Betting on golf – growing the game, or just increasing the revenue stream?

Last summer, as the opening rounds of the 2020 U.S. Women’s Open were being played, I read a social-media post relating the news that Sei Young Kim, the pre-tourney favorite and only player in the field with single-digit outright odds, had opened 4-7-5-4, and was four-over after the first four holes. I responded, somewhat in jest, as follows:

“Exhibit # 1 in the case against betting on golf.”

That post prompted an offline response from a longtime golf writer who has made the move into covering the betting side of the game:

“Or... don’t bet a 6/1 favorite? The “don’t bet golf” crowd is silliness.”

“Call me silly, then, because I feel that bringing betting into any sport is never a good idea. Gambling of all kinds has long-standing ties to organized crime, and it enables addictive behavior.”

“Oh jeez. That’s exactly why every single tour/league is fighting to have it legalized. The impact on fan investment/engagement is immeasurable. The NFL is 10% of what it is without gambling/fantasy.”

“Even legalized it’s marginal behavior.”

“…says the vocal minority.”

“Guilty as charged, and no regrets.”

“Can’t tell you how much better my job is since leaving traditional media and covering the game from a betting perspective. Also can’t tell you how many people from those traditional media places are losing their jobs every week and trying to come work for us. Not that any of that will or should change your mind, but dismissing sports gaming as “bad” is a huge whiff right now.”

“To each his own. I guess I’m lucky that I cover golf as a sideline, freelance gig, so I feel no pressure to jump on the betting bandwagon. My objections to sports betting are philosophical, and I don’t see betting improving the sport in any way except to open up another revenue stream for the corporate entities that run it.”

“I have so many friends—let alone Twitter followers, radio listeners, etc.—who were never big golf fans, but have started betting a few bucks on it each week or playing a few DFS lineups, which has turned them into massive fans. For an industry that has literally tried everything to ‪#growthegame the engagement this has forged—from new and often younger fan—is well beyond any other attempt to carve that personal investment.”

“Do they play, or just bet on the pros? Because just betting isn’t ‘growing the game.’”

“Oh, does growing the game only mean people playing more? Why wouldn’t it also mean more people consuming the product and paying greater attention on a more frequent basis? Why should we limit growing the game simply to more people playing?”

“You know, before it morphed into a larger discussion, this started as a joking reference to the wild uncertainty of betting on golf.

No, I don’t think that ‘more people consuming the product and paying greater attention on a more frequent basis’ comprises ‘growing the game’. Gambling on golf, or any sport, reduces the attention on the game to considerations of who wins or loses, or who covered the spread, or whatever, removing considerations of the beauty of execution, the satisfaction of achievement that, to me, lie at the heart of sport.

I am happy for you and all the other media folks who have lost their jobs writing about the actual playing of golf, and have found new homes promoting the gambling side of the game, but ‘growing the game’ means playing the game and/or appreciating the game, even if only as a spectator, for its intrinsic qualities, not increasing the depth of the betting pools. ”

******************************

As I noted in my last comment in the string above, this discussion began as a joking reference to the uncertainty of betting on golf, but I have strong feelings about the other two threads that it branched into: 1) the morality of sports betting; and 2) whether legalizing betting on golf can really be characterized as “growing the game”.

I’m not going to stand up on a soapbox and preach too much about the morality of gambling on sports, but I will say this: Gambling is a known addictive behavior, and it has historically been associated (for good reason) with criminal influences being brought to bear to affect the outcome of sporting events. We all hate those guys who shout things at players on the course, right? You know, the “Get in the hole!” and “Mashed potatoes!” crowd. Well, think about it—how long will it be before some punter with a barrel of cash on a match yells during a player’s swing, intentionally, or steps on a ball in the rough? And what about the possibility of more sinister forces coming into play, like gambling syndicates influencing outcomes from behind the scenes? It has happened in boxing, in horse racing—why not golf?

As for the question of gambling “growing the game”, does increasing the fan base by the addition of eyes on the TV coverage, eyes that are only there because they’ve got money riding on the outcome, mean “growing the game”? Television coverage of golf has started to include the betting line on players that are in contention, and the talking heads in the booths refer to the odds on a player as often as they refer to the difficulty of the shot the player faces, the lie their ball is in, or their stats. It has become ubiquitous, pervasive—even during the TV coverage of the Ryder Cup, a competition that is supposed to be about no more than national pride and bragging rights, with no prize purse at stake, the broadcast made mention of the betting line.

“Growing the game” through betting only increases the revenue stream associated with the game, putting money in the pockets of the tour organizations that sanction it and the other corporate entities that back it and push it as the end-all and be-all purpose behind the game. Betting on golf doesn’t get more people out on the course or the range and it doesn’t increase sales of golf equipment or create jobs in the golf industry—the things that really represent growth in the golf industry, the things that really mean “growing the game”.

Of course, while growing the game means increasing participation and getting more people playing the game, more importantly it means increasing accessibility to the opportunity to play the game. This means making golf welcoming and available to everybody who wants to play, regardless of age, gender, race, or income level.

According to National Golf Foundation data there has been an 11% decrease in the golf facility supply in the United States since 2006, an increase that has been, in their words, “disproportionately concentrated in value-priced courses (less than $40 green fee).” That means that there is work to be done to keep golf accessible and affordable, but is that accomplished by pushing gambling on golf as the next big thing, by including odds and the betting line in televised golf, by replacing an appreciation for the beauty and skill of execution in the game with cold calculation of the odds and anticipation only of the monetary benefit of a player’s performance relative to the betting line?

No—no, it isn’t.