Social Golf Australia (SGA) made a submission on Thursday March 5 to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleging that Golf Australia (GA) has engaged in anti-competitive conduct. The claim argues that when GA entered the golf handicap market with The Golf Australia Club (The GA Club) on December 1 2025 to compete against existing golf clubs as a handicap provider, that GA used its significant market power to leverage an unfair advantage over its competition.

GA allegedly did this by promoting the use of Conforming Social Score (CSS) submissions via the new GA App as a feature of The GA Club, whilst withholding that same scoring systems from its competitors in the market. The option was disabled in the back-end settings of GA Connect for golf clubs to choose to allow their members to submit CSS via the GA App. CSS are non-competition scores for handicapping and they have been rapidly increasing as a score submission method over the last decade.

BACKGROUND

As the national governing body of Australian golf, GA owns, controls and oversees the management of the country’s golf handicaps (an indexed number that allows golfers to compete on a level playing field). Golf Handicaps have traditionally been sold to golfers directly by golf clubs, or included in a membership package, with a portion of the club membership fee paid to the governing bodies in the form of an affiliation fee.

SGA is a small family business in the golf industry offering golf events and official golf handicaps that has worked closely with Golf Australia (GA) for two decades. GA and SGA collaborated to plan the development of a virtual golf club in 2006 and a close and mutually beneficial working relationship between the two organisations had been sustained for a long time.

Established with a commitment to helping golfers, the small virtual club founded in their home office by Sally and Matthew Pitt is now Australia’s largest golf club with over 12,500 active members. SGA has issued over 32,000 GOLF Link and Golf ID numbers, delivered over 11,000 new members to clubs and paid more than $3 million dollars in handicap affiliation fees over 20 years.

GA IS NOW COMPETING WITH ITS OWN STAKEHOLDERS

The stunning allegation is that GA has breached Australian competition law by misusing its significant market power in a way that could affect nearly half a million Australian golfers. However, GA joining the existing handicap market and competing with its own stakeholder clubs does raises some serious questions for the game of golf, but that is not the issue before the ACCC.

The type of product, value proposition and inclusions GA offers in the GA Club are virtually identical to several operators already in the market, including SGA. By controlling the CSS submissions via the GA App and allowing The GA Club members to use this system and withholding from competitors, it is alleged that GA used its significant market power to gain an advantage over its competition.

However, this extends beyond the other Virtual Clubs that GA has made its direct competitors. The 2024/25 GA Participation Report listed 477,220 people who are members of 1282 golf clubs and who pay affiliation fees to GA to access an official handicap. When the GA Club was launched, all of them were denied the option to use a scoring functionality through the GA App – the same scoring function that GA promotes as a key selling feature of The GA Club.

GOLF AUSTRALIA CREATING CONFUSION IN THE MARKET

According to Matthw Pitt, Managing Director of Social Golf Australia, the current environment is placing an administrative burden on golfers and creating confusion about how, when and where social and non-competition scores can be submitted for handicapping purposes, particularly for golfers who do not belong to a traditional affiliated club.

“Golfers just want a fair, reliable and transparent process for maintaining their handicap,” said Pitt. “For many golfers, their handicap is the gateway to participation, confidence, improvement, and connection. If the score submission pathways are unclear, inconsistent or withheld, then it undermines trust in the system and creates frustration across the national golfing community.”

SGA said it has spent recent months supporting members through a heightened volume of enquiries, including issues relating to account access, app registration, score submission visibility, and the ability for golfers to record rounds played in social contexts that still meet the Rules of Handicapping.

“SGA’s role has always been to help golfers access the system in a compliant way and to support the integrity of handicapping,” Mr Pitt said. “We are urging Golf Australia to work constructively with the broader golf ecosystem, including alternative club models and technology providers, so that golfers are not caught in the middle of market decisions or platform transitions.”

GA REFUSES MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID ACCC FILING

Unfortunately, the cooperative and positive relationship enjoyed for such a long time between GA and SGA has been deescalated by GA ever since they announced their intention to replicate the virtual golf club model and join as a competitor in the golf handicap market.

SGA has tried for months to have a constructive dialogue with GA on this issue with the aim of resolving it for the benefit of the broader golfing community. However, GA senior management last made contact with SGA in late November – days before the launch of the GA Club on December 1.

Since the time GA made themselves a competitor with SGA, they have acted only as a competitor and abrogated their responsibilities as the peak governing body with a responsibility to foster collegial relationships with stakeholders.

After months of trying to discuss the matter with GA (including warning their actions may contravene Australian competition law) and being continually rebutted, SGA formally raised its concerns in a submission to the ACCC on March 5, 2026.

GOLF’S FOUNDATIONAL VALUES OF HONESTY, INTEGRITY & SELF-REGULATION

SGA’s reluctance to take this action is borne out in the legal correspondence between the GA’s and SGA’s lawyers. Included in the documents is SGA’s stated position that a submission to the ACCC was not a desired outcome for the game of golf. However, it is SGA’s view that not holding GA to account for allegations of anti-competitive behaviour would be even worse for the game in the long term.

“Whatever the commercial or administrative settings, the guiding principle should be what best serves golfers and protects the integrity of the game. Maybe that is why we have received so much support from so many in the industry.”

“Golf’s reputation has been built on honesty, integrity, self-regulation, character and consideration for others.” Mr Pitt said. “Handicapping sits at the heart of that. But perhaps the moral dimension is why this story has resonated. Golfers are expected to call penalties on themselves and have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the game and the competition. In golf, sportsmanship and fair play is paramount and part of the fabric of the game. We believe that how we compete on the golf course should also be reflected in how we compete in the market.”

A DAVID V GOLIATH BATTLE – THE PRECEDENT GOLFERS DON’T WANT

It is not unreasonable to argue that a governing body of golf should be held to an even higher standard. For some in the industry, this confrontation between SGA and GA is the “little guy” standing up for those values - and for a fair marketplace - against a powerful organisation that appears prepared to change the rules of the game to suit its own interests at the expense of all others in the competition. That is not how golf has operated in the past and certainly not what golf purists want to see golf evolve into.

SGA maintains its focus remains on practical solutions, including clear guidance for golfers, consistent access to score submission functionality, and transparent communication to the market when systems change.

SGA will continue to advocate for outcomes that prioritise golfers, competition integrity, and industry-wide fairness. With this on mind, SGA is casting its complaint as an industry-wide issue, not a single-company grievance: if the national custodian can leverage control of the handicap system to favour its own commercial interests, it sets a precedent that could reshape the sport’s economy and undermine confidence in handicap integrity and the governing body.

CARETAKER OR STEAMROLLER?

The ACCC will determine what, if any, action is warranted. But for many golfers and clubs, the bigger question will outlast the legal process: is Golf Australia still acting primarily as a caretaker of the game, or has it drifted into behaving like a commercial operator prepared to trade away trust and integrity in pursuit of money and power?

SGA has consistently reiterated that it remains open to constructive dialogue with Golf Australia, and it encouraged golfers experiencing issues to contact SGA for support and to ensure their account settings and documentation are in order.

Further updates will be shared directly with SGA members as additional information becomes available.

Media enquiries
Matthew Pitt, Managing Director
Social Golf Australia
Email: matt@sgatour.com.au
Phone: 0425 742 501
Website: www.socialgolfaustralia.com.au

About Social Golf Australia
Social Golf Australia (SGA) is Australia’s largest golf club, providing 100s of golf events and compliant handicapping access and member support for golfers around Australia who wish to hold an official affiliated golf handicap.