Is YouTube golf beating traditional broadcasts?

“It's definitely been an interesting year I would say... There has been good, there has been flashes of really good and there has been flashes of I don't know what just happened"

Nelly Korda

Rory really is box office, Perez and Henni off to LIV, is one-handed putting going to catch on, I’m going to try Maxfli balls in 2026, John Daly’s Augusta Hooters is demolished, Harris English is Mystic Meg, I’m still wondering where my short game went, JT recovering after going under the knife, frost delays aren’t much fun.

Clubs to Hire record breaking year

Why it matters: Clubs to Hire had a record-breaking 2025 which tells a bigger story about the direction of global golf travel. As airlines continue to push up baggage fees, golfers are making club rental a mainstream part of their travel experience rather than a fallback option. This shift signals a wider behavioural change: golfers are prioritising convenience, flexibility, and value, and they now trust rental services to deliver top-tier equipment without the hassle or expense of transporting their own. With more than 60,000 active customers, expansion into 24 destinations, and a growing media footprint, Clubs to Hire’s momentum highlights a rapid evolution in golf tourism, where smart service models are winning market share and influencing how the modern golfer travels.

Our Take: This is a prime example of a golf company solving a real-world customer pain point at exactly the right time. Clubs to Hire has aligned its model with the economic realities of travel while delivering a premium experience, a combination that resonates with today’s value-conscious golfer. As golf tourism grows and airlines continue to monetise luggage, we believe the rental category will move from “alternative option” to “default behaviour” for many travelling players. The companies that remove friction, reduce cost, and maintain equipment quality will define the next phase of growth in golf travel. Clubs to Hire is demonstrating how operational focus, consistent service standards, and strategic partnerships can build a category-leading brand in a shifting market.

LPGA secures full live broadcast coverage as FM bankrolls production upgrade

Why it matters: FM, the leading commercial property insurer, has signed a multi-year agreement with the LPGA to transform broadcast coverage of North American events, becoming an Official Partner. Starting in 2026, every tournament and every round will air live across the United States for the first time since Golf Channel's 1995 launch. FM's investment funds a 50% camera increase, triple the microphones, drone coverage, and slow-motion capabilities previously reserved for majors. A separate Trackman partnership quadruples shot-tracing capabilities, with Trackman securing Official Golf Simulator and Official Launch Monitor designation. Weekend rounds air on CNBC when Golf Channel carries PGA Tour events. FM already backs the tour's richest non-major with a $4.1 million purse. This represents Commissioner Craig Kessler's second major announcement in two weeks, following the Saudi-backed Shadow Creek event.

Our Take: This isn't rescue, it's infrastructure investment with dual returns. FM is buying category ownership in women's golf whilst funding production capability that feeds both linear broadcast and digital content creation. The camera increase, microphones, drones, and walk-and-talk segments aren't just for TV, they're building a content library for TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube where the next generation actually consumes golf. FM now controls the richest non-major purse and has naming rights embedded across broadcast technology. Trackman's ecosystem integration creates instantly shareable highlight content whilst their Epson Tour pathway signals long-term confidence. The LPGA has always had compelling personalities. Now they have production quality and content volume to match. The challenge becomes distribution: which stories resonate, which platforms to prioritise, which formats convert viewers to fans. If Kessler solves that, FM bought category ownership at a generational discount.

Topgolf Callaway sells 60% of Topgolf to private equity for $1.1bn

Why it matters: Topgolf Callaway Brands is selling a 60% stake in its Topgolf and Toptracer business to private equity firm Leonard Green & Partners, valuing the entertainment division at $1.1 billion. The company retains 40% ownership whilst receiving $770 million in net proceeds. This reverses the 2021 merger strategy, with CEO Chip Brewer refocusing on Golf Equipment & Active Lifestyle: Callaway, Odyssey, TravisMathew, and Ogio, which generated $2 billion revenue over twelve months through Q3 2025. The company rebrands as Callaway Golf Company with ticker CALY when the deal closes Q1 2026. Stock jumped on announcement, signalling investor approval. This marks private equity's second major golf acquisition in 2025, following L Catterton's $200 million L.A.B Golf purchase in July.

