The Turf Zone Podcast

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode covers how The University of Tennessee’s research as part of the FIFA 2026 World Cup is already scoring benefits on the world stage. When FIFA selected the University of Tennessee to oversee research for building and maintaining the FIFA WORLD CUP 26 pitches, it promised to focus worldwide attention on the university’s turfgrass science and management program. With the opening games just weeks away, UT’s collaboration with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association has already brought new recognition to the acclaimed turfgrass program. The research—led by John Sorochan, who is the Distinguished Professor of Turfgrass Science and Management in the UT Department of Plant Sciences—is also yielding information that will result in improved parks, recreation fields and sports turfs at schools and universities. “It’s been an incredibly important initiative,” says Keith Carver, UT Institute of Agriculture senior vice chancellor and senior vice president. “It takes the work of our faculty and researchers to audiences all over the world. But, in an equally important manner, our work with FIFA has ushered in new advances to turfgrass that have improved golf courses, yards and gardens all over the Volunteer State. The impact of this research reaches far and wide.” In 2021, FIFA initiated a five-year project with UT and Michigan State University for help in producing optimum playing surfaces for the 16 stadiums and nearly 150 practice fields for FIFA WORLD CUP 26. Forty-eight national teams will play at venues in Canada, Mexico and the U.S., spanning four time zones and multiple climatic regions. Since then, UT researchers have been growing test plots of grass, experimenting with ways of installing grass over different surfaces in varying conditions and testing surfaces for the best playing and safety conditions. FIFA funded the construction of climate-controlled test fields at the Plant Sciences Unit of the UT East Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center in Knoxville. Alan Ferguson, FIFA senior pitch management manager, says the university’s research was used in the inaugural Club World Cup, an international competition organized by FIFA, held last summer at a dozen stadiums across the U.S. “The UT turf team is well known around the world for high-quality research,” Ferguson says. “With so many key technologies already under research at UT, it made sense for FIFA to partner and extend this research.” The UT turfgrass science and management program is expanding in other ways, as well. UT is establishing certificate programs for pitch managers, golf course superintendents and those who oversee other sports venues. The UT Herbert College of Agriculture is working to launch one or more certificate programs for turfgrass science, including specializations for sports turf. The program is intended to have a state, national and global audience and will be open to current college students. UT Extension currently offers the non-credit, online Certified Lawn Care Professional Program on general turfgrass management. The program is tailored for working professionals who want to deepen their knowledge of regional turfgrass management and who do not need or intend to use the training for a college certificate or degree program. Participants in this program do not have to submit homework or take quizzes and exams, or develop other types of work typically associated with college programs. Participants who finish the program receive a certificate of completion from UT Extension, though no college credit or transcripts are earned. UT also is investing in additional turf research fields, which Sorochan says could be used to test specific technologies like heating systems, vacuum ventilation and subsurface irrigation. Learn more about these efforts, the benefits they are bringing to athletic playing surfaces throughout Tennessee, and the first-class opportunities they are bringing to turfgrass science and management students in an article in UTIA’s Land, Life and Science magazine. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post UT and FIFA World Cup 26! appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “How Variability Within and Between Natural Turfgrass and Synthetic Athletic Fields Impacts Athlete Safety and Performance” written by Ava Veith, Dr. David McCall, Dr. Chase Straw, Dr. Daniel Sandor, Dr. Jay Williams, Elisabeth Kitchen, Kevin Hensler, Aaron Tucker and Dr. Caleb Henderson Authors Note and Context Ava Veith is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Plant Science at Penn State University under the advisement of Dr. Chase Straw, where her research focuses on studying within-field variability and athlete–surface interactions. However, the research presented in this article was conducted during her master’s program at Virginia Tech under Dr. David McCall. This study served as a foundational investigation into how variability within and between natural turfgrass and synthetic turf athletic fields influences athletes. The findings from this work have shaped the direction of subsequent doctoral