Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt
Well, there should be correlation since we all watch this for entertainment.
Golf is on the decline. TV is an avenue to get people interested in playing. Tiger brought a lot of interest to the game. David Lingmerth winning in a playoff accomplishes little except for him.
Golf was doing pretty well pre-1996, and it will do well after Tiger. If the ratings and purses shrink some due to losing casualfan, meh. My income isn't tied to how well the PGA Tour fares with common folk so it's a dumb thing for me to care about.
Nevertheless, some people think that we should be invested in Tiger doing well because if he becomes irrelevant then golf is totally screwed. Wrong. Euro, Sr., Web.com, the LPGA, and countless other tours worldwide draw sufficient sponsors and fans to survive despite Tiger not playing in their events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
Probably because if less people watch, means less people play, which leads to less courses, or higher greens fees.
Golf is overbuilt in a lot of places, period, so some contraction is inevitable. However, fewer people playing leading to higher green fees is pretty much the opposite of how supply and demand works. It's highly unlikely that supply of golf courses outpace decline in interest to the point where prices would actually rise, thus I benefit from waning interest in the game.