Our Take: The Topgolf merger was sold as ‘synergistic diversification’. It was incompatible business models forced together. Equipment operates on product cycles and brand loyalty. Entertainment venues operate on real estate and F&B margins. Combining them created reporting complexity, not operational advantages. The 0.61x revenue valuation reflects realistic expectations for a capital-intensive business with growth but persistent profitability questions. Leonard Green isn't buying growth, they're buying operational improvement opportunities through better unit economics. The separation solves Callaway's conglomerate discount but doesn't solve its growth problem. Golf equipment is mature and commoditised. TravisMathew represents the only genuine growth asset. Private equity is acquiring golf assets because public markets repriced them to levels where operational leverage can engineer returns. Topgolf works as a private business with patient capital, not inside a public company answering to quarterly calls.

Listen: Inside Ralph Lauren’s Big Comeback - And How it Won Over Gen Z Facing brand dilution and declining wholesale sales, Ralph Lauren has sought to reinvent itself and win over a younger generation. This feature has some great lessons for any brand trying to remain relevant for new audiences.

Watch: 14-Year-Old Bryson showing early signs of greatness Footage of a young Bryson who was “big & strong” even back then. He was destined for the top.

Follow: Birdie Houses Great content related to golf stories, course reviews, and tips for planning the "perfect" golf trip. This video on Michael Jordan’s private golf course is insane.

Read: 1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History - and How It Shattered a Nation this book was like reading a thriller. Mind was blown.

The fairway rebellion: What YouTube golf really means for traditional broadcasts

Good Good Golf has 1.97 million YouTube subscribers and routinely generates 1 to 2 million views per video. Rick Shiels commands 3 million subscribers with content that consistently outperforms PGA Tour highlights. No Laying Up built a media company valued in the tens of millions. Bob Does Sports turned casual golf content into a venture-backed business with mainstream appeal.

The PGA Tour's non-major Sunday coverage averages under 2 million viewers on linear television. The median age of a Golf Channel viewer is 64. Traditional broadcasters maintain that live sports remain premium content. YouTube creators argue they have captured the audience that matters most.

Both cannot be entirely right. The data suggests a more complex reality: golf is fragmenting into parallel media ecosystems with different economics, different audiences, and fundamentally different value propositions. Understanding which model delivers sustainable returns requires examining what each does well, where the metrics mislead, and what the commercial infrastructure can actually support.

The structural differences that define each model

Traditional PGA Tour broadcasts operate with established, capital-intensive infrastructure. A Sunday telecast requires dozens of cameras, commentary teams, graphics production, satellite uplinks, and advertising partnerships negotiated months in advance. The PGA Tour receives approximately $700 million annually from its broadcast partners including CBS, NBC, and ESPN. These deals assume consistent viewership across the season justifies the investment.

YouTube creators operate with fundamentally lower cost structures. Take a look at say the Golf Life YouTube channel. A typical video requires a small camera crew, basic editing software, and direct upload to the platform. Total production cost per video runs between $5,000 and $15,000. Monetisation comes from YouTube ad revenue, direct sponsorship integrations, and merchandise sales. The model generates profit with 300,000 engaged subscribers. Traditional broadcasts need substantially larger audiences to justify their cost base.

The content itself reflects these different economics. Traditional broadcasts prioritise competition. Shot-by-shot coverage, leaderboard updates, and technical analysis dominate. The format assumes viewers care primarily about who wins and how they win. Creator content prioritises personality and entertainment. Challenges, banter, and relatable scenarios take precedence over competitive outcomes. The golf provides structure, but the personalities drive viewership.

