This special report from GottaGoGolf founder Susan Fornoff follows nearly two years of research and interviews. It’s a complicated topic filled with alphabet soup, but one we hope you’ll agree is important to women’s golf.
The United States Golf Association, which conducts the U.S. Women’s Open and governs the amateur game in this country, has begun a consolidation process that is forcing handicap-administering women’s state and regional golf associations to merge into their male counterparts.
Starting January 1, only newly designated “Allied Golf Associations,” all of them former men’s golf associations, will be licensed by the USGA to administer handicaps. Women’s associations that relied on handicap fees for operating revenue now face the golf equivalent of a 250-yard carry over water to stay in the game: They must either merge into the newly anointed regional AGA; persuade their AGA to subsidize or otherwise help them maintain their identity; or, break away from the USGA structure and find a new way to survive.
It’s a classic dilemma. Most women’s associations have conceded the match and merged, while the few remaining holdouts lament the choices.
“In the (USGA’s) letter, they talk about us being important to cultivating, promoting and engaging with the golf community at the local level,” said Caroline O’Brien, executive director of the Pacific Women’s Golf Association, which serves Northern California public course clubs. “It is ironic then that they choose to cut off our revenue source, and still expect us to continue to conduct programs and activities locally.”
Cheryl Wohlgemuth, executive director of the San Diego County Women’s Golf Association, also criticized the USGA action. “The women’s associations are being defunded and the USGA is trying to force them to merge into the men’s associations,” she said. “Our clubs voted unanimously not to merge. The women want to stay together. They don’t want to merge and have the men take over.”
In a 2016 interview, USGA senior managing director of business affairs Sarah Hirshland denied that the ensuing consolidation movement would effectively shut down women’s associations or impact their programs. “This isn’t in any way dictating who anybody plays with or what kind of events or tournaments exist in that regard,” she said. “If anything, the USGA is as or more committed to women’s golf than we’ve ever been.”
She said the goal of the consolidation initiative was “driving greater value, greater engagement, a greater experience to golfers and the golf facilities at which they play.”
The core driver, Hirshland said, was “elevating the value proposition for all golfers.”
PWGA past president Jane Sullwold, a California attorney, summarized the scenario this way: “The NCGA (Northern California Golf Association), SCGA (Southern California Golf Association), and the other large, mostly male associations who worked on this plan for two years before it was rolled out in September 2015 all jumped at the notion of limiting USGA’s provision of handicapping services to ‘full-service’ associations in exclusive geographic areas because they knew they would be picked. And the smaller associations, including all the women’s associations like ours, would be forced to merge to provide handicaps to members.
“There is no question that this plan is a death knell to women’s associations.”
THE BACKGROUND ON USGA CONSOLIDATION
Leading the USGA’s reorganization plan is Hirshland, 41, who received a biology degree from Duke University and worked in sports business and marketing for companies including Wasserman Media Group.
She sees the handicap system, which assigns golfers ratings so that they can compete fairly against players of different ability, as “one of the most fundamental aspects of the game of golf, one that should be an enabler of the social aspects and playing aspects of the game.” It’s also one of the biggest offerings of the USGA, a nonprofit that has more than $300 million in assets and pays Hirshland more than $600,000, according to Golf Digest’s What People in Golf Make.
Hirshland, who joined the USGA in October 2011, describes a golf “ecosystem” of the USGA, state and regional associations, courses and golfers. Most golfers, she said, do not realize when they join a golf club that they also have joined a state or regional association that is part of the USGA.
Which association have they joined? Whichever association to which their club belongs. Using the Northern California example, that would be the Women’s Golf Association of Northern California if the member’s club is a women’s club at a private course. That could be PWGA if the member’s club is a women’s club at a public course, or it could be the 90-percent male NCGA if the member’s club instead chose that affiliation. The San Francisco chapter of the national Executive Women’s Golf Association, for example, affiliates with NCGA, not PWGA.