research. Building on this foundation, the planned Ph.D. project aims to examine athlete lower-limb joint biomechanics across natural turfgrass, synthetic turf, and hybrid (natural turfgrass reinforced with synthetic fibers) surfaces using multi-segment inertial measurement units. At the conclusion of this article, the next phase of research will be briefly outlined to demonstrate how it has grown from the master’s study. In this way, the Virginia Tech study presented here represents both a completed project and the starting point for a broader, ongoing effort to better understand how the playing surface can affect athlete movement and injury-relevant mechanics. Introduction A safe playing surface is essential for athletic competition. Natural turfgrass and synthetic turf are common playing surfaces used for field sports, and extensive research has been conducted to compare these two surface types. However, limited attention has been given to within-field variability and its impact on athlete safety and performance. Studies often classify athletic fields broadly as synthetic or natural, overlooking critical surface metrics that fluctuate both within and between fields. Key field characteristics such as surface hardness, rotational resistance, soil moisture, thatch depth, and infill depth (for synthetic fields) play a crucial role in assessing field quality. Variability in these factors can be influenced by environmental conditions, management practices, and field usage patterns. Despite the known importance of these factors, current research often fails to account for field-specific inconsistencies, limiting the effectiveness of broad comparisons between surfaces. To improve field safety and optimize athlete performance, interdisciplinary collaboration among turfgrass scientists, sports scientists, and sports medicine professionals is necessary. Evidence-based field management strategies must be developed to ensure more consistent playing conditions, reducing the risk of injury. Wearable technologies such as STATSports GPS trackers (STATSports, 2025) and ankle inertial measurement units (IMUs) (IMeasureU, 2019) provide critical insights into athlete biomechanics, load monitoring, and more. These technologies allow researchers to quantify how different surface conditions influence athletes during performance, offering valuable data for injury prevention strategies. Beyond data collected by wearable technologies, athlete perceptions of field conditions also play a role in performance and injury risk. Unpredictable surface variability can affect player confidence, movement efficiency, and risk-taking behaviors, making perception-based data collection essential. Understanding how athletes experience and perceive different playing surfaces can inform future improvements in field construction and maintenance. The objective of this study is to quantify the impact of surface variability on athlete safety and performance, both within and between natural turfgrass and synthetic turf surfaces. This research will quantify how variations in key surface metrics, including surface hardness, rotational resistance, soil moisture, thatch depth, and infill depth, affect athletes utilizing data from wearable technologies, such as STATSports GPS trackers and ankle IMUs. Additionally, to further understand the influence of field surfaces, athletes will be surveyed before and after performing drills to gather insights into their perceptions of how surface variability impacts their performance. Methodology Athletic Fields Tested This research was conducted in August of 2024, where four athletic fields on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia were studied. Two of these fields were natural turfgrass (bermudagrass), while the other two fields were synthetic turf. For both field types, one field was classified as ‘low usage’, while the other was classified as ‘high usage’. This was determined based on traffic frequency, field age, and management practices. Preliminary Data Collection Before live athletes were introduced, surface hardness was assessed on all four fields using a Clegg hammer, with 100 measurements collected per field. The data were then analyzed using ArcGIS Pro to generate surface hardness heatmaps, highlighting variability between and within each field. These maps allowed us to identify specific locations for the athletes to perform drills, where one selected area within each field was slightly harder than the rest of the field, and the other being slightly softer. Additionally, 20 measurements of rotational resistance (using Deltec’s rotational resistance tester), thatch depth (using a soil profile sampler), soil moisture (using a TDR 350 Soil Moisture Meter), and infill depth (using a Turf-Tec Professional Model Infill Depth Gauge) were taken in both the softer and harder areas to further characterize each field and understand the relationship between surface conditions and athlete performance. Data Collection During Athlete Involvement Fourteen female athletes participated in the study, equipped with STATSports GPS devices (to measure running speed) and ankle IMUs (to measure lower limb impact intensity) to quantify their