Given the success of the Internet Invitational—while the PGA Tour’s fall season marches on in relative obscurity—our team got into a debate over the popularity of YouTube golf.
Here is this week’s question:
Will the world of YouTube golf, TGL and alternative forms of golf entertainment eventually become a bigger draw than the PGA Tour?
Sean Fairholm: We saw last week with the Internet Invitational how golf audiences were hooked by the drama—manufactured or not—at an event full of YouTubers and influencers.
Despite that tournament’s overwhelming success (well over 23 million views so far) and the rise of YouTube golf as a whole, it will take a long time to knock the Tour off its perch as the top golf entertainment option.
The Tour has a great TV contract, world-class golfers, corporate buy-in and well-known events. Its natural exposure in the sports world is still much higher than the relatively nascent world of YouTube and TGL. Those leagues haven’t established themselves to be ingrained in sports culture beyond the world of golf sickos (although having LeBron randomly tweet about YouTube golf is a step towards that).
In the next 10 years, the Tour and the majors (which it does not own) will still prevail by taking the majority of eyeballs. After that? I’m not so confident.
Adam Beach: If it continues to bore people watching, it will absolutely continue to create opportunities for others to become a bigger draw. Evolve or go extinct.
That said, the Tour is too big not to be forced to make an attempt to evolve.
But if you’re not cool, you better find people who know what cool is to the group coming up—or you will always be in trouble.
Golf is getting older and less cool. Not to those who are older but to those who are not. And their problem is their is an influx of new that they are the opposite of cool to.
Connor Lindeman: I think YouTube/TGL will eventually overtake the Tour. Golf desperately needs to get younger and the youth are going to YouTube. On-demand golf is in demand.
We need to lean into that entertainment side more.
Scott Hutchison: Every major professional sport is going through this same challenge, in their own ways. The key is to see what’s new in golf as complementary to the Tour and not as competition.
Rising tide lifts all boats.
John Barba: I think we all learned in school that evolution is the key to survival. As viewing habits evolve, so must the thing that’s being viewed. I can remember a time when the only way you could see NFL game highlights was to wait until Monday Night Football and Howard Cosell’s halftime recap of Sunday’s action (“It’s Howard Carmichael, the angular one!”).
Traditional Tour coverage has its place but declining ratings don’t tell a complete story. For networks, what else could they air that would do better, or even nearly as well, in terms of viewership and, more importantly, sponsorship? Can they refine the presentation?
Certainly, but golf on TV is golf on TV and there’s only so much you can do. TGL is formatted to fit a specific time frame while YouTube and other online alternatives are made for on-demand viewing. Whether those forms of golf are taking away from Tour viewership is debatable but the delivery makes it more accessible.
Unless it’s a major, I’m guessing a sizable group of golfers would rather be playing golf on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon than watching it.
Phillip Bishop: I committed time to watch the entire Internet Invitational. It kept my attention. It was entertaining. There were heroes and villains (whether they were manufactured or not). There was legitimate pressure as the tournament progressed—you saw who grasped the moment and who crumbled.
They’ll continue to do this and likely be successful with it. It’s entertaining because it is more relatable to amateur/recreational golfers. You get to see less skilled golfers succeed or fail in this setting. Even highly skilled players hit poor shots in critical moments.
Relative to a Tour broadcast, I felt like more golf was actually shown, too. Plus, you have the banter. It’s more representative of what a larger percentage of golfers experience on a daily basis.
Will it become a bigger draw? The viewership certainly suggests so. There is a demand for this type of “live” and “competitive” golf.
Chris Nickel: If we eliminate majors from the conversation, the Tour has a serious potential problem on its hands. And if we narrow the definition of “bigger” to include only eyeballs/impressions, the calculus is likely in favor of the alternative forms of golf entertainment.
What’s clear is that YT/TGL and golf-adjacent entertainment outlets finally leveraged tried-and-true delivery dynamics to get a new generation of golfers to engage with content: find a compelling cast of characters, create real/scripted drama and figure out how to make the competition meaningful.
It works for Dancing With The Stars, The Bachelorette/Bachelor, Survivor, etc., so there’s no reason it can’t work for golf.
But the rumor is that the Tour might go with a more standardized schedule of 20-22 events and start their season post-Super Bowl. If this happens and it means you get the best players competing against one another 20+ weeks of the year, that might prove to be an ace up the sleeve that the Tour desperately needs.
What do you think, MGS readers?
Let us know in the comment section below.
richard Grime
6 months ago
Well both the PGA tour and DP World tour are quite boring. Worse really when you watch the highlights. It’s mainly putting, but when you see the players ready to play a shot, they pull out their yardage books yet AGAIN. The yardage hasn’t changed mate! I don’t think that they play better for it. It’s boring to watch. I’m still paying for the coverage but am rarely watching it now. Also the American commentators are particularly irritating. We need another Jonny Millar! Called a bad shot. The ones today are sugary and assinine!