The association delivers club members their handicaps in twice-monthly emails and is responsible for rating golf courses its members play. The association also conducts state and regional tournaments for its members, as well as informal play days and social events. Larger women’s associations such as those in California and Colorado may also have scholarship programs and raise money for girls’ golf.
Now, the USGA has committed to unifying six worldwide handicap administrations into one global system by 2020. In 2015, it began to create a new vision for its own structure – “a framework for what an ideal state might look like,” Hirshland said in that 2016 interview.
That’s when it decided that each state, or in California’s case, region, would have only one USGA-licensed governing body or AGA. And to qualify, the association had to be serving both men and women and both private and public golf clubs.
Which ruled out women’s associations.
MERGERS AREN’T SUCH BAD BUSINESS

But several large associations, including the former Women’s Southern California Golf Association and Colorado Women’s Golf Association, have negotiated mergers enthusiastically and with overwhelming support from their membership.
In Southern California, the vote was 197-3 in favor of July 1 “unification” with the SCGA. As with all other mergers, the women’s association will relinquish its autonomy and its name, but, said the announcement, “The organization’s rich heritage and spirit are important to the SCGA and will remain through the continuation of comprehensive programs and events for women.”
And in Colorado, CWGA executive director Laura Robinson said of a similar July 1 merger of the 101-year old, 17,000-woman organization with the 43,000-man Colorado Golf Association, “We’re integrating and it’s all good news. We see this as an opportunity to be stronger, better and have access to more resources. It’s a real positive. We are doing something historic.”
Mergers make good business sense for many companies, and in recent years golf associations have been finding their way organically to meetings of the male and female minds. New Jersey, Utah, Florida, Rhode Island and Texas all joined hands and sang “Kumbaya” before the USGA edict.
USGA Women’s Committee Chairman Pam Murray recalls what happened in Texas in 2014.
“The process of merging was difficult,” Murray said. “We had to work through changing our identity and finding ways to retain our history as well as our service to our loyal members.”
One has only to look at txga.org (screenshot above) to see that women continue to command a gallery in the unified Texas Golf Association. “As we look back,” she said, “it is clear that the women in Texas have better opportunities today than we were offering as a separate entity. We have a lot more events for women and our access to quality golf courses has improved. We added a women’s stroke play championship (we previously only had match play) and we’ve added fun golf days and scrambles all over the state.
“We also have deeper pockets now, which has allowed us to invest more money in scholarships for young girls and girls’ golf programs.”
Those earlier mergers didn’t feel forced, however. “In those cases,” Wohlgemuth said, “it became a partnership, rather than ‘we’re taking you over and that’s that.’ ”
More recent mergers, in Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri and Southern California, have occurred because the men’s associations had been designated AGAs and the women’s associations had little leverage. Again, one need only to look at the websites to see whether the women have forfeited their identity or enhanced it.
Only in Colorado and Arizona did the women hold a card: No association qualified to be the anointed one because the men’s associations served only men, so the USGA told the candidates to work things out. After all, a USGA spokesperson said, “There have been numerous distinct arrangements between associations, ranging from collaborative working agreements to complete mergers…In one instance, a newly merged entity will be governed by co-presidents, one male and one female. Each situation is different.”
As Colorado’s Robinson put it, “There’s a whole quilt out there in the country.”
Her Colorado WGA considered many options, including breaking away from the USGA, but told its members in a detailed Q-and-A, “Without the revenue from handicapping, it would not be feasible to serve our clubs or women golfers as we do today.” The unified CGA will, at least through 2018, have co-presidents.
Arizona’s new working agreement, on the other hand, guarantees the 23,000-member Arizona Women’s GA independence for three more years. During that time, a joint USGA services committee will administer handicaps, conduct course ratings and handle rules matters for both the AWGA and the Arizona GA. Otherwise, both will operate independently – and unmerged.
