Job Description

[JESII]

OK...so a $250M organization with $500M in assets should not look for a CEO with a focus on revenue???

Forgive me for being old enough to remember a day that Revenue was not the USGA's primary focus - or should I say motivation?

Hmm...I wonder if you can imagine a golf world without the USGA/R&A?

[Kyle Harris]

OK...so a $250M organization with $500M in assets should not look for a CEO with a focus on revenue???

Forgive me for being old enough to remember a day that Revenue was not the USGA's primary focus - or should I say motivation?

Hmm...I wonder if you can imagine a golf world without the USGA/R&A?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqk-CLxrW6s

[Tom_Doak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqk-CLxrW6s

Thanks for that one, I'd not seen it before! 

[Kalen Braley]

Makes one wonder how basically every other sport has thrived so long without an over-arching rules governing body like the USGA or R&A...   

[SL_Solow]

Kalen,  Which sports do not have an organizing body? Speaking to the larger topic, I think that the USGA changed its focus in large measure as a result of the Karsten settlement.  I know that the lawyers for the USGA advised the organization that it would likely prevail against Ping.  But the USGA had a very small "war chest" at the time and succumbed rather than undertaking the expense of litigation and the risk of loss.  Thereafter, it sought to create a fund.  It also promoted from time to time more "non-golf" business oriented types which also had a long term effect.  Now, the maintenance of the fund appears to be a high priority even while its initial purpose, the ability to stand up to manufacturers, seems to have been forgotten.  But the underlying priority appears to have permeated other areas.  A less well known example relates to the recent reorganization of local associations.  Seeing many local associations with significant financial problems, the USGA consolidated those authorized to administer the handicap system and local tourneys.  It could have given financial support to the weaker organizations but the consolidation made some sense. However the USGA also imposed additional financial burdens on local associations and sold memberships to unaffiliated individuals at a price which local associations could not match.  All while sitting on the previously noted cash and while operating as a not for profit.


The USGA does a lot of good and has many outstanding employees, although that universe has been reduced in a recent reorganization.  But there are many issues that go beyond equipment.  Its a big job and I suspect that the next appointee would benefit from a different type of executive board. I will wait and see but I am dubious that things will improve.

[Peter Pallotta]

Shel
always good to read your perspective, and the measured tone of your thoughts.
From afar, I think this is what most bothers me (in my romantic naiveté) about one of the game's governing bodies, i.e. that it has rushed so happily to embrace the widespread 'corporatization' that now dominates American life.
I've seen and/or experienced the same 'consolidated' and 'top down' management approach (instituted by the same kind of 'career officials') take ever-increasing hold in an ever-widening range of sectors & industries: government, financial services, entertainment, health-care, education, charities-not for profit, hospitality etc.
Everywhere there is the same kind of 'penny pinching' you describe -- everywhere, that is, except by/for those at the very top, i.e. the consolidating careerists who manage the operations mainly, it often seems, for their own personal benefit; everywhere the 'pyramid' as been flipped on its head, with more and more of the resources & salary dollars supporting the very select few.
The pyramid used to be wide at the bottom and quite pointed at the top i.e. with many junior and mid-level employees, and then fewer executives, and then only one or two people in charge. Now, whether in government or charities or financial services, it's been turned upside down: wide at the top, with many well paid and 'centralized' administrators, and very pointed at the bottom, since there is so little money left to pay for the entry-level 'clerks' and mid-level managers and front-line workers.
In short: more and more organizations seem 'organized' not to do the actual work & perform the important functions they were meant to do and fulfill, but instead to serve the organization itself -- the organization being defined as/by the people at the top, as/by the careerists who run them.
That's what I mean by the corporatization of American life; my romantic naiveté is in thinking that the game's governing body might've stood against the trend, or at least wanted to try to stand against it.
That is what's so charming/refreshing about discussing golf course architects, i.e. after all these decades and a century+ of change, their 'job description' has remained exactly the same as it's always been -- to build good golf courses. 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


I will second everything you wrote, and of course it applies to far more than golf.