Industry executives disagree sharply on what this means. Traditional broadcasters argue that audiences will always value elite competition and that creator content appeals to casual fans who were never core golf consumers. Creator advocates counter that younger demographics consume all media on-demand and will not adjust their schedules for live broadcasts regardless of the competition's quality.

The demographic data supports both interpretations. Traditional golf broadcasts attract affluent viewers aged 55-plus with high household incomes. YouTube golf skews heavily towards viewers aged 18 to 34 with lower current income but longer commercial lifespans. Which audience matters more depends entirely on what a brand is trying to achieve.

Where sponsorship budgets are moving

Titleist, Callaway, and TaylorMade all launched dedicated creator partnership programmes. These are not influencer marketing experiments. They represent systematic shifts in how equipment brands allocate media budgets.

A traditional PGA Tour title sponsorship costs $3 to $6 million annually. That buys logo placement, broadcast mentions, and hospitality access. Viewership fluctuates based on leaderboard drama and broadcast windows. A year-long creator partnership costs $500,000 to $850,000 and delivers guaranteed content across multiple videos with direct product integration.

The ROI calculations differ fundamentally. Traditional sponsorships deliver broad reach during live windows to audiences passively watching. Creator integrations deliver narrower reach but active engagement from viewers who chose to watch the content. Brands report that creator partnerships generate 3 to 5 times higher engagement rates on social media and measurably stronger product consideration among younger demographics.

However, traditional sponsorships still deliver advantages that creator partnerships cannot match. A live broadcast guarantees undivided attention during specific moments. Viewers cannot skip, fast-forward, or ignore advertisements the way they can with on-demand content. For product launches targeting affluent consumers, that captive audience during premium events justifies higher costs.

The challenge for traditional media is that these premium moments are increasingly concentrated. The four major championships and the Ryder Cup command strong viewership and sponsor interest. The remaining 40-plus weeks of PGA Tour coverage face declining audiences and softening demand. Sponsors are not abandoning traditional golf entirely. They are reallocating budgets away from mid-tier events towards creator partnerships that deliver consistent engagement.

Apparel brands moved faster than equipment manufacturers. Malbon, Bad Birdie, and Eastside Golf built their businesses primarily through creator partnerships rather than tour player endorsements. Malbon reportedly exceeds $100 million in annual revenue with minimal investment in traditional athlete sponsorships. Traditional apparel brands took note. Adidas relaunched its golf division in 2025 with a creator first strategy after years of underperformance using traditional athlete endorsements.

The venture capital flowing into creator platforms signals institutional belief that this shift is permanent. Good Good raised $45 million in 2025. These are not speculative bets on influencer trends. Investors are backing media companies that happen to focus on golf, not golf companies that produce media content. The distinction matters for valuation models and growth expectations.

Why comparing viewership numbers requires context

Barstool Sports and Bob Does Sports produced the Internet Invitational in August 2025 with a $1.7 million prize pool. The six-episode docuseries generated over 21 million cumulative views. The 2025 Masters final round averaged 12.7 million viewers on CBS.

These numbers are not directly comparable. Traditional broadcasters note that 12.7 million represents simultaneous viewers during a specific four-hour window. The Invitational's 21 million represents cumulative views across six episodes over several weeks. YouTube creators counter that this distinction proves their model's superiority. A live broadcast's value evaporates immediately. On-demand content generates revenue indefinitely through advertising and algorithmic recommendations.

Both arguments have merit. Traditional sports rights are structured around guaranteed live audiences. Advertisers pay premium rates because viewers cannot skip commercials. Creator content operates differently, with value coming from consistent engagement across a content library rather than peak moments. The challenge is determining which model delivers better returns over five to ten years.

What traditional golf broadcasts do that creator content cannot

Tiger Woods limping to victory at the 2008 US Open drew 8.4 million viewers for the Monday playoff. Phil Mickelson winning the 2021 PGA Championship at age 50 generated 6.9 million viewers on Sunday. Rory McIlroy's multiple playoff battles in 2025 consistently delivered above-average audiences for non-major events.