movements during drills. The athletes were each given new Nike cleats prior to participation to eliminate variation based on cleat configuration. They completed three drills, including a drop landing or drop jump drill, a T-drill, and a modified acceleration-deceleration drill, which were designed to replicate common athletic movements. Each drill was performed three times in both the softer and harder areas identified within each field. Additionally, each athlete completed pre- and post-performance surveys designed to capture their perceptions of field quality before and after completing the drills, providing insight into how different surfaces may have influenced their performance. Results and Discussion Surface Hardness Data Heatmaps highlight surface hardness variability within each studied field. Surface hardness data (n = 100 per field) were analyzed using analysis of variance, and means were separated using Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD) test at α = 0.05 to evaluate statistical differences between locations. Both synthetic turf fields had significantly harder surfaces than the natural turfgrass fields (p available in the Spring 2026 issue of Pennsylvania Turfgrass magazine). These measurements (n = 20 per both hard and soft areas within each field) were analyzed using analysis of variance, and means were separated using Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD) test at α = 0.05 to evaluate statistical differences between locations. Although the fields tested in this research were not professional-level fields, it is insightful to compare the results with the FIFA natural-pitch rating system (FIFA, 2022). All rotational resistance values fell within FIFA’s ‘excellent quality’ and ‘satisfactory quality’ thresholds, which is important because excessive rotational resistance has been linked to increased lower extremity injuries due to the foot becoming entrapped in the surface during pivoting movements, and too little resistance can increase the risk of slipping. However, soil moisture values exceed 35%, which FIFA classifies as ‘unacceptable quality’. This elevated moisture is likely the primary cause of the low surface hardness values observed on the natural turfgrass fields, which were lower than FIFA’s 70-85 Gmax ‘excellent quality’ range. Additionally, FIFA considers thatch depths over 25 mm as unacceptable, and 10–15 mm satisfactory. Excessive thatch can cause athlete’s cleats to become caught within the surface, increasing knee ligament stress. The low-usage natural turfgrass field had more thatch despite regular maintenance, while the high-usage natural turfgrass field had less, likely due to recent sprigging the summer before. Soft areas in both natural turfgrass fields exhibited higher thatch levels than the hard areas, consistent with previous findings that core cultivation reduces both thatch and surface hardness (McCarty et al., 2007; Atkinson et al., 2012). This supports the understanding that increased thatch can act as a cushioning layer, absorbing impact and thereby reducing surface hardness. The high-usage synthetic turf field exhibited significantly less infill and greater surface hardness compared to the low-usage synthetic turf field, and the soft areas within both synthetic fields had more infill than the hard areas. This aligns with previous research indicating that infill depth decreases with use, which in turn leads to higher surface hardness (Dickson et al., 2022). Additionally, the low-usage synthetic field exhibited greater variability in infill depth between the selected hard and soft areas, likely due to its relatively young age (only one year old at the time of the study). Compared to the older high-usage field, which was approximately ten years old, the infill in the low-usage synthetic field had less time to settle, making it more susceptible to displacement from foot traffic (Fleming et al., 2016). STATSports GPS Unit Data In our study, STATSports GPS units were securely attached to each athlete’s upper back. These devices were used to determine if athlete running speed varied based on field type (natural turfgrass or synthetic turf), field usage level (high or low), or hardness (hard or soft areas within each field). However, no statistically significant differences were found. This consistency in speed across conditions is important because running speed can directly affect impact forces and biomechanical measurements. Prior studies have shown that faster running increases the ground reaction force and ultimately lower limb impact load (Leatham, 2004; Jiang et al., 2024). If athletes had run at different speeds on one field type compared to another, it could have affected the reliability of our ankle IMU data. However, since no significant speed differences were found across field types, usage, or hardness, we can confidently attribute the observed differences in the resulting ankle IMU data to the playing surface. Ankle IMU Data Ankle IMUs were utilized to record a metric called average intensity, which is defined as the mean impact intensity derived from every impact propagated into both limbs (IMeasureU, 2022). This metric is recorded in units of gravitational force (g). These devices were securely attached to each athlete’s ankle and recorded data as they performed drills on all four fields studied. After running statistical tests that accounted for individual differences between athletes, significant differences were found based on field, field usage, and hardness. Across all three drills, field type had a noticeable impact (p www.TheTurfZone.com. