David,
From the time the first scheckle/shekel was traded, the rich always became richer.
This is nothing new.
But, it's become a popluar phrase in order to demean hard work, risk and success.
Randy,
That's a big "IF" and "WHEN".
Clubs, except the iconic clubs are experiencing difficulty attracting and retaining members.
But, it's not just because of financial issues.
Culturally, with dual income earners, the days where the breadwinner went to the club for the day on a weekend, are over.
Young parents with young children are far more involved in their kids activities.
Just recently, a fellow I know, had to coach his son's little league game on a Saturday morning and as a result, left his partner to fend for himself in the morning match in his two day member-guest. This was unheard of in my father's or my generation's day. But, that's the reality.
If rounds could be completed in 3 hours, younger people would find it more attractive to belong to a club.
Tee off at 7:00 am, be home by 11:00, or tee off at 2:00 and be home by 6:00 works for most young families.
Then, there's the cost to maintain the course/club, and those costs are going up, ergo dues are going up.
So, it's gotten more expensive and it takes longer to play. That's not an attractive combination.
The iconic clubs will probably fare the best as they seem the most attractive to prospective members.
I know of clubs that used to charge an initiation, no bond, of $ 200,000, that now waive the initiation and just charge dues.
When you do that, it's awfully hard to make capital improvements unless you assess, and when you assess, members leave.
So, the financial pressures are real and onerous.
So many things have to change in order for golf to go back to the "way it was", and I don't see those things changing.
I played a course recently with the club President and Green Chairman and asked them the following question when they asked me a question.
If put to a vote, would your members rather have a course that looks great or one that plays great.
They looked at each other and agreed that their members would probably prefer the course that "looks great.
And therein lies part of the problem.
I've said, for decades, that the weekly PGA Tour telecast present unrealistic conditions because those courses generally benefit from an inflated budget/revenues related to the PGA Tour/TV
When golfers see those conditions on TV, they want those same conditions for their course, and that costs MONEY.
The discussion came up because I made the comment that their fairways should look like their greens.
Their greens were firm and fast and yellowish/brownish/greenish in color.
I had previously commented that the course played much longer than the yardage because there was no roll, because the course was too lush, partially due to overseeding and partly due to the "desire" of the membership to present the same conditions seen on TV.
Hence, your "IF" and "WHEN" contingency is a huge one, and I don't see a return to Nirvana any time soon, hence, I think clubs/courses will continue to struggle.