Because of the potential  profit margin of high-end private golf communities -- which are now driving 60% of all new courses -- there aren't many developers who want to build affordable ($30 or less)  18- hole golf courses of any kind.

So is it the wealth of Americans that is impeding the growth of golf in America. In the Southeast, I think this is the case. There's also the high cost of land in coastal areas, which is also driven by wealthy golf communities and water-front properties.

Unless the government or the major organizations in the world of golf provide financial aid in some form, can golf grow in the highly populated areas of the country?

And are we wasting our time with all the growth of golf programs because a lot of the people we're trying to reach just can't afford more than $15 per round or less.

Example, The First Tee initiative: where are these kids going to play after they've learned enough to want to play on a real course? How are they going to get to, or afford the real courses that are a lengthy trip from where they live?

I don't know. How will golf grow in middle and lower America?
A lot of us played or play municipal courses but not many cities want to build golf courses anymore, at least not where I live.

Mark, move to the southwest.  Plenty of places for the kiddos to play for $10 or less, greater supply than demand, and many towns and cities have one or more courses.  Go way out in the country and you can still buy land for under $5,000 per acre.

Rich,

Yours reminds me of the obtuse businessman whose product was selling at a loss,  but believed that he could make it up on volume.

Bob,

At least in my part of the country, there are all sorts of jobs at driving ranges and golf courses for kids who are willing to work semi-hard.  Golfing privilidges are a side benefit.  Judging by the turnover at my former club, not many kids seem to want these jobs.  My own son quit one after a week because he didn't like getting sweaty during the hot summer and fighting off mosquitos.

In Atlanta, the kids have the Charlie Yates executive course, and the program feeds caddies to nearby East Lake.  As I recall, my caddy said that they got to play the course a few times a month.

Locally, a friend of mine used to run a junior program and he could buy blocks of off-peak times for under $10 each at several decent courses.  Unfortunately, the drop-off rate from his program was too large to make it viable, but this was due to the kids gravitating to more popular team sports than to a lack of access.  

"And are we wasting our time with all the growth of golf programs because a lot of the people we're trying to reach just can't afford more than $15 per round or less."

Are we wasting our time? Who's we? Those that fund and support these programs just may be doing that. That may be  happening simply because they're attempting to stimulate demand without providing an adequate supply of places to play.

"Example, The First Tee initiative: where are these kids going to play after they've learned enough to want to play on a real course? How are they going to get to, or afford the real courses that are a lengthy trip from where they live?"

Again, if these programs do stimulate increased demand the problem of an adequate supply of places to play to meet that becomes a real concern. As to the answer to the question of how these kids are going to afford to play---well, if one was a true capitalist one would say they should do what all capitalist Americans have always done to affored anything. That would be to work hard enough to earn the money to do it. In the meantime they can do what most kids before them who were interested in golf have done---that would be to caddy!

If any of these program sponsors and funders think they are going to somehow reinvent the economic wheel here, I'd say they're in for what most others who thought that were in for---that would be failure.

The alternative could be for Tiger to get back on his game like he was in 2001. He already contributes a considerable amount of support to some of these game growth intercity and kid's golf programs and if he kept that 2001 pace up for about 10-12 years he'd be worth about 5 billion and he could then simply build the courses (the supply) for the increased demand and continue to operate those courses for the rest of time!  

In my neck of the southeast, I think the reverse is closer to true, although it may take a few years to work itself out. We have developers building public access courses (and not CCFAD) in order to sell the lots. There is no realistic demand case for these courses on a stand-alone basis. When the lots are sold and the the developers walk away, the game will really grow fast, if one believes that high green fees are what's impeding it.  Of course, most of the rest of the course in the market will pay the price, without having profited from the home sales.

70+ something % of the population in the US lives within 100 miles of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. 95% of the golf population does not travel more than 25 miles to play golf. The baby boomers are moving to warm climates. Why are we surprised that golf is expensive?

Mark:

Let me throw forward for discussio purposes a comment made by Peter Hill / President of Bill Casper Golf that was made at the Winter Conference held this past Saturday at the Essex County CC in West Orange, NJ.

Mr. Hill essentially said that all the alphabet soup programs being pushed to attract players (e.g. First Tee, Get Hooked on Golf, etc, etc) are really good pr moves but have done little to expand the game.

What did he suggest?

Simple.

Get the core player to play at least two more rounds per year and much of what we are facing today would likely disappear.

The issue for places as congeste as the Northeast is to use the muni's that are present for golf development programs. Many of them are stil operated as political hack dumping grounds. There are a few that have done quite well in NJ -- Morris, Monmouth & Somerset Counties come to mind. More on this front can and should happen.

Mark -- the incentive for private developers to build affordable golf doesn't exist. These folks are only interested in cherry picking off the top dogs -- in essence they are attempting to steal from the country clubs their members and those at that income level. The idea of "growing the game" is nothing more than a talking point to many of these folks.

One other thing -- the so-called "Tiger Woods" effect was nothing more than a blip on the radar screen -- Peter Hill said as much and I agree with his assessment.

The slowdown in golf comes about beause the new generation of players has not embraced the game for a host of reasons. Price is a factor -- time is even more a concern. Golf takes too long to play and there are other diversions that can easily fill the vaccum. I don't see any easy answers because too many people within the industry are still in deep denial about what is taking place now and for the last several years.

Those who can only afford $15 golf courses often don't make it to the course because they stop at the pro-shop first. The purchase of the clubs, balls, bag, shoes etc. come first. The cost of preparing to play the game is a more difficult road block to overcome.

I would venture that most who play the very low green fee courses could afford to play more expensive courses. But don't because they have other economic priorities and non-economic reasons rather than playing them out of financial necessity.

Matt -- that's interesting what you said about groups still in deep denial about the stagnant growth....I just assumed they would all have gotten it by now...I was at a Golf COurse Builders Assoc thing at the PGA last August and they seemed to...what groups are you specifically referring to?

I'd like to see Golf Digest quit lying to themselves and the public when they publish the most affordable new list....$50 is not affordable even when it is not a phantom rate...as it most often is.

Example, The First Tee initiative: where are these kids going to play after they've learned enough to want to play on a real course? How are they going to get to, or afford the real courses that are a lengthy trip from where they live?

The Misson of the First Tee:

To impact the lives of young people by providing learning facilities and educational programs that promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf.

Playing golf after they get out isn't the primary reason for the first tee, it is secondary.  And if the primary goals are met, the kids in the program will hopefully get jobs where they will make enough money to be able to play golf on those expensive courses.

There are still plenty of small courses around to play on.  Even in the San Jose area which is about as expensive as it gets there are golf courses that cost $20 or less to play.  They might be executive or 9 holers, but they are still golf and many of them are $20 or so.

In Pittsburgh there are plenty of inexpensive good courses to play.  North Park where George Pazin and I have played a few times is $18 and is a ton of fun.  So is Aubrey's and a bunch more.

The newer courses are very expensive almost everywhere because the cost of land is so expensive anywhere near a populated area.  Once they've got that much invested in the land, they have to build bigger, fancier courses to justify the price they have to charge just to recoup their sunken cost in the land.

We are making the assumption that these kids are predestined to live a life of poverty.Many will,just like many kids we know who have every oppurtunity.Hopefully some kids will break the cycle,and some who dont will at least find a hobby .We may not know how they do it,but a lot of people without means love this game.Every economic-education group has wise and not so wise,jerks and good people,etc.Whether or not the best vehicle to do this is the first tee,I dont know.My cynical side is generally suspicious of any charity.As a baptist I have learned to hide my wallet lest my church build another unnessesary parking garage.