Martin Slumbers: Rollback, Portmarnock, Golf It, money and more

As an example of the changed days we occupy, consider the fact that Martin Slumbers, the chief executive of the R&A, is sitting across the table – in the bowels of a multi-purpose, multi-coloured, family-first golf facility, that he conceived – wearing an Adidas hoodie.

And why not? A shirt and tie would look somewhat out of place in Golf It!, Glasgow’s newest golf facility and the most significant stride yet in the R&A’s drive to transform the game’s image and fortunes.

Built on the site of the former Lethamhill municipal course, just a ten-minute drive from the centre of Scotland’s biggest city, Golf It! is an ambitious, impressive community hub and a key part of realising Slumbers’ vision for the future.

Where better, then, to talk with him about precisely that: golf’s future…

—

Let’s start with Golf It. Why it was so important to you to build this?

There were three drivers. One, I believe strongly that the future of the game is to go back and make it a people’s game again. That’s when it was at its best but we sort of lost our way. It became a bit exclusive and a bit private. So, I wanted to create something that was for all people. I also wanted to create a facility that was part of the community. I grew up at a time when the golf club was where you went to have a drink on a Friday night. It’s where you socialised on a Sunday. Those were great days.

For me, golf clubs that are part of the community, whether they have some of the best courses or not, are the best places. When I saw this site, I knew it was the one I wanted to buy for all those reasons, plus it’s in a great location. The final driver in my own mind came when I started to look at how golf was being marketed. We were talking to people who already play golf and you can’t grow a business that way.

You’ve got to find ways to talk to people who don’t play golf. So, when you put those three things together, that created the template for what we now have.

The big question: how do you roll something like this out? Because everybody’s going to want their own Golf It sooner or later.

Globally, you probably couldn’t. It was a very significant capital investment. My primary focus at the moment is to deliver on that ambition of it being a place where non-golfers want to come and experience our sport and make it a financially sustainable business. Once I’ve developed those two things and I’m very confident that we’ve got the right product, that’s when we’ll look to expand. But we are looking at other options.

I’ve already had people in a number of countries come to me and say, ‘Can we build one of these in our country?’ In the years to come, if we can be successful, I think you’ll see many, many more of these types of facilities. I’m just trying to figure out how to do it.

In some ways, it surprises me that something like this hasn’t been done sooner.

Yes, it’s a completely new idea. You know, golf’s in a very interesting place. If we were to go back to pre-COVID, we’d be sitting here having a conversation and you’d have been asking me, ‘How’s the R&A going to stop the continual decline of golf club membership.’ And it would have been absolutely the right question.

COVID changed a lot of our lives. A lot of people used it as an opportunity to take up a sport. of which golf was one. However, what’s interesting is that golf is one of the few sports that’s keeping those people. In fact, there’s more of them, and I think that’s testament to our game being more accessible, more open, being something that’s good for your health, and something you can do as a family.

Those last two points are really important because we never would have talked about golf being good for our health five years ago and it wouldn’t have been a driver to people becoming interested in the game five years ago. But the world has changed.

• A.I. is taking over golf… should we be worried?

So, the question now becomes how do you sustain the excellent participation rates and membership rates that we’ve currently got?

Well, we’re in a really good place. There’s over 100 million people around the world right now who consume golf. Of those, 61 million are outside of the United States. That’s never happened before. The fastest growing regions are outside of the developed golfing world, and 25% to 30% of those 61 million are women. That is tremendous balance.

When I think about the future, what do I see? I see it perceived as a non-elitist sport, with a little bit of elitism in there, so there’s some aspiration in terms of ability. I see a sport that is good for your health – mental and physical – and a sport that’s good for the environment. We are performing huge amounts of very environmentally responsible activities that are nurturing nature and people are beginning to see that. I think the perception of golf being a sport that only white males of a certain age, with grey hair, play is changing. It’s a one where it’s a mixture. So, I am immensely optimistic. I actually think our problem is creating facilities. But not big, new, championship courses.