I guess my problem is with the idea that after all these years, golf needs so many Administrators.  Even up through the 1980's, when I started in the golf business, the game had largely survived without them.  Frank Hannigan ran the USGA with no fuss or fanfare [and no private jet] for probably 25% of what they do now, after adjusting for inflation.


The role of all these high-paid administrators reminds me of a favorite book title: "Lecturing Birds How to Fly".  My sense is that golfers would take care of the game much better if we didn't have so much expert help.

[Bernie Bell]

In this vein, see also "The New Class War: Saving Democracy From the Managerial Elite" by Michael Lind. 

[Kalen Braley]

I think Peter is certainly not wrong here overall, although I don't really see the pyramid flipped per se. Its seems its more of a Title Inflation thing, wherever everyone gets something important sounding, but still doing the same old work they were always doing.

I worked for at least one place where Senior Managers and higher all had some type of VP designation in their Title.

[Peter Flory]

When I go to their website and click on their mission link, it just take me to a page with a 404 error. 

[Mike_Young]

The USGA is not critical to the game....I think they are realizing it more and more.....the aloofness they often exude is sincere IMHO and they would prefer to still have only a very select group of clubs as members but the money grab became to easy...The way Chris Cupit was treated should tell one all they need to know. 

[Peter Pallotta]

This reminds me of what James Moody, the great long time jazz saxophonist, was fond of saying:
"Blessed are those who run around in circles, for they shall be called the Big Wheels".

Asked what had changed from when he started in the 40s up to the early 2000s, he said: "Back then, the executives let you make the records and they went out and sold them. Nowadays, *they* want to make the records and expect you to go out and sell them".

[JESII]

The USGA is not critical to the game....I think they are realizing it more and more....
 

I agree with the first part of this, and I'll defer on the second part.


You come at this, it seems, from a golf course operators perspective. In that vein, the USGA is absolutely not critical in the running of the business.


I would classify their services into 4 buckets; administering tournaments, supporting the local golf associations, administering the rules (including equipment) and providing agronomy guidance.


Lets remove the USGA from the equation and hypothesize on what fills the void.


Someone would run the USOpens, Amateurs etc...and hopefully they would be less concerned with a specific score winning the Men's Open. Other than a few over-zealous course set up issues, they've done a great job here. Supporting the lower tournaments has become a huge business with virtually zero revenue to the Org, and they are all the leading event in their space.


Supporting the local golf associations; they've done an outstanding job. I would disagree with Shelly's critique of how they supported the reorganization recently. Why throw good money after bad in failed, or failing, local associations. The Super-Regional type structure seems to align best for long-term stability. I'm not sure what restraints they placed on the 'parent' association but here in Philadelphia, they are running all the same events the Anthracite GA previously had. Would the world be better if all regional associations did their own thing?


Agronomy guidance. I suspect this is the area with the widest range of feelings, even though it gets the least attention. A local family run golf course looking to manage costs as well as possible could potentially benefit from expert guidance if they lack the wherewithal to maintain their course as desired. At the same time, a board of directors may want the USGA to stamp approval on their superintendents program which could cause friction. If the superintendent is experienced and successful, why add someone to the mix with different view points AND is not there every day or week. Consider me skeptical that this has been a successful endeavor for the USGA.


Lastly, rules and equipment administration. Simply put, what is stopping Taylor Made from making balls and clubs that go 10% or 20% further than today for each and every level of golfer?  The USGA!

[JESII]

The USGA is not critical to the game....I think they are realizing it more and more....
 

I agree with the first part of this, and I'll defer on the second part.


You come at this, it seems, from a golf course operators perspective. In that vein, the USGA is absolutely not critical in the running of the business.

And in that respect, it certainly agrees with Tom's comment that golfers would take care of the game just fine without the expert guidance. ..although across a broad scale at all, it's only natural to end up with some sort of consistency which leads to an organization.

