First, we should be clear that we are talking about a golf industry problem not a golf "the game" problem.
Are you willing to consider that a golf business slump is a good thing?
Already we are witnessing equipment prices falling, club membership costs falling, greens fees falling (most often so far in the way of off peak specials, pre-pay deals, annual "dues" at public courses, etc.) If the golf sector is overbuilt and overpriced, and/or valued less than, say, the annual family vacation, there will be some contraction somewhere, first on the margins (once a year golfers, high end equipment, high end ccfad's with inflexible cost structures, applications for championship tournaments, and so forth), and later nearer the industry core if necessary. Not unlike the general economy, some people will be hurt through lost jobs, fewer commissions, unsold inventories, and whatnot. The people who value golf the most, however, will benefit by declining costs. Land which is now dedicated to unproductive golf development may be put to a higher and better use. Latent demand- that is, future demand for golf by those unable or unwilling to participate in today's golf environmment, but will participate when prices fall, which they inevitably will, will build.
Just like in the late 80's and early 90's, the lower costs will eventually pull the marginal golfers back into the game. Club memberships will rebound. New golf jobs will be created. Prices, wages and profits will go back up. If there is enough demand, new golf courses will be built. It's a cycle, just like the general economy experiences. We may never again see the kind of growth we saw in the 90's. But that's not necessarily a bad thing- excessive growth and expectations got us to where we are today.
Remember- buy low and sell high! We may be entering a buyer's golf market!
From an agronomy standpoint, a slump may not be a bad thing. There have been many posts on this site bemoaning overmanicured courses- the "Augusta effect." So if superintendents have to learn to do more with less- become more efficient, less reliant on chemicals, etc., is that a bad thing? Wouldn't you like to see that at your own club/course anyway? Will we wind up with courses where the grass is a little longer, the greens a little slower and a little grainier (and healthier), fewer different mowing heights, bunkers a little less well maintained, fewer high maintenance ponds and fake waterfalls, etc.? Sounds a lot like an agronomic/GCA top ten wish list for many who participate here, doesn't it? And yes, greens committees and club members will have to adjust their expectations, but they'll be feeling the pinch in others areas too, so they will.
Even regulated markets ebb and flow for a reason- supplies and demands cannot be perfectly balanced. There will be pain for some. But no other economic system has ever proven more reliably- or inevitably - able to adjust. So it will be with the golf market.
Jim Nugent:Some people did say that about the NASDAQ. But there were plenty of people who questioned whether companies with no (even negative!) earnings could continue to carry such high valuations based on the price of their stocks. And many investors stayed far, far away from that sector. Human nature being what it is, too many people bought into the greed cycle when values were rising and sold in the fear cycle when they were falling and ended up much poorer for it. Some people, however, stuck with quality, earnings, good diversification and allocation strategies and did just fine. And since the tech "crash" the sector has recovered pretty nicely.