Ethics CasesSport

Cases · R&A / USGA · 2018–2028

The Golf Ball Rollback: One Rule for Pros and Weekend Players?

On 6 December 2023 the R&A and the USGA announced that, from 2028, golf balls would be tested at a clubhead speed of 125 mph instead of 120 mph, the first change in the test in about 20 years. The governing bodies estimated that the longest hitters would lose 13 to 15 yards off the tee and most recreational golfers five yards or less. They had earlier proposed applying the change only to elite competition, but chose a single rule for everyone after feedback. Players split: some called it a long-overdue step, others called it a mistake. Equipment maker Acushnet said distance was not a problem for most golfers, and the PGA Tour said the change was disproportionate. The case asks how a sport should respond when technology and athleticism change the game, and whether one set of rules should govern both its stars and its weekend players.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. The R&A and USGA begin the Distance Insights Project.
  2. The governing bodies propose a Model Local Rule applying a new ball test only to elite play.
  3. They instead announce a change to the ball test for all golfers.
  4. The new test is due to apply in elite competition.
  5. The new test is due to apply to recreational golfers.

The ethical issues

  • Whether technology has altered the skills the game is meant to test.
  • One set of rules versus bifurcation between elite and recreational play.
  • The environmental and financial cost of longer courses.
  • The commercial interests of equipment manufacturers.
  • Governing bodies' legitimacy when stakeholders disagree.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
R&A and USGAThe long-term health and integrity of the game.
Professional playersTheir skills, careers and competitive advantage.
Recreational golfersEnjoyment and affordable, accessible courses.
Equipment manufacturersProducts, research and sales.
Professional toursTheir events, courses and broadcasts.
Course owners and communitiesLand, water and maintenance costs.

The case

Background

Golf’s equipment rules are written jointly by the R&A and the USGA. Since 1976 a golf ball has had to pass an “overall distance standard” test using a robot swinging at a set clubhead speed. That speed was 109 mph when the test was introduced and was raised to 120 mph in 2004.[1]

Meanwhile, the best players grew faster. The governing bodies reported that the 25 fastest-swinging players on the professional tours averaged a ball speed of 176.6 mph in 2007 and 183.4 mph in 2023.[1] Courses have been lengthened to keep up, at a cost in land, water and money. The R&A and USGA began the Distance Insights Project in 2018 and published its findings in March 2020.[1]

The rules and governance

The governing bodies set conformance standards for equipment worldwide; tours and committees can adopt local rules. In March 2023 the bodies proposed a Model Local Rule that competitions could adopt to require elite players to use balls tested at a higher speed, leaving recreational golfers unchanged.[2] That idea, often called bifurcation, would have created two sets of equipment rules.

Decision point: one rule or two?

The bodies collected feedback on the elite-only proposal. They said that much of it favoured keeping the game unified under a single set of rules.[1] On 6 December 2023 they announced that, instead, the ball test for all golfers would change: the test clubhead speed would rise from 120 mph to 125 mph, and the ball-speed figure from 176 to 183 mph.[1] The change would apply to elite play from January 2028; balls conforming at the end of 2027 could still be used by recreational golfers until January 2030.[1]

The bodies estimated the impact: 13 to 15 yards for the longest hitters, about 9 to 11 yards for the average PGA Tour or DP World Tour player, 5 to 7 yards for LPGA and Ladies European Tour players, and one to five yards for most recreational golfers.[1] Their letter said that “doing nothing would be irresponsible.”[1] USGA chief executive Mike Whan said, “Governance is hard,” and that doing nothing was not an option.[2] Earlier in 2023, explaining the elite-only plan, he had said, “We don’t see recreational golf obsoleting golf courses any time soon.”[2] Golf Digest reported that about a third of balls then on the market were expected to remain conforming.[2]

Decision point: the response

Players disagreed. Keegan Bradley called the decision “monstrous” and said he “can’t think of anything more stupid.” Tiger Woods said, “I’ve always been for bifurcation.” Rory McIlroy supported the move. Justin Rose and Rickie Fowler criticized it.[3]

Equipment maker Acushnet, which makes Titleist balls, said the change “overly impacts golfers” and that “many important stakeholders do not see distance as a problem.” Its chief executive, David Maher, noted that the number of golfers had grown for six straight years and that back tees were used in fewer than 5% of rounds.[4] The PGA Tour said the test speed was “disproportional” to what its own radar data showed.[5]

Aftermath

The change is scheduled to take effect in phases from 2028.[1] The debate over whether distance is a problem, and who should bear the cost of addressing it, continues.[2][6]

The core dilemma

Technology and athleticism have made elite golfers hit much farther, changing the skills the game tests and the courses it needs. The governing bodies chose to reduce distance for everyone, keeping one set of rules, though most golfers will lose little and many were not seen as part of the problem. Is a single rule fairer, or should the elite game have its own?