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post How Variability Within and Between Natural Turfgrass and Synthetic Athletic Fields Impacts Athlete Safety and Performance appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode spotlights Turfgrass Council of North Carolina member Devin McCaffrey. Devin McCaffrey brings a straightforward philosophy to his work as Southeast Territory Manager for Performance Nutrition: help the land perform better while leaving it better than you found it. He works to deliver liquid and dry fertilizers, biostimulants, and a portfolio of plant health solutions spanning agriculture, turf, and ornamental markets. One of the biggest challenges in his work is differentiation. “Showing people what sets us apart from other fertility companies” is something Devin thinks about daily. His answer to that challenge is relationship-driven and focuses on getting in the room with the right people. “Being part of TCNC, and like organizations, aids in meeting like-minded professionals and navigating the industry,” he says. Devin also wants the public to understand something about the people who work in turfgrass. “We do our best to not be careless with what we put into the environment. Most people in the industry are avid hunters, fishers, golfers, nature people, and we want what we enjoy to be loved by generations to come.” That ethos aligns with one of the most encouraging shifts he’s seen in the industry over his career, “Less inputs to grass and a welcome response to natural and organic products, now that people understand them and see them work.” His reason for joining TCNC reflects the same values — being part of an organization that works to teach turf professionals and the community about sustainable turfgrass management. Away from work, Devin carries the discipline of a lifelong competitive swimmer. He swam at LSU. He also loves spending time with his beautiful family. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Member Spotlight on Devin McCaffrey appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Advancing Precision Weed Management in Turfgrass Systems with Machine Vision-Guided Targeted Spraying” Written by Brooke Heikkila – Graduate Research Assistant Navdeep Godara – Assistant Professor of Turfgrass & Forage Weed Science, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University and Pawel Petelewicz – Assistant Professor of Turfgrass Weed Science, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Agronomy Department Turfgrass managers are facing increasing weed challenges due to evolving regulatory framework and growing incidence of herbicide-resistant weeds. The release of the first turfgrass-specific commercial machine vision-guided sprayer (ALBA, Ecorobotix Inc.) enables automated and localized herbicide applications in turf. Although often referred to as “spot spraying” in marketing materials, “targeted spraying” is a more accurate description as it distinguishes this system from manual spot treatments and other existing precision weed management approaches. Such targeted application systems have already been successfully deployed in other crops using platforms such as the John Deere See and Spray, Agritech America WEED-IT, Verdant Robotics Sharp Shooter, Ecorobotix ARA. Using See and Spray technology, comparable weed control was observed between the broadcast and targeted spraying methods, but the targeted spraying reduced the treated acreage by up to two-thirds. In turfgrass, this technology not only offers significant herbicide savings but also opens the door for practitioners to combat herbicide-resistant weeds by incorporating alternative chemistries, including nonselective herbicides or herbicide tank mixtures combining multiple modes-of-action which are not typically feasible in broadcast applications. Overall, spot spraying is not a new concept, as many turfgrass managers already employ it to control weed escapes following broadcast herbicide applications or where selective chemistries are not an option. Manual spot spraying involves individuals walking the golf course or other turfgrass areas with a sprayer loaded with herbicide to make localized applications directly to weeds. Traditional spot spraying is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and requires applicators to accurately identify weeds, necessitating additional training and expertise. It ultimately increases application costs and is also prone to human error, often resulting in overapplication and missed weeds. However, targeted spraying systems such as ALBA, utilize artificial intelligence combined with machine vision to detect problematic weeds within turfgrass canopy in real-time to apply herbicides only to those small areas where individual weeds are present. ALBA is a