Golf Australia does not deny ACCC submission allegation

Golf Australia does not deny ACCC submission allegation
Golf Australia (GA) has issued a statement in which it does not deny nor refute the allegations made in an ACCC submission for breaches of Australia competition law.
After Golf Industry Central (GIC) published SGA’s Press Release “Social Golf Australia makes Submission to ACCC against Golf Australia” on March 13, Golf Australia contacted GIC and supplied a “Statement attributable to Golf Australia CEO James Sutherland” which Golf Industry Central published here.
This statement from GA is a direct response to the allegations of anti-competitive conduct made by Social Golf Australia (SGA) in a submission to the ACCC in early March. The ACCC submission by SGA alleges that GA joined an existing market and then used its market power to gain a competitive advantage which is a breach of Australian Competition Law.
Undisputed Facts at the Centre of the Allegation
The market joined was the Virtual Golf Club market which has dozens of competitors that have been operating for decades in a market that GA owns, controls, regulates and sets the wholesale prices for. GA has entered this market with a product offering (The Golf Australia Club) that is virtually identical to numerous existing competitors in that market.
The allegation of a breach of Australian competition law stems from GA opening scoring submission systems via the GA App that are available to golfers who join The GA Club, but GA has withheld access to those scoring systems from its competitors in the virtual club market. In this way GA is using its market power to leverage an advantage over the competition.
While positioned as a response, the GA statement does not directly challenge the core facts outlined in SGA’s submission. The GA statement does not deny nor refute:
- That GA has entered the virtual club market.
- That GA has allowed members of The Golf Australia Club to use the GA App to submit Conforming Social Scores (CSS).
- That the other operators in the Virtual Club market cannot access the CSS submission systems controlled by GA.
These three facts form the foundation of the allegation of anti-competitive behaviour in the submission to the ACCC: that GA is leveraging control of essential infrastructure to advantage its own product in a market where it also competes.
A Question of Conduct, Not Semantics
What GA does is make a case based on semantics. GA argues that it is not ‘competing’ in the market, but that it is ‘complementing’ the market. This implies the argument that if they are not competing, then they cannot be guilty of anti-competitive behaviour.
“GA seems to be suggesting that if we redefine what competing means, then they are not breaking Australian competition law. This argument lacks substance, because if we reject their premise that they are not competing, then their entire case comes apart,” states Matthew Pitt, Managing Director of Social Golf Australia.
“There is an active market that has been operating for decades with numerous businesses competing for a share of the market. If a new player joins the competition, by definition they are competing,” Pitt adds.
Structural Conflict of Interest
GA’s case also implies that it holds a unique position as the not-for-profit custodian of the handicapping system which means they are different for the other competitors, so they are not competing, but complementing the market.
“It is correct that GA are different for the rest of the market. They own, control, regulate and set the wholesale pricing for affiliation fees in this market. Clearly this is a significant conflict of interest. It is undeniable that GA are very different from all the other competitors in that they exercise complete control over that market,” says Pitt.
“The inference GA seems to be making is that because they control the market, if they enter the market, then they are ‘complementing’ it and not ‘competing’ in it. This is not a compelling argument and any lawyer going before the ACCC or an Australian Court would have significant challenges maintaining this position,” says Pitt.
GA also makes claims in the statement about the value it brings to the market it has joined. However, GA is simply replicating what other operators (that are GA’s own stakeholders) have developed as initiatives in the market over decades. GA brings nothing new nor original to this market except that CSS scores are now possible via the GA App – but only to GA’s members.
Absence of Justification for Withholding Access
What is most damning about this situation is that the peak body of golf in Australia has been alleged to have broken the rules to try to win a competition and they don’t deny the facts of the matter. In some respects, what is most revealing about GA’s position is what they don’t say. GA is only arguing that they are not guilty of breaking Australian competition law, which is setting a low bar as it is. But there is another glaring omission from GA statement.
“GA does not make an argument for WHY they are withholding scoring systems from the clubs they are now competing with. If GA had a good reason for this policy, they could offer that. And yet they do not. The silence on this point is deafening. It is a significant decision that GA says was made by the GA Board and it has drawn an allegation of anti-competitive conduct and there is no reason nor explanation given for this policy,” says Pitt.
“GA do not deny that they are withholding scoring systems from their competitors, nor offer any argument for why that system is being withheld. In the absence of any alternative reasoning from GA, then we are left with one logically compelling explanation – GA is using its market power to get an advantage in a market it is competing in,” Pitt says.
Implications for the Game
Australian golfers have a right to demand more from GA. Unlike other major sports like the AFL, which is funded from the top down thanks to significant TV rights, golf is funded from the grassroots up. The affiliation fees from Australian golfers using the handicap system are the biggest single source of funding to GA.
There is no more damning accusation in golf than a competitor being alleged to have broken the rules to try to get an advantage over their fellow golfers. And yet GA has put itself in a position where this allegation is made of their conduct, and their response does not deny the allegation.
“As the peak governing body, GA plays a critical role not only in administering the game, but in upholding its integrity, fairness, and trust. The current situation risks undermining that trust. This matter highlights the importance of governance, transparency, and whether the structures underpinning the game operate equitably for all participants,” Pitt says.
“Our view is that GA has a responsibility to uphold the rules, values, spirit, etiquette and culture of the game of golf. We should and we do expect more from our national governing body than what we are seeing now. GA has the power and the opportunity to repair the current situation. Our hope is they also have the will, and that they take positive action before any more damage is done to the reputation of our game,” concluded Pitt.