[Anthony Butler]

I read this comment from the USGA President to mean “For our next CEO, we’re looking for a modern business leader, not a frustrated golf course architect.”


The statement reads like corporate blather because I assume Francis is trying to make a point while escaping the accusation that he’s hurt someone’s feelings...

[SL_Solow]

Jim,  Let me clarify my position.  I agree that it was likely the right move to take weaker associations and consolidate them with stronger ones.  That said, I disagree with your conclusion regarding the support of local associations.  Remember, at the outset, that the USGA  uses the local associations to provide volunteers and run local qualifiers with minimal financial support.  It charges fees on a per player basis for participation in the GHIN system.  Our association determined that GHIN was overpriced and somewhat unreliable.  We developed our own software and for many years we believe we have done a better job for less money.  Other associations have hired third party vendors.  With the new system which contains proprietary logarithms may require that we opt back in.  Given the delays and cost overruns in developing the USGA software, we shall see.


Additionally, while the greens section has done a lot to develop advancements in agronomy, when a course seeks help from the USGA, it is charged a significant daily fee.  Here in Chicago, we have a full time staff agronomist who performs research and makes "house calls" to our membership for free as a service that comes with membership.  While we are healthy, I assure you that we do not have an endowment commensurate with the USGA.


A last issue to consider for now, although there are others.  The USGA offers individual memberships/handicaps for a dollar.  The justification is to grow the game.  But the local associations want those members and can't compete with the USGA at that price.  If the handicap is the inducement for many members, the USGA hurts the local associations which it needs and which it purports to help.


I think that we need an organization to administer the rules and, when needed, amend them. Running tournaments, particularly amateur and junior tournaments, is a great undertaking. Many of the people who work for the organization do so for all the right reasons.  But the organization has become more business and less golf oriented.  It has succeeded in building a strong economic entity but I fear that in doing so, it has lost its way with regard to its impact on the game.  I have expressed this view to those who hold high offices although I suspect that I have had little effect.  We shall continue to see what develops

[Ira Fishman]

I am not involved in the USGA or any local association so have no particular axe to grind. I took a look at the USGA Section 990 filing. On the one hand, the salary levels are in line with an organization of its size and it does spend a fair amount on agronomy research and development. On the other hand, it has $385MM in Net Assets which looks to grow each year because of substantial Net Income. It therefore seems that it has the resources to invest substantially more in the Member Associations, youth golf, promoting the game. We have a parallel thread about worthwhile golf charities which highlights the needs that the USGA could help fill. It of course makes sense to have a rainy day fund, but $385MM is a Noah’s Ark Fund.


Ira

[SL_Solow]

Ira, I concede that my involvement may lead to unneeded specificity in some issues.  But I think that you have it just about right from a broad perspective.  A not for profit devoted to the game could find better use for a greater portion of its vast resources.  Why is it important to continue to grow the cash balances of a non-profit?

[Ira Fishman]

Shel,


Absolutely no reason. Unless they have a secret plan to buy off the equipment manufacturers to roll back the ball and the driver.


Ira

[Sean_A]

I am not involved in the USGA or any local association so have no particular axe to grind. I took a look at the USGA Section 990 filing. On the one hand, the salary levels are in line with an organization of its size and it does spend a fair amount on agronomy research and development. On the other hand, it has $385MM in Net Assets which looks to grow each year because of substantial Net Income. It therefore seems that it has the resources to invest substantially more in the Member Associations, youth golf, promoting the game. We have a parallel thread about worthwhile golf charities which highlights the needs that the USGA could help fill. It of course makes sense to have a rainy day fund, but $385MM is a Noah’s Ark Fund.

Ira

Beyond what I consider reasonable salaries and expenses for a charity, I find it difficult to get behind a charity with the bank account the size of the USGA's in support of a GAME.

Ciao