tractor pull-behind unit that can operate at speeds up to 4.5 miles per hour and uses an enclosure to block ambient light and to create consistent lighting conditions to continuously scan the turfgrass canopy with its cameras to detect weeds. When a weed is spotted, an individual nozzle – one out of 108 – activates to directly target the weed with a 1.2 × 1.2-inch spray resolution per nozzle. As targeted application systems continue to advance and competing platforms emerge, it is critical to understand how to effectively integrate and leverage these sprayers within turfgrass weed management programs. Several preliminary field experiments using ALBA and its ARA-based predecessor research platform were conducted by the NC State Turfgrass Weed Science Program and the UF/IFAS Turfgrass Weed Science Program to understand the applications of this technology. Preliminary studies showed that machine-vision guided targeted spraying substantially reduces herbicide usage and treated acreage while maintaining weed control efficacy, offering both economic and environmental benefits while targeting wide variety of problematic weeds with high accuracy. Reduction in Herbicide Volume Used – In a study focused on controlling false-green kyllinga in bermudagrass fairways, machine vision-guided targeted spraying with ALBA reduced herbicide spray volume by 77% compared to broadcast treatments. False green kyllinga cover was 17% at the experimental sites during study initiation, triggering significant savings due to the weed-specific, localized targeted treatments compared to broadcast herbicide applications. Broadcast applications of standard kyllinga control products typically cost around $190 to $240 per acre, but targeted treatment can lower the cost by more than $145 per acre even when dealing with moderate level of weed infestation (~15% weed cover). Similarly, in another ongoing study, when annual bluegrass weed cover was 10% in bermudagrass fairways, targeted applications achieved a 66% reduction in herbicide spray volume compared to conventional broadcast treatments. Sulfonylurea herbicides for postemergence control of annual bluegrass cost around $140 to $185 per acre and targeted spraying can reduce the cost by at least $92 per acre when weed cover is 10% or less. Practitioners can expect greater savings at turfgrass sites with lower weed infestations, which are typical of intensively managed surfaces and when applying expensive herbicides such as PoaCure or organic herbicides during winter dormancy of warm-season turfgrasses. Targeted application system was also evaluated for control of broadleaf weeds, dallisgrass, smooth crabgrass, and tropical signalgrass in studies conducted independently or in collaboration between Mississippi State University, NCSU, Virginia Tech and UF IFAS, and observed a 53% to 95% reduction in spray volume. In all the aforementioned cases, weed control levels achieved with targeted spraying were no different from broadcast applications. Thus, these studies demonstrate that, across various problematic weed species, this novel application system can substantially reduce the herbicide volume required, lowering costs without compromising weed control efficacy. Lower Treated Acreage – During broadcast herbicide applications, substantial areas without weeds are often treated unnecessarily. Targeted applications can reduce the treated acreage, enabling practitioners to use herbicides such as MSMA, which are currently restricted to spot treatments on less than 25% of the total golf course acreage per year. Targeted spraying systems are particularly useful for herbicides with limited or no residual activity, as it allows localized treatments to weed instead of broadcast applications to turfgrass. Targeted spraying for false-green kyllinga control (17% weed cover) in bermudagrass fairways resulted in 85% reduction in treated acreage compared to broadcast spraying. In a similar study, an 80% reduction in treated acreage was found when only treating annual bluegrass in dormant bermudagrass at 10% weed cover. A study conducted by UF/IFAS Turfgrass Weed Science Program using circular, non-overlapping targets of varying patch sizes (4-10 cm diameter) to simulate random different weed densities and dispersions within the 1-20%, 21-40%, and 41-60% coverage, indicated total spray deposition of approximately 40%, 64%, and 74%, respectively. This corresponded to estimated herbicide savings of 60%, 36%, and 26%. Spray deposition increased with rising weed pressure, while the non-sprayed area, directly reflecting herbicide savings declined accordingly. These results confirm that variation in herbicide savings with targeted applications is driven primarily by weed density, with dispersion playing a secondary role, exerting stronger effects at low weed densities but negligible influence at higher densities. The reduction in treated acreage can potentially diminish the environmental impact of herbicides by minimizing overall pesticide load released into the environment, limiting off-target movement, reducing the risk of groundwater contamination, and lowering the risk of human exposure associated with pesticide applications. Targeted