These moments share a common attribute: nobody knew the outcome when they happened. The tension was real. The emotions were genuine. Viewers tuned in specifically because the drama was unfolding live with stakes that mattered.

The Internet Invitational generated substantial viewership, but it was filmed in August and released in October. Viewers knew someone had already won. The drama was curated through editing and narrative structure. It was compelling entertainment, but it was not sport in the traditional sense. The distinction matters commercially.

Sponsors pay premium rates for live sports because uncertainty drives attention. When the outcome is unknown, audiences stay engaged through commercial breaks and sponsor messages. Viewership peaks at critical moments, delivering exactly what advertisers need. Creator content, no matter how well produced, cannot replicate this dynamic because the outcome is predetermined, and viewers control when and how they consume it.

The Ryder Cup at Bethpage in 2025 demonstrated this principle clearly. The crowd hostility, player confrontations, and genuine tension between teams generated record viewership and sustained media coverage for weeks. The drama was authentic and unpredictable. No amount of creator content could manufacture equivalent commercial value because the uncertainty was the product.

Traditional broadcasters argue this proves live sports will always command premium valuations. Creator advocates counter that these marquee moments represent perhaps 10 events per year, and the remaining 40-plus weeks of coverage fail to deliver equivalent engagement. Both positions are supported by available data.

Where creator content is gaining ground

The Masters, US Open, Open Championship, and PGA Championship maintain strong viewership and sponsor demand. The 2025 Masters averaged 12.7 million viewers on Sunday. The US Open drew 10.8 million for its conclusion. These events are not threatened by YouTube creators. They deliver exactly what premium live sports are supposed to deliver: uncertain outcomes, elite competition, and collective cultural moments.

The erosion is happening everywhere else. The John Deere Classic averaged 1.2 million viewers for its final round in 2025. The Sanderson Farms Championship drew fewer than 900,000. The Barracuda Championship, despite its unique format, struggled to break 600,000. These mid-tier events are losing audiences steadily, and the decline accelerates among viewers under 50.

This is where creator content is capturing market share. When the choice is watching a Thursday round from a mid-tier PGA Tour event or watching Good Good play a scramble challenge, younger audiences overwhelmingly choose Good Good. The decision is not between creator content and the Masters. It is between creator content and the 35 weeks of Tour coverage that fail to deliver compelling drama.

The commercial implications are significant. Television rights deals for the PGA Tour are structured around consistent season-long viewership. If mid-tier events continue declining, rights fees will compress in future negotiations. Sponsors paying for season-long exposure will question whether the investment delivers adequate returns. Media companies will reduce production budgets, further degrading the product and accelerating audience decline.

Traditional broadcasters argue this represents a cyclical downturn that strong narratives and better storytelling can reverse. Creator advocates argue this represents permanent audience migration that will not reverse regardless of content quality because consumption habits have fundamentally changed.

The data through 2025 supports the creator position more strongly, but the timeline is too short to declare permanent trends. What is clear is that traditional mid-tier golf broadcasts face a retention problem among younger viewers that existing strategies are not solving.

Three possible scenarios for how this plays out

The first scenario involves absorption. The PGA Tour or major broadcasters acquire leading creator channels, gaining immediate access to younger audiences whilst neutralising competitive threats. The challenge is that acquisition often destroys what made the content valuable. Corporate oversight and brand safety requirements can strip authenticity. Disney's acquisition of Maker Studios demonstrates how difficult this transition is to execute successfully.

The second scenario involves coexistence. Traditional broadcasts serve affluent older audiences. Creator content serves younger audiences with different consumption habits. Both thrive independently with minimal overlap. This requires both sides accepting reduced influence over domains they previously controlled. Early evidence suggests this is the most likely outcome over the next three to five years.

