While the above question will likely never be answered conclusively, a recent article in The Herald Scotland highlighted the governance issues many American clubs encounter.
Each year, The Herald Scottish Golf Survey develops data from their golf clubs that they hope is useful in promoting improved operations and finances. According to The Herald, “Many clubs reported that “encouraging members to volunteer for committee duties” was one of their biggest challenges, often listed alongside far more visible pressures such as rising costs and ageing demographics.” Furthermore, they noted “It wasn’t all that long ago when members aspired, for the most part, to hold office within their club and actively vied against others hoping to achieve the same. The prestige that came with holding a position of power kept these unpaid posts readily filled.”
Like in Scotland, clubs in the US often find themselves in a leadership vacuum. Most members don’t seek the responsibility of running the club and dealing with the day to day decisions that may include everything from finance to staff/labor and budgeting but given the politics present at most clubs, most members prefer to use the club for recreation and as one respondent put it, “keep the few friends I have.” As I’ve observed, first hand, at many clubs leadership positions have few takers and anyone seeking to break into leadership is often rebuffed by those in power who may have found their “fiefdom”. Club leadership no longer carries the prestige it once did and those who do seek it are often ensconced for extended periods that become unproductive.
At most member-owned clubs, committees oversee everything from governance and finance to competitions and long-term planning, and in some cases the “same old crowd” is recycling through the chairs – “a classic marker of volunteer burnout.” With so many clubs incurring substantial debt in recent years, it’s not unusual for long-term leaders to either minimize the impact of that debt or expand the club’s membership in order to pay for it. When that happens, the golf course becomes less accessible and members become unhappy.
Conversely at investor-owned clubs, ownership has a vested (financial) interest in maintaining member satisfaction and providing value in membership. Simply put, they run the club like a business. As the management of member-owned clubs, and the capital expenditures (think new irrigation system, renovation, updating, etc.) become more complex, lots of clubs have looked to the professionals. Some clubs, deeply in debt, have thrown up their arms and sold out, often at peril to the bank.
No doubt, the investor-owned clubs don’t always provide the “bragging rights” opportunities that some member-owned clubs do. They do provide the membership with a precisely defined experience, prudent cost management and less of a political atmosphere. There’s much to be said for that. There is the necessity of a profit, and it stands to reason that staffing and hours of service in some departments may be less extravagant, though typically adequate.
Are investor-owned clubs better than member-owned clubs? That’s a tough question to answer and most likely depends on what the member is looking for. It is true that for the most part, member-owned clubs provide prestige and status that some folks prefer – usually lots of often trivial rules and politics, and higher costs of membership. Conversely, investor-owned clubs (given good management) can (and often do) provide very high quality facilities, recreational and social opportunities, usually (not always) at an affordable price in a usually less political atmosphere.
Thus, the answer to the question lies in the desires of the member.