approaches permit treatment to a limited portion of turf, enabling the effective use of chemistries with area-use limitations. Effective reduction in area treated with targeted spraying will become increasingly important as new regulations come into effect, particularly in the context of upcoming Endangered Species Act-imposed changes. Therefore, research projects funded by the Turfgrass Council of North Carolina will focus on investigating the agronomic and environmental benefits of targeted application systems for managing problematic weed species. Alternative Herbicide Options for Resistance Management – Targeted spraying also enables selectivity at the sprayer level rather than relying only on selectivity of the herbicide used. This potentially allows turf managers to use nonselective herbicides that were previously not an option for broadcast treatment due to severe injury to actively growing turfgrasses. Broad spectrum herbicides like glyphosate, glufosinate, or flumioxazin are highly effective against a wide variety of weeds, but practitioners often wait for turfgrass to go dormant before spraying nonselective herbicides, while in some geographies, such as Florida, achieving full dormancy is not even possible. However, with this new technology, practitioners will have the option to incorporate nonselective herbicides year-round with minimal collateral damage to turfgrass. Glyphosate (Roundup Pro Concentrate) applied via broadcast application at 12 fluid ounces per acre rate reduced bermudagrass green cover significantly, but targeted spraying had similar level of green cover as nontreated plots as documented in our recent study. Likewise, glufosinate applied at 41 fluid ounces per acre (as Finale XL T&O) reduced bermudagrass cover drastically after broadcast application but had minimal effect on turfgrass after targeted spraying. Targeted spraying technology also allows use of novel admixtures that are not currently being used during regular turfgrass maintenance. Rotating or tank mixing herbicide from different modes of action are crucial for sustainable turfgrass management, as selection pressure for herbicide resistance continues to increase. For instance, practitioners can use tank mixtures of herbicides like pyridate + sulfentrazone or bentazon + halosulfuron + sulfentrazone for targeted spraying without compromising efficacy on false-green kyllinga. These novel admixtures contain multiple modes of action in a single application that could reduce selection pressure and combat herbicide-resistant kyllinga. Similar admixtures should be explored for the management of other herbicide-resistant or difficult-to-control weeds. Limitations – Like with any new technologies, there are limitations to consider when adopting a machine vision-guided sprayer. Currently, only one commercial unit (ALBA by Ecorobotix Inc.) is available, providing managers with a single option for this turfgrass-specific targeted spraying technology. Additional machine vision-guided sprayers need to be developed specifically for turfgrass systems, as interest in these technologies among turfgrass managers continues to grow and the needs across different turfgrass industry segments will vary. The cost of the equipment and the annual model subscription will be a major barrier for many turfgrass managers. Offering incentives, such as reduced subscription fees for the first few years, could help increase adoption of this technology. Alternatively, with ALBA being an example of a high-end solution maximizing performance and system sophistication, other developers may consider trade-offs to reduce equipment production and maintenance costs to improve accessibility. Although ALBA seems to demonstrate high detection accuracy on key problematic weeds, further research is needed to understand its year-round performance, considering changes in visual characteristics of weeds and turfgrass across growth stages and under varying environmental contexts. In our preliminary work, a few false positives occasionally led to herbicide applications to weed-free turfgrass. Also, we observed that in situations where weed presence (particularly grassy weeds) in the camera’s path exceeded that of turfgrass, the detection system became confused, effectively reversing target and background and treating turfgrass instead of the weed. However, developers are actively addressing these shortcomings and performance of targeted applications systems by continuing to improve imagery databases, training and validation across diverse geographical regions and management contexts. There is no doubt that machine vision-guided sprayers will have a transformative impact on the turfgrass industry, however, extension efforts will be critical for adoption. Also, as this technology is still novel for turfgrass systems, ongoing research and development is critical to improve performance, reliability, and to meet industry needs. Among others, further research is needed to evaluate performance under varying travel speeds, expand applications to targeted residual treatments, and refine application thresholds to maximize herbicide savings. Authors acknowledge the Turfgrass Council of North Carolina for sponsoring ongoing research projects focused on leveraging targeted application devices for weed management in NC turfgrass systems. The authors also thank Ecorobotix Inc. for providing a commercial unit for evaluation. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Advancing Precision Weed Management in Turfgrass Systems with Machine Vision-Guided Targeted Spraying appeared first on The Turf Zone.