Competing values

  • Unity vs. targeting: one rule for all golfers against a rule aimed only at those causing the problem [1][2].
  • Integrity of skill vs. technological progress: preserving shot-making skills against innovation [1][4].
  • Sustainability vs. spectacle: shorter courses and less resource use against the appeal of long drives [1][3].
  • Governance authority vs. stakeholder consent: the bodies’ mandate against opposition from players, a tour and a manufacturer [3][4][5].

Strongest arguments

For the rollback for all: a single set of rules is part of golf’s identity, letting amateurs play the same game as professionals [1]. The impact on most players is small [1]. Longer courses consume resources, and “doing nothing would be irresponsible” [1].

Against it: most golfers do not hit the ball too far, and participation was growing [4]. The bodies themselves had earlier said recreational golf was not the problem [2]. Course setup could address elite distance without changing equipment [4].

On process: the bodies consulted and changed their proposal; critics argued that the change ignored feedback from those most affected [2][3][4].

Applying the frameworks

Virtue

Virtue ethics asks what skills golf should reward and what excellence means. If distance gains come mostly from equipment rather than skill, restoring the test may protect the game’s character. If they come from athleticism, limiting them may punish excellence.

Utilitarian

A consequentialist weighs the expected benefits (sustainable courses, varied shot-making) against costs (lost distance for millions, redesign, possible effects on participation) [1][4]. The estimate depends heavily on contested predictions.

Justice

A justice lens asks who bears the burden. A behind-the-veil-of-ignorance chooser, not knowing whether they would be a tour pro or a beginner, might prefer a targeted rule; another might prize a single game open to all.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You sit on a governing-body committee in 2023. Stakeholders include tour players, recreational golfers, manufacturers, tours and course owners.
  2. Gather facts. Review swing-speed data, course-length trends and estimated effects by player group [1]. Watch for confirmation bias: both sides cite data that fits their view.
  3. Test options. Option A: do nothing. Option B: an elite-only local rule. Option C: change the test for all, phased in.
  4. Check codes and law. Check the bodies’ equipment rules, testing procedures and timelines for manufacturers [1].
  5. Decide and document. Explain why unity outweighs targeting, or the reverse, and publish the data.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Explain the change to golfers, give manufacturers time and review the effects after implementation.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: the R&A and USGA announced on 6 December 2023 a change in the ball test from 120 to 125 mph, effective for elite play from 2028 and all golfers from 2030; they estimated distance losses by group; Acushnet and the PGA Tour objected; players split [1][2][3][4][5].

Contested: whether distance is a problem for the game, whether one rule for all is fair, and whether the change will achieve its aims.

Why this case matters

Equipment rules decide whether technology is an equalizer or an enhancer. Compare Nike’s Vaporfly and World Athletics and The Supersuit Ban.

Key terms

Equalizer vs. enhancer
Whether a technology or adaptation restores a level field (adaptation) or gives an advantage beyond it (augmentation).
Integrity
A commitment to honesty and ethical principle in competition and administration, including when nobody is watching.
Rules vs. spirit of the game
Rules are the written minimum; the spirit is the fairness and respect the rules exist to protect. Rules set the floor; spirit sets the ceiling.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Multiple points of view
Analyzing a dilemma from each stakeholder’s position in turn (athlete, parent, coach, administrator, official, bystander) before reaching your own reasoned view.
Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Is distance a problem for golf, and for whom?
  2. Should elite and recreational golfers play under the same equipment rules?
  3. How much weight should governing bodies give to equipment makers' objections?
  4. Were the R&A and USGA right to change course from an elite-only rule? What does that do to trust?
  5. Are there better alternatives, such as course setup, than changing the ball?

Sources

  1. R&A and USGA letter to golf on ball conformance testing (Dec 2023) — USGA
  2. The USGA and R&A announce golf-ball rollback that will affect all golfers — Golf Digest
  3. Golf-ball rollback: Players react, from Tiger Woods to Keegan Bradley to Rickie Fowler — Golf Digest
  4. Statement from Acushnet CEO David Maher on USGA and R&A golf ball rollback announcement — Acushnet / Titleist
  5. PGA TOUR statement on USGA and The R&A change to ball conformance testing — PGA Tour
  6. Golf officials to roll back ball for pros and weekend hackers alike. Not everyone is happy — AP News