What has changed in the last ten years is that golf is no longer defined by people who play on a nine- or 18-hole course. The Topgolfs of the world, and driving ranges, pitch and putts, all those inventions, they’ve created a completely new community that sits side by side with traditional courses and that’s why I’m excited. We need to create more of those alternative versions.

Let’s talk about money. I was very interested in the comments you made during this year’s Open. I’m paraphrasing but you be explained how keeping up with the amount of prize money that’s being given away is both a challenge for The Open and not something you should necessarily try to do because your priorities extend much further than that championship. Given everything that’s currently going on and the amount of money being thrown around, is the professional game in danger of destroying itself?

I don’t know about that. Certainly, professional men’s golf is at a very interesting inflection point and none of us know really where it’s going. I think the R&A’s role is to be much broader in its consideration and its responsibilities to the game and, in my seat, I care about and worry about the long-term financial sustainability of professional golf. Now, is that saying players should not be paid more? No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is we have to make sure we have a business model we can hand on. I was trained and brought up to hand on the world better than I found it, and I’m worried about that.

From an R&A perspective, our responsibility is broader than just one championship. We committed to invest 200 million pounds into amateur golf over a decade, which was double what we did the year the decade before. That’s the 30 to 40 elite world championships that we run; it’s investment into golf development, programmes and technology; it’s investment into places like Golf It; it’s investment into research, into sustainability, into environmental responsibilities, and into the women’s game and growing the women’s game. I have to balance all of that up.

At the same time, we believe The Open is one of the greatest championships in the world and we work as hard as we possibly can to make it one of the best sporting events in the world. But I don’t think the R&A would be doing its job properly if we only invested in professional golf. We have to get that balance right.

• The Golden Bear & The White Elephant – Inside Jack Nicklaus’ forgotten Scottish course

Could you see the day, potentially, when a high-profile player might choose not to play in The Open because it doesn’t offer enough prize money? Is that a concern?

Someone in my position can’t discard any risk or any opportunity. Now, does that worry me? No, not at the moment because I do believe that what players want most is their name on the Claret Jug. They want the honour of being the ‘Champion Golfer of the Year’. We work very hard to give them a unique experience. It is the only major that they play on a different type of course. It’s the only major they play outside of America. So, I think players realise and appreciate that history and want to be part of that. But I am never, ever complacent.

Okay, then. The rollback. When the Model Local Rule was proposed, you said “at the core of our proposal is a desire to minimise the impact on a flourishing recreational game”. So why has it now been decided to roll this out, so to speak, for all golfers and not just elite players?

We proposed bifurcation earlier this year and received strong feedback from the industry that they would not support this move. We have listened and changed our approach to adopt a carefully calibrated measure which addresses the issue at the very top end of the game while keeping the impact on the recreational game to an absolute minimum. If we want golf to continue to thrive in 50 years’ time, then we need to protect the integrity of the game and ensure that our courses are environmentally sustainable.

Were you surprised by the pushback the Model Local Rule received?

I have to be somewhat cautious in how I answer that question and be respectful to our relationships with manufacturers. But I think we have been very clear that we believe that driving distance is an issue for golf, especially at the elite level, and I think what was lost a little bit in the dialogue was that we define ‘elite’ as far more than just professional golf.

If you’ve watched the Boys’ Amateur Championship, which is for under-18s, they hit the ball far and they’re getting faster, and the girls are getting faster and faster as well. So, distance is an issue and we absolutely have an environmental responsibility. We can’t just keep making courses longer. The essence of golf is a balance between skill and technology. Our view is very much that we had crossed the line in the sand around hitting distance, hence we started the distance initiative. And as I have said previously, there were only three options: we change it for the whole game; we change it for part of the game; or we do nothing.

The R&A’s view is that doing nothing is not an option and our colleagues in the USA share that view. Our responsibility as custodians of the game is to look forward, and that that’s very much where we’re at.

