I first got my teeth into golf when I was 10 years 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 US Open at Torrey Pines, and my grandfather, who did not. Suddenly, the 50-inch Samsung “flat screen” in the corner (a huge hybrid edition of the razor-thin screens that populate our lives) lit up with a pop, and my grandfather screamed.
“Come on ROCCO!!!”
That famous battle between Woods and Mediate at Torrey Pines is burned into my memory like the sear of a well-done steak. David and Goliath golf drama in the ring for what felt like 20 rounds of heavyweights. Heart-stopping excitement at 72nd hole with the national championship on the line. Woods’ eventual victory thanks to half a dozen of the most amazing golf shots I had ever seen (and would ever see).
For a long time in my life, I thought of myself as unique to this memory, lucky enough to be a golf fan born under the lucky star of a childhood at the height of Tiger Woods. But according to a new analysis by New York TimesSeth Stephens-Davidowitz, the opposite might have been true: I might have just been a golf fan BECAUSE My childhood overlapped with the height of Tiger Woods.
According to an analysis of Facebook fan data reviewed by Stephens-Davidowitz, an American data scientist and economist, there is a strong correlation between athletic success witnessed in childhood and the later development of rabid fandom. In fact, according to Stephens-Davidowitz’s analysis, championships witnessed by boys between the ages of eight and 12 were associated with the greatest increase 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.
A few caveats: Stephens-Davidowitz’s analysis was limited to baseball teams and did not examine changes in fandom associated with championships in other team sports, or fandom in individual sports such as golf. Interestingly, the Stephens-Davidowitz analysis also failed to find a similar link between young women and the development of rabid fandom, finding that their loyalty was less affected by team success.
However, overall, Stephens-Davidowitz’s analysis (which you can read in full here) presents a fascinating look at the behavioral psychology of sports fans and offers interesting signals for sports leagues hoping to strengthen their fandom. For golf, which has been subjected to a dizzying amount of “step up the game” discourse over the past decade, the biggest upside may be that many of the efforts to engage with teenage and twenty-something audiences may be overstated. Michael Mulvihillpresident of FOX Sports’ insights and analytics team, summarized the headlines:
“Remarkable piece of research here that aligns with similar work we’ve done on how MLB/NFL fans are made,” Mulvihill wrote. “As an industry, sports grossly over-market to young adults and under-market to kids and teenagers. If you don’t have them by 14, you probably never will.”
Interestingly, golf has historically benefited by reaching fans later in life. The competitive quirks of pro golf resist the facile tribalism of team sports that can attract younger fans (no teams, no “home games,” a deep-rooted sense of individuality), while its participatory quirks tend to outlast the same benefits offered by team sports (good health, you can play at the site of Tiger Woods’ 2008 US Open victory well into your eighth decade). Golf also has the benefit of serving a distinct social utility compared to other sports: Those who can play the game at a semi-competent level can use their golf skills in professional opportunities, meaning that golf can literally be the key to a more prosperous life.
But when it comes to youth engagement, golf lags far behind more popular sports like football and basketball. Even in countries with thriving youth golf programs, participation numbers pale in comparison to other major sports (4 million new players in the US in 2024, compared to 14.1 million young soccer players), which says nothing about the profandom gap of the kind measured in Times analysis.
The lesson for golf may simply be that it should target younger people. The sport’s efforts to build in younger audiences through programs like TGL and LIV have been laser-focused on the sport’s relatively older fans (especially those in the coveted 18-35 demographic). While both leagues have found some success in engaging different demographics, neither has crossed the threshold of being definitively “additive” to golf’s wider audience. maybe Times analysis offers a glimpse of why: By the time those golf fans are reached by TGL and LIV, they’re well past their prime as fans.
For golf, there may not be any easy answers. Yes, it’s a great idea to invest heavily in youth golf, which programs like the USGA’s National Development Team have helped bring to the fore in recent years. And yes, from a golf pro standpoint, it’s also a great idea to have as many high-impact moments involving as many transcendent talents as possible (of the many headaches caused by the LIV break, the lack of must-see tournaments may be the most painful).
But even with the world’s best players in the highest-leverage events, only so many golf tournaments can be true blitzes. Every kid wants to root for a star athlete, just like every kid wants to see their hometown team win. The problem is that there is a shortage of both star players and championship teams in the city. It’s easy to say that golf just needs to create more stars, but the truth is that stars earn themselves by winning in unusual ways or with unusual frequency. In this case, the golf pro’s greatest strength may be its greatest vulnerability: it can’t be faked. If every event were to reach Tiger and Rocco’s threshold in 2008, none would.
However, the good news is that some can. It’s not hard to see how Rory McIlroy’s impressive Grand Slam victory at the Masters in April could have ushered in a new era for golf superfans. Nor is it hard to see how Scottie Scheffler’s brand of gender annihilation might be particularly intriguing to a young sports fan in the market for a model. You don’t have to spend long talking to today’s newest golf stars to hear stories of their light bulb moments. Almost all of them include Woods or Mickelson, and almost all of them arrived before their teenage years.
In 2008, this is what growing up the game looked like: A guy and a superstar and an underdog and a nail-biting story.
In 2025, the story has not changed. But the audience probably should.
