Golf first sunk its teeth into me as a 10-year-old.
It was June 2008, and I was sitting on a plush brown leather couch between my father, who believed Tiger Woods was destined to win Sunday’s U.S. Open at Torrey Pines, and my grandfather, who did not. Suddenly, the 50-inch Samsung flat screen in the corner (a bulky hybrid edition of the paper-thin screens that now fill our lives) flashed with a highlight, and my grandfather screamed.
“Come on ROCCO!!!”
That famous battle between Woods and Mediate at Torrey Pines is etched in my memory like the sear on a well-done steak. The drama of golfers David and Goliath in the ring for what felt like twenty heavyweight rounds. The heartbreaking excitement on the 72nd hole with the national championship on the line. Woods’ eventual victory came courtesy of half a dozen of the most remarkable golf shots I had ever seen (and would ever see).
For a long time in my life I considered myself unique because of this memory, because I was lucky enough to be a golf fan, born under the lucky star of a childhood in the height of Tiger Woods. But according to a new analysis from the New York Times‘ Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, the opposite could have been true: I might actually have been a golf fan because my childhood overlaps with Tiger Woods’ height.
According to an analysis of Facebook fan data reviewed by Stephens-Davidowitz, an American data scientist and economist, there is a strong correlation between childhood athletic success and the later development of rabid fandom. According to Stephens-Davidowitz’s analysis, championships witnessed by boys between the ages of eight and twelve were actually associated with the greatest increases in the development of rabid fandom, in some cases two or three times more likely to result in rabid fandom than championships experienced at other ages in childhood development.
Some caveats: Stephens-Davidowitz’s analysis was limited to baseball teams and did not look at changes in fandom associated with championships in other team sports, or fandom in individual sports such as golf. Stephens-Davidowitz’s analysis is interesting Also failed to find a similar correlation between young girls and the development of rabid fandom, finding that their loyalty was less affected by team success.
Still, taken as a whole, Stephens-Davidowitz’s analysis iswhich you can read in full here) presents a fascinating insight into the behavioral psychology of sports fandom and offers interesting pointers for sports leagues looking to strengthen their fandom. For golf, which has subjected itself to a sickening level of “grow the game” discourse over the past decade, the biggest takeaway might be that many of the efforts to reach teens and twenty-somethings may be overblown. Michael Mulvihillchairman of FOX Sports’ insights and analytics team, summarized the top lines:
“Great piece of research here that ties in with similar work we’ve done on how MLB/NFL fans are beaten,” Mulvihill wrote. “As a sports industry, marketing to young adults is seriously overrated and children and pre-teens are underrated. If you don’t have them by 14, you probably never will.”
But when it comes to youth involvement, golf lags far behind more popular sports like football and basketball. Even in places with thriving junior golf programs, participation numbers pale in comparison to other major sports (4 million junior golfers in the US in 2024, compared to 14.1 million junior soccer players), which is to say nothing of the gap in professional fandom as measured in Times analysis.
The lesson for golf might simply be to aim younger. The sport’s efforts to attract younger audiences through programs like TGL and LIV have focused heavily on relatively older sports fans (particularly those in the coveted 18–35 demographic). While both leagues have had some success in engaging different demographics, neither has crossed the threshold to definitively “add” to the broader golfing audience. Maybe the Times analysis offers a clue as to why: By the time these golf fans are reached by TGL and LIV, they have already completed their most impressionable years as fans.
There may be no easy answers for golf. Yes, it’s a great idea to invest heavily in youth golf, something programs like the USGA’s US National Development Team have highlighted in recent years. And yes, from a professional golf standpoint, it’s also a great idea to have as many high-leverage moments involving as many transcendent talents as possible (of the many headaches caused by LIV’s breakup, the lack of tournaments to watch is perhaps the most painful).
But even with the best players in the world in the highest-leverage events, only so many golf tournaments can be true lightning bolts. Every kid wants to support a star athlete, just like every kid wants to see their hometown team win. The problem is that there is a shortage of both top golfers and hometown championship teams. It’s easy to say that golf simply needs to earn more stars, but the truth is that stars earn themselves by winning in unusual ways or with unusual frequency. In this case, pro golf’s greatest strength may be its greatest vulnerability: It can’t be imitated. If every event in 2008 reached Tiger and Rocco’s doorstep, none would.
The good news, however, is that some can. It’s not hard to imagine how Rory McIlroy’s stunning Grand Slam victory at the Masters in April could have ushered in a new era of golf superfans. It’s also not hard to see how Scottie Scheffler’s mild form of destruction could be particularly intriguing to a young sports fan looking for a role model. You don’t have to talk long with today’s newest crop of professional golf stars to hear stories about their own lightning moments. Nearly all of them involve Woods or Mickelson, and nearly all of them arrived before their teenage years.
In 2008, this is what growing the game looked like: a kid and a superstar and an underdog and a nail-biting story.
In 2025, the story has not changed. But maybe the audience should.
#analysis #suggests #golf #growing #game #wrong