“We’ve given women golfers a voice with our association for 100 years,” AWGA executive director Mary Pomroy said in a 2016 interview. “They need to keep that.”
WHAT IT ALL MEANS TO WOMEN GOLFERS

On the other hand, it is not considered politically correct anymore to designate a club a “men’s club,” so why should it be acceptable to have a women’s club? After all, the handicap system allows for anyone to have a fair match against anyone else – man, woman or child. Do women really need their own golf tournaments?
Absolutely, say the experts. Middle and high-handicap women amateurs play from different tees, and favor more forgiving courses than men tend to. Generally, men crave the competition, women the companionship. So at women’s tournaments, shotguns prevail over tee times and prizes of jewelry trump trophies.
“Women play differently than men,” said WGANC president Kim Algren. “Women look forward to a shotgun start at events so that they can socialize for breakfast, lunch or dinner after play. Women encourage other women to take up the game of golf. Most amateur women prefer to play with other women, and men certainly would prefer a foursome consisting entirely of men.”
In a best-case scenario, where women maintain power within a newly merged association, there could be more and better women’s tournaments.
“We will continue to have women’s events, and they’ll be done differently than the men do theirs,” said Laura Robinson of the newly merged Colorado association. “We have a registration table, tee gifts, lunch. Who knows, maybe the men are going to start to want those things, too.”
In Northern California, the women aren’t so sure that will work. The PWGA and WGANC united with other women’s golf associations to propose a new Western Golf Association in an appeal to USGA president Diana Murphy. She declined to advocate for them. The other associations now have succumbed, but PWGA and WGANC (as well as New Hampshire) remain unresolved.
Discussions are ongoing with the NCGA, although so far the mostly male organization has rejected the women’s request to subcontract USGA services and remain autonomous.
“So far, there’s not a comfort level that women will be served,” O’Brien said. “We’re still talking. They’re not the bad guy.”
But the women continue to resist a full merger.
“Times may have changed since we were formed in 1947,” O’Brien said. “We existed because women weren’t represented in golf. There weren’t events for women. There weren’t tournaments for women. I’m not confident if we’re gone those same services will be available enough. I think the need for women to have a say in the women’s golf game remains.”






So I’m a little confused. I understand that eventually open days will go away but does that mean anytime we compete as a merged group (should that happen), we will have teetimes then instead of shotguns? And what is so difficult about keeping a handicap by using one of the multitudes of software programs or apps that are out there? Without merging, does that mean our handicap really doesn’t count?
Thank you for the comment Nan. Not sure which association you are with and the answers to your questions no doubt vary widely.
I am saddened by the forced merger that USGA is placing upon Women’s Associations. I strongly do not support the merger. I belong to both WGANC and PWGA. I have been a Course Rater for 13 years, with 7 of those years holding the position of Course Rating Director. I have rated with NCGA and USGA. There is a strong difference in the men’s association and the women’s. While my experiences with NCGA and USGA were positive, there still is a strong need for separate associations.
I have played in PWGA, WGANC and NCGA tournaments. As Susan pointed out in her article there is a huge difference in a NCGA tournament versus a PWGA or WGANC tournament. The objective and goals for these tournaments is totally different. At the NCGA tournaments I have played in, there is not much socializing. You show up, golf, have a drink and go home, whereas at the PWGA or WGANC tournament the women show up for breakfast, shopping in the pro shop, golf, lunch and drinks afterwards. Golf is our main reason for being there, but the socializing is a major part of the experience.
I truly hope that there will be some way to save our associations.
Thank you for taking the time to post Karen.
By my understanding, per GuideStar (website to search for information on nonprofit organizations), the USGA has $309 million in net assets, not $3 million as stated in this article.
That is correct Karen, it was a typo. We will fix that right now, thank you!
As the former Executive Director of the Colorado Women’s Golf Association (1992-2014) , I am disappointed in how women’s golf associations have been treated in this mandatory consolidation process. I hope in the end that women golfers are better served and that women will still have a voice in how women’s golf is governed.
