Golf participation surged to 47.2 million in 2024–25, a 38% jump from 2019—but the boom masks a troubling shift. Meanwhile, roughly 28 million played on traditional courses, marking the highest participation level since 2008. Clearly, golf is on the rise. However, a recent report by Sean Fairholm of MyGolfSpy on the state of public golf courses reveals a more complicated picture. While more courses are being built, much of the new supply is being designed for private-club members rather than everyday local golfers. 

Fairholm cited data from the National Golf Foundation, which found that nearly 150 golf-course projects are currently under construction or in active planning across the U.S. However, more than half of these projects are private. That is notable given that private clubs account for only about 28% of the country’s existing golf-course supply, while fewer than 8% of American golfers play at private courses. Meaning there’s a mismatch between who represents the majority and who is receiving the majority. 

But the problem isn’t just private vs. public golf courses. A huge portion of public courses are attached to resorts or golf destinations. For example, as the author pointed out: Landmand, Gamble Sands, and Bone Valley at Streamsong. Although these courses are public, your run-of-the-mill regular Joe who wants to play golf can’t necessarily play them regularly because it would require travel, money, and time. 

On top of that, Fairholm pointed out that the U.S. has roughly 2,000 fewer golf courses today than it did when participation in the sport peaked in the 2000s. To add another layer to the issue, the courses that have disappeared since 2006 have primarily been facilities charging less than $40. This suggests that while private courses continue to expand, more affordable and accessible options for everyday golfers are gradually disappearing. 

It’s worth noting that Fairholm’s report doesn’t intend to attack private courses because it provides value. The point is that public golf courses aren’t receiving comparable investment. But the question remains: why aren’t more public courses being built? The author blames the economics of maintaining a public course. A course charging $60 per round and hosting 30,000 rounds annually would generate about $1.8 million in gross golf revenue.

However, that’s before accounting for expenses such as labor, maintenance, water, equipment, insurance, utilities, and debt. At the same time, developers can often earn significantly more by using the same land for housing or other real-estate projects. So, you see the problem? Public courses are simply less appealing for developers. And then there’s taxpayer politics, which makes building public courses even more problematic. 

Cities don’t necessarily need their golf courses to turn a profit, as they can treat them as community amenities similar to parks or recreation centers. However, building a new course can require tens of millions of dollars. That leaves local politicians having to justify spending substantial public money and land on golf instead of housing, roads, parks, or other public services. And if that wasn’t enough, water is another point of concern.

Traditional golf courses require significant amounts of land and water, making the conventional 18-hole, 7,200-yard model increasingly difficult to justify both financially and environmentally. Against that backdrop, the news that more private courses are being built while affordable public options continue to disappear sparked frustration among golf fans, particularly after MYGOLFSPY shared Fairholm’s report on X. 

Fans revolt over increasing private courses

One user expressed frustration over private courses receiving tax breaks. “I don’t think ‘Private’ Golf Clubs should have any tax breaks. If the General Public isn’t allowed access to the facilities, we shouldn’t have to subsidize it,” the user commented. Such courses get tax breaks because many state laws assess large green spaces based on their current recreational use rather than their maximum commercial development value.

Another user felt the update is harmful for the growth of the sport. “You’re not going to grow the sport [by] getting rid of public courses.  And that is exactly what is happening all around the country. A lot of people want to play 9 holes occasionally, or just play 18 once a week,” the user commented. 

Meanwhile, this user has grown frustrated with the growing expenses. “Green fees have gotten outrageous,” the user commented. 

But these comments don’t mean there weren’t supporters of private courses. “Golf is an expensive sport. Building cheap public golf courses just isn’t worth it, unfortunately,” the user remarked. 

The next user blamed poor player behavior for the decline in public courses. “People are sick of golfing with drunk idiots [who] throw their garbage on the course and don’t repair ball marks. Taking action to shrink the game,” the user wrote. 

That being said, it appears the shrinking of easily accessible public courses has affected people across the country. However, bringing that balance between private and public courses can be a tall order.