[Sean_A]

So far as I know, the R&A seems to hum along quite nicely without collecting money from "members" like the USGA does.  I know the USGA probably organizes a few more tournaments, but as John points out, not many people care about these events apart from the participants and hosts.  

I find it interesting that the exclusive R&A (which doesn't collect cash from Joe Bloggs) for the most part selects clubs to host their events which most golfers can play.  I know there are issues with women, but nothing is perfect.  The pluralistic USGA (which does collect cash from Joe Sixpack) for the most part selects clubs which few can play.  

What are the differences between the two organizations which leads to such different outcomes?  Before anybody shouts nonsense about testing labs etc. consider what the USGA has done with all their data?  It would be cheaper and just as effective to use data from club/ball companies considering that the USGA sits on its hands anyway.  The USGA may even get the data quicker if it relied on the industry.  It seems the USGA is usually a step behind technology developments.

Ciao

Sean

[Bob_Huntley]

The R&A is a club whose members pay an initiation fee and annual dues. One could hardly hope to get the general public to send money to a private club.

The USGA is an Association with no such structure, hence the need for public funding.


Bob

[JohnV]

The R&A is much more blatant about selling advertising that the USGA.  Look at the big Rolex signs at the Open.  Look at the Weetabix Women's Open.

I think that they also have a much smaller staff than the USGA.

Bob, does the R&A fund the R&A Rules Limited or do they get their money primarily from the champioships?

[Dan King]

I seem to recall during the COR debate reports of the R&A setup in such a way that a lawsuit from a manufacturer could leave many of their members owing the judgement. I believe there were plans at the time to reorganize the R&A to eliminate that potential damage.

Dan King

The emblem on the necktie reserved for the members of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews -- The Vatican of golf -- is of St. Andrew himself bearing the slatier cross on which, once he was captured at Patras, he was to be stretched before he was crucified. Only the Scots would have thought of celebrating a national game with the figure of a tortured saint.
 --Alister Cooke

[BCrosby]

Dan is correct. USGA members are like shareholders in a corporation. They (normally) don't have liability for obligations incurred by the corporate entity.

The R&A has a different structure that doesn't shield its members in the same way. Unless they changed things recently.

Bob

[SL_Solow]

The USGA started as an association of private clubs formed to hold competitions and to deal with rulesmaking issues.  Overtime it took on additional goals including turfgrass research.  As such, it has endeavored to do more than the R&A.  Individual memberships are a fairly recent phenomenon.  I note that the individual memberships along with the increased profitability of the US Open have allowed the USGA to have greater involvement with golf related charities.  It has also created a larger war chest to defend litigation which, theoretically, should allow the USGA to "stand up" to those who might harm the game such as equipment manufacturers.  Whether this money is well used is a different topic but if the R & A were sued  it would face the issue of individual liability, previously noted, and it would likely have greater difficulty funding the costs of litigation.  Some have suggested that this reality was a principal reason for the R & A's reluctance to limit drivers.

[TEPaul]

As of Jan 1 2005 (I believe) the R&A restructured into two entities---the R&A, the club, and the R&A the golf governing body. This seems to have taken place with little notice but when one thinks how old the R&A is as a club that's also served for so long as one of golf's two governing bodies in the world, this recent change is pretty amazing.

Why did they do it and restructure?

I'll give you one guess.    

[JohnV]

The R&A did split the R&A Rules Limited is the body that runs the championships and makes the rules.  As I recall, they did it for two reasons, money and women.  They removed the club from liability and they were getting heat about a male only club running the game.

Sean, the USGA has a lot of money.  There is no requirement that a not-for-profit gives its money away or that it doesn't make a profit.  They just don't distribute those profits to shareholders.  The USGA does give away money, they have been giving away about $5M a year through their foundation.  They also help the various associations by funding P.J. Boatwright interns, funding turf research at universties, support the First Tee and other organizations.

The only money the USGA gives to private (or public) clubs is the $25K they give to clubs hosting their championships and that is just to help defray some of the expenses.

[Marc Haring]

Sean

I think they get by just fine. I've just returned from a conference where Steve Isaac of the R&A informed the audience that The Open generated over £70M for them last year. About £40M of that goes into various research projects.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()