Thank you for your comment, Robin. I live in Colorado now and am so impressed with the energy of the women’s golf community and also with the intelligence and intentions of CGA leader Ed Mate and CWGA leader Laura Robinson. I have every reason to believe that the union will benefit everyone. So let’s hope!
Absolutely agree.
The USGA leadership really concerns me…..starting at the top. CWGA leadership concerns me as well. (Similar credentials as Diana Murphy, Prez of USGA.)
Diana Murphy, USGA President. Take note, her husband was the USGA President in 1994-95. She is not an avid golfer, she is a business woman. 204 rounds since 2008. That breaks down to 20 rounds per year. She played 4 T scores out of 204. Let’s put it this way, in the golf world, Diana Murphy is no Judy Bell or as far as golf AND business woman, Judy Bell is a 10 and Diana Murphy is a 5 (bus. woman). Diana Murphy has not served in any women’s state associations, she has not played competitively (as Judy Bell did) in national level, she does not play in state association golf tournaments. And yet, SHE KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE WOMEN’S GOLF ASSOCIATIONS IN THIS COUNTRY???????? Answer is no,…so we are saying the U S GOLF A does not need a knowledgeable golfer in the helm???? Ok, got it. Guess not.
So why is Diana Murphy in charge of the USGA? Because she is leading the end of women’s golf assocations. Get it?,…a woman is leading the women’s golf assocations to allow themselves to “go away”. What will happen in 5 years???? I predict we willl be right back where we were BEFORE the women’s golf associations got themselves in charge of women’s golf. All of us type of women that made the CWGA great over the years will go away and lead in other areas of our lives. Women’s golf will be like banging your head against a wall.So this is a giant step backwards (in my opinion).
Thank you for the comment, Lynn. Just to clarify, Mike Davis is really the person who runs the USGA. Presidents rotate in and out, and I believe are volunteers. As for the rest, at this point we can only hope what happens is for the better and not the worse.
I agree Lynn. WGANC is a vibrant, dynamic organization that provides the best tournaments, officiating and rules management. Women in Northern California are spoiled and we like it that way. Our volunteer directors (not $600,000 a year salaried) do a great job. My husband was involved with a USGA tournament and had to raise $100,000 dollars that were just donations, not charitable gifts, the USGA did not provide one cent to help. With their vast store of accumulated monies it seems as if you “follow the money” you will see where they are going. Money is power, handicap management is money.
Good article, Susan.
Thank you Judy.
This forced move to the SCGA in my case offers nothing more than increased fees and puts at risk the GREAT events offered by WPLGA of Southern California (because they become a voluntary rather than mandatory association so fewer people will join). Not only has the SCGA raised the cost of getting a handicap, they charge the full dues for each club to which you belong. Although they say that you can apply AT SOME UNDETERMINED TIME AND IN SOME UNDETERMINED WAY for a refund of “excess” fees over $55, at minimum they will get the float on our money until the refunds are processed. In addition, there is no published process for getting the refunds and confusion or inertia or bad administration by the SCGA means that many people are unlikely to apply or get their application processed. That means the SCGA has devised an interesting way to steal people’s money. On top of this disgusting scheme, the SCGA currents offers NO women’s only events. Although something may be offered in the future, we are being forced to pay more for less and get our money stolen. This makes me so mad and should be illegal. What a farce!
Thank you Paula for taking the time to read and comment on this article. I think how the mergers affect the women golfers in each association will vary, depending on the level of involvement of the women. Here’s the press release on that merger: http://www.scga.org/news/view/wscga-scga-to-merge. I do think memberships are going to become more expensive for women across the board than they have been. — Susan Fornoff
Our WGANC has been a fantastic organization which has served the women golfers in Northern Cal — I , personally, will pay whatever amount is necessary to keep the organization independent —