The third scenario involves displacement. Creator golf continues growing whilst traditional viewership declines, forcing systematic restructuring. Tournaments become content creation opportunities designed for digital distribution rather than television windows. This is the scenario traditional media fears most and venture capital is betting on. However, the timeline for definitive answers extends beyond current planning horizons.

What this means for participants in the golf economy

For sponsors, the decision framework is clarifying. Premium live events remain effective for reaching affluent older demographics during guaranteed windows. Creator partnerships deliver younger audiences with better engagement metrics at lower cost. The optimal strategy involves both, allocated based on specific marketing objectives rather than prestige or tradition.

For media companies, the pressure is intensifying. Traditional broadcast models require rethinking. The current cost structure cannot be sustained if mid-tier event viewership continues declining. Integrating creator talent and formats into existing broadcasts represents one approach. Developing separate digital-first products represents another. Doing nothing is no longer viable.

For the PGA Tour, the challenge is significant but not immediate. The Tour's media rights deals run through 2030 with strong financial terms. However, if current audience trends continue, the next negotiation will occur in a fundamentally weakened position. The Tour's partnership with Good Good for the Austin championship signals recognition that creator audiences’ matter. Whether that recognition translates into systematic strategic changes remains unclear.

For investors, the opportunity exists in the infrastructure serving both ecosystems rather than betting on one replacing the other. Technology platforms, data services, and logistics providers that work across traditional and creator golf will capture value regardless of which model prevails.

The reality neither side fully acknowledges

Golf is fragmenting into parallel media products with different value propositions. Live traditional broadcasts deliver collective cultural moments for events that generate authentic, uncertain drama. Creator content delivers consistent entertainment for audiences that value personality and accessibility over competition.

Both models have sustainable economics serving different audiences. The Masters will remain a premium property regardless of how creator content evolves. Good Good will continue growing regardless of what traditional broadcasts do.

The strategic dilemma is clear. Traditional golf can double down on making mid-tier events more compelling, but decades of efforts have not reversed the decline. They can restructure around fewer, higher-value properties. Or they can integrate creator models into the existing structure, accepting reduced control in exchange for accessing younger audiences. Each approach has proponents. No consensus has emerged.

The commercial infrastructure of professional golf must now navigate two parallel markets with different rules, different audiences, and different success metrics. Brands that understand this will allocate budgets effectively. Those that continue treating golf media as a monolithic market will waste resources pursuing audiences that have already migrated.

Neither traditional broadcasts nor creator content will disappear. Both will exist, serving different purposes for different audiences. The sooner the industry accepts this reality, the faster it can build strategies that work within it rather than fighting against it.

Why we call it a handicap

If you've ever wondered why golf strokes are called a "handicap," the answer starts in a 17th-century British pub.

The term came from a betting game called "Hand in Cap." Two people wanted to trade unequal items, say, a valuable watch for a simple shawl. They'd bring in an "Adjustor of the Odds" to determine the cash difference needed to make it fair.

Everyone put their money in a cap. Both traders reached in, then pulled out their hands simultaneously. Open palm meant they accepted the odds. Closed fist meant they rejected them.

The adjuster only kept the money if both parties agreed. Which meant he had to set the odds perfectly fair, or he walked away with nothing.

Horse racing adopted the concept in the 1700s. Faster horses carried extra weight to give slower horses a chance. The term stuck.

By the late 1800s, golf needed a way to let players of different skill levels compete fairly. They borrowed the established concept. A numerical handicap gave weaker players extra strokes to balance the gap with stronger opponents.

The principle remained unchanged from that pub game: equalise the abilities, focus on who plays better today.

Next week

We examine what private equity's growing appetite for golf assets means for the industry, from L.A.B Golf to Topgolf and beyond.

Find us on LinkedIn, X/Twitter and Instagram.

Have a good week. Until next Friday,

David

P.S. Got questions? Ideas? Just want to talk golf? Hit reply. We read every email.

P.P.S. If you missed last week’s edition, you can find it, and all of our newsletters on our website.