It seems to me that this debate has always been about more than just clubs and balls, surely. It’s the sum of a number of parts. Players are more athletic than they were 40 to 50 years ago. Agronomy has changed, too, but I don’t see many people calling for a rollback of lawnmowers. So, is it simply the case that clubs and balls are the easiest thing to fix, therefore that’s what you’re fixing?

Well, there’s long been the view that the relative mix is those three issues you’ve described: physical capability, golf course preparation, and technology. Lots of people argue about how that gets split up.

We should never hold golfers back from developing in terms of physical capability. I don’t think that’s something that’s ever crossed my mind. We absolutely shouldn’t change the sustainability issues, either, because that I think it’s important to the environment. So, it comes back to the point of balancing skill and technology.

The key bit to me is ensuring that distance doesn’t dominate the conversation or the way the game is being played. I feel sometimes that the conversation – whether it’s in the golf club, or in magazines, or on TV – is more about how far the ball was hit as opposed to what the score was.

• The darkness at dawn: Inside the mental health crisis hitting greenkeepers

You say ‘skill’. Some people would contend that the ability to hit the ball 400 yards straight every single time is a skill in and of itself. So, what specifically are you referring to when you say ‘skill’?

Well, I think I would say a couple of things on that. One is that I would agree with your statement. If someone has the skill to swing a golf club fast and hit it out of the middle, that doesn’t worry me at all. In fact, I would be the first to clap because it is an enormous skill. But you also have to look at people who are just starting to play the game.

When I learned to play, the hardest club in the bag to hit was a driver. Today, thanks to fantastic manufacturing technology, it’s the easiest club to hit, maybe with the exception of the putter. That’s a good thing. Whether that really forgiving driver in the hands of a highly-skilled elite golfer is a good thing is another matter.

This decision continues what has been an interesting time for you since you took this job. A global pandemic, the professional men’s game having an existential crisis, driving distance… it’s been one thing after another. I mean, if you were to circle back to 2015 and you were presented with this ‘to do’ list, it’s quite a lot to take on.

And I’d still have said yes to the job. To be able to have this role, to lead the R&A and to be one of the leaders in the game is a huge privilege. If I’m being completely honest, I’ve probably surprised myself how passionate I am about the future of the game. I wouldn’t change a thing about the last eight years and I’m sure more challenges are coming. We’re all just children of the times we live in.

Let’s talk about The 151st Open. Obviously, the weather was not what anyone wanted. Looking back now, how do you reflect on the week?

I suppose I was slightly nervous of a hangover from the 150th because it was such an extraordinary week. It was a long time in the making and there are pieces of it I will remember for the rest of my life. So, I was a bit nervous about that, but I probably shouldn’t have been. Hoylake was a week where there was a lovely atmosphere. We tried to have more things happening throughout it than we’ve had previously – celebrity events and the Nine-Hole final, for example – to make for more of a celebration of golf. If it hadn’t rained, I think it would have gone down as one of the great the great championships.

As for Brian Harman, I think what a lot of people forget is that he had some of the best players in the world chasing him down on both Saturday and Sunday. I thought he played fantastic golf. I suppose it’s slightly sadistic but I love watching Friday afternoon at a big tournament. The Masters was the same. Watching those guys grind it out in bad weather this year was awesome. That’s when you realise how good they are and Brian was a more than worthy champion.

Portmarnock. Categorically, is it under consideration to host an Open and, if so, what stage are those discussions at?

The club is very interested in putting a proposal to us about staging more championships. It has staged our best amateur events. The men’s amateur has been there, the women’s amateur is going next year, the Walker Cup has been there, and so on. They have asked the government to consider whether it would help them put together a credible proposal, and we are interested in that proposal. We’re contributing to it, in terms of what we would need, and we will wait and see. To me, the course is spectacular but there are a lot of impediments that must be overcome before you can jump to the next stage.

