this profile want to.
Another concern is that, due to its two-year counting period, today’s WAGR system does not reveal current performance. Yes, the value of older earned points does age out, but very slowly.
The two-year cycle has resulted in certain players making an international team based on points earned long ago, despite being out of form at the time of the competition. The end result is an international team that is weaker than it would otherwise be, with in-form players left at home.
The most common concern about WAGR is the gaming of the system that goes on around the world. Some of that is closely tied to the aging of earned points. Too often, a player earns a high ranking and then decides to play less frequently, to protect that ranking. WAGR cannot force players to play. But this situation has real-world effects.
For example, the USGA has done good work over the past few years to encourage amateurs to play in their state amateur championships. But the fact is that an elite player could win his state amateur and see his ranking decline due to the strength of the field, or lack thereof.
Likewise, in the American college game, it is not unrealistic that a player might sit out a tournament because the field is weak, reasoning that playing in the event could cause his or her ranking to drop, regardless of how well he or she plays.
If that individual is a highly ranked college player in the hunt for PGA Tour University status, this is a real-world concern.
A trusted and respected WAGR is critical to the amateur game. The governing bodies must remove the doubt and mistrust that is out there. WAGR absolutely needs to get this review right.
It isn’t just players who are trying to game the system; sometimes it happens at the federation level. There are known instances where tournaments are submitted as a “professional” event, despite the very low standard of professional play in that country. Amateurs in these events perform well against the so-called professionals, thus gaining more points and climbing the rankings.
Because WAGR is managed by the USGA and the R&A, it has a virtual monopoly on the ranking of amateur players, men and women, around the world. That’s not to say it is alone, however. An upstart Canadian company called Data Golf has gotten into the amateur rankings business and, depending on who you talk to, may be gaining real traction in the amateur community. And later this year, due to long-held concerns and frustrations with WAGR, the European Golf Association will announce its own European Amateur Order of Merit, comprising 15 European amateur events for men and women.
It’s hard to overstate the essential nature of WAGR in the global amateur game. It is used to select international and national teams. It is instrumental in field composition of national amateur championships and elite amateur events. It is the primary measuring stick for strength of field for all amateur tournaments. And it has real financial implications: WAGR is used by equipment companies to determine compensation for young amateurs when they turn professional, and in America, it is an important factor in determining name, image and likeness compensation.
It is unclear what precipitated this announcement, and it is equally unclear what the path forward will be. However, most people in the amateur golf community that I spoke with last week viewed this news positively, despite being short on details. I would agree.
E-MAIL JIM
Top: The winning U.S. team at the 2025 Walker Cup featured seven of the top 10 amateurs, according to the WAGR.
Chris Keane, USGA