Welcome to The Turf Zone podcast. This episode features the article “Creative Membership Models for Private Clubs” written by Larry Hirsh for golfprop.com and read from Virginia Turfgrass Journal. Among the intriguing elements of the private club world are the various membership models that exist. Of course, there are equity, where the members own the club and non-equity, where an investor owns the club; but within each category there are numerous variations. Clubs exhibit a wide variety of operating models, typically designed to suit their market, economics and their club culture. Of late, a lot of the “news” in the private club world has come from the newly developed, uber upscale clubs often with entrance fees well into six figures, or even seven. Some have a partial refundability element, and as one might expect are very exclusive. However, of those I’ve encountered of late, I’d like to focus on a few I find intriguing as ways to help grow the game, encourage club membership and broaden golf’s appeal. Most contradict the concept of exclusivity that many clubs seek, but such exclusivity isn’t always for the best, either economically or socially. Of interest in resort and vacation areas is the model I’ve encountered whereby placing your vacation home in the rental pool entitles the owner to a substantial discount on dues and guests and extended family members discounts on golf and other fees. Obviously, this creates financial incentive for property owners to participate by reducing club dues but of course exposes the property owner to (usually short term) tenants and the risks inherent in same. With resort guests/renters also having access to club facilities, exclusivity is limited, however clubs with a variant of this model typically establish privileges, preferences, access or activities exclusive to members to establish and cultivate a culture of membership. Among the more unique membership models I’ve (recently) heard about is one residential golf community club where resident members join the club but pay their initiation fee upon the sale of their home. Another model which I’ve always found of interest is that often found in Scotland and other areas of the United Kingdom and Europe where even top clubs are much more inclusive than many in the US and rely on visitor fees for much of their revenue. The benefits of this model are that membership dues are maintained at more nominal levels, and the culture of the club is quite different than many elite clubs in the US. As Royal Dornoch General Manager Neil Hampton wrote in the club’s recent newsletter, “What I have always enjoyed about Royal Dornoch is that it is an inclusive club. There are so many different facets to the club, yet everyone comes together as one and has fun with each other. We have visitors playing seven days a week and invite them to share our courses and clubhouse just as we do. I think it is wonderful and epitomizes the Highland way, that we do not have separate areas for members or visitors and everyone mixes together, sharing their experiences.” Privileged to be a member at Royal Dornoch, I agree with his comments. I’m sure there are many more I’m not yet familiar with. One thing I’ve always maintained is that every club needs to know what it wants to be. To some, golf (especially club membership) is a status symbol, to others it’s an “everyman’s” game. At some clubs, one’s net worth is estimated halfway down the first fairway. Each club establishes, develops and maintains its own culture and that is often dictated by the extent of the club rule book which in turn can often determine the membership models for the club. At some clubs the financial commitment alone excludes many. At others it’s social status or heritage. At more inclusive clubs the membership is typically much more diverse. One of the most creative membership models more prominent in past years was the refundable deposit where the member was entitled to the return of his entrance fee after a specified period of time or upon resignation based on certain conditions. While still available at some clubs, this option is quite sensitive (for the club) to economic fluctuations and fell out of favor in the pre-COVID period from 2000–2020 when the golf/club industry was experiencing challenging times. Whether this experiences a resurgence will be interesting to see. I’ve always fallen back on the definition of “club”. Webster’s dictionary most relevant and simple definition of a club is: to unite or combine for a common cause. At the clubs we’re talking about, that basically means social and athletic activities. Sometimes it’s much more complex than that. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post Creative Membership Models for Private Clubs appeared first on The Turf Zone.