Aren’t there enough courses on the Open rota?

It’s pretty tough, isn’t it? You’ve got ten of the best courses you can find. I think Portmarnock is probably the only one in the country that is in a location and of a quality that could match those ten. I probably wouldn’t want to have more than that, to be honest.

With a view to next year, are there plans to pay tribute to Ivor Robson. Again, if so, what stage are they at?

I think the easiest answer to that question is yes. We will keep it a surprise but yes, Ivor is a part of Open history and we will reflect that.

What about the Open Qualifying Series? Have you given any consideration to the evolution of that? Is finishing third at the Joburg Open, for example, really enough to merit a place in a championship as big as The Open?

We want to have the best players in the field but we also want to have the most global players in the field. I think it’s very important that we stay true to The Open being open to anyone. The three that got in through Joburg, they earned their right. They knew what was on the line. It’s very important that we get representatives from that part of the world, as it is from Asia and Japan and Australasia, as well as the traditional American and European markets.

I don’t go after the players ranked from No.1 to No.156. I want the best players in the world and I want the most global field. That’s why we give so many exemptions to amateurs. We want to create pathways. If we cut off the opportunity for somebody to come third in the Joburg Open, then we’re shutting off a large chunk of the world and I don’t think that’s our responsibility. I think we owe it to the game to create a pathway and let that person see whether they’re good enough. They may just surprise us and I’d be delighted if they did.

• gWest: The great enigma of Scottish golf

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to bring up the framework agreement. Earlier, you described yourself as a custodian of the game. Given that, how do you view what’s unfolding?

I think it’s important I start by saying I’m not part of the deal, so I don’t know what’s going on. But I do hope that we bring the game back together again. That’s something I care about. As a golf fan and from and R&A perspective, I’d like the dialogue to be about the quality of play rather than the money. I’ve always felt that, in life, if you get the right quality and you do the right thing, the money will follow. So, we’ll wait and see. All I know is that there’s some very clever and very sensible people involved. Not everyone agrees with their views, but that doesn’t matter. It doesn’t mean that they’re not clever and they’re not sensible. I wish them well in trying to resolve it.

But as much as I care about financial sustainability, I care about pathways. I care about us investing money into developing a young child or offering them an opportunity to play golf and – if they’ve got the aptitude – it’s important they know that they can get to the top simply by how good they are and by how hard they’re willing to work. We have invested huge amounts of time, money, emotional energy and political energy to ensuring those pathways are there from every part of the world. I think that’s what makes golf really good and I hope we remember that as we are working through what inevitably comes out in the next couple of years.

It feels like this has become less of a sporting matter and more of a geo-political one. Look how quickly people seemed to forget that Bryson DeChambeau shot a 58, for example. That’s not golf, is it?

We mustn’t forget that professional golf is a business, so it is golf in a way. But, to me, the dialogue should be about the 58. And it’s not just the men’s game. I’ll leave one thing with you because it’s one of my pet peeves. If you look at all the things that the R&A stands for, one of them is trying to get more women and girls to play golf, and supporting the AIG Women’s Open and elevating it. We need more written about women’s golf. I have read thousands of articles about who’s better, Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods. I have not read one about who’s better, Annika Sorenstam or Nelly Korda. Not one. And I think if we all genuinely believe the game needs to become more inclusive, we all have a responsibility to change that in the next year.

—

For more great content like this, consider a subscription to bunkered. 

Michael McEwan is the Deputy Editor of bunkered and has been part of the team since 2004. In that time, he has interviewed almost every major figure within the sport, from Jack Nicklaus, to Rory McIlroy, to Donald Trump. The host of the multi award-winning bunkered Podcast and a member of Balfron Golfing Society, Michael is the author of three books and is the 2023 PPA Scotland 'Writer of the Year' and 'Columnist of the Year'. Dislikes white belts, yellow balls and iron headcovers. Likes being drawn out of the media ballot to play Augusta National.

Deputy Editor