The 70/6 Problem: Why 94% of Golfers Don’t Own a Simulator (and It’s Not the Price)

There’s a number from a new study that deserves more attention than it’s gotten.

The 2026 Buffalo Groupe Golf Gear Marketplace Report — released August 5 — surveyed 391 avid golfers about their shopping habits, brand preferences, and purchase decisions. Most of the coverage focused on the finding that “performance beats brand loyalty.” Eight in ten golfers mix and match brands based on what works. That’s interesting for marketers.

The number that matters for home golf is this: 70% of avid golfers have used a golf simulator in the past 12 months. Six percent own one.

That’s the 70/6 problem. And the reason why 94% of those golfers don’t own a simulator is not what most people in the industry think.

The finding that flips the script

The study asked non-owners why they haven’t bought. The top answer: lack of space.

Not cost. Not that they don’t see the value. Not that they’re waiting for better technology. Space.

This runs counter to the narrative the simulator industry has been operating on for years. Go to any trade show booth pitch or product launch press release and you’ll hear the same refrains: “We’re making simulators more affordable,” “The price barrier is coming down,” “Now anyone can afford a simulator.”

The industry has been solving for price. The data says the problem is space.

To be clear — cost matters. A $15,000 Falcon or $20,000 GCQuad is a non-starter for most people. But the sub-$1,000 space has been flooded with options: Garmin R10 at $399, Square Golf Home Edition at $499, Shot Scope LM1 at $199, GolfBuddy Shot Mate at $230, Rapsodo MLM2Pro now at $599, Blue Tees Rainmaker at $599. The price floor has collapsed. You can build a functional simulator for under $700 today.

Yet 94% of golfers still don’t own one. If price were the primary barrier, those numbers would look different.

What “lack of space” actually means

The Buffalo Groupe study doesn’t get into the details of what “lack of space” means to respondents. But the broader market data fills in the picture.

The National Golf Foundation has documented that a standard simulator bay needs roughly 15 feet wide by 21 feet deep by 10 feet tall. That’s the premium spec. Compact setups can squeeze into 10x12x9. But even that smaller footprint eliminates most garages, most basements, all apartments, and every spare bedroom smaller than a master suite.

The real constraint is ceiling height. Most American homes have 8-foot ceilings on the main floor and 9-foot ceilings in the garage — if you’re lucky. A 9-foot ceiling works for most golfers swinging irons. It gets tight with a driver, especially if you’re over 5’10“ and have a normal swing plane.

Radar-based units need 6 to 8 feet of clearance behind the hitting area for ball flight. That wipes out any room that isn’t at least 18 feet deep. Camera-based units are better (they sit next to the ball instead of behind it), but they still need clean sight lines and proper lighting.

So when a golfer says “I don’t have the space,” they’re usually saying one of three things:

• My ceiling is too low for a full swing.
• My room is too shallow for a radar unit.
• I don’t have a dedicated room at all and can’t leave a simulator set up.

These are real problems. And they’re problems that money can’t solve at the product level — only at the architectural level.

The industry is building the wrong solutions

The past 18 months have produced an explosion of budget launch monitors. The $199 Shot Scope LM1, the $230 GolfBuddy Shot Mate, the $399 Garmin R10, the $499 Square Golf. All of these are great products. They deliver real data at prices that would have been unthinkable five years ago.

But they’re solving the price problem. The Buffalo Groupe data suggests the industry should be solving the space problem.

What does a space-first product strategy look like? It looks like products designed around the constraints of small rooms rather than the constraints of small budgets:

• Ceiling-mounted or side-mounted units that don’t need ball flight space (Uneekor Eye Mini, Square Golf, Protee VX are moving in this direction)
• Nets and enclosures that pack down to the size of a duffel bag (Spornia, Rukket, some portable net options)
• Launch monitors that work in 8-foot ceilings without requiring driver swing compromises
• Simulator packages that can be set up and taken down in under 5 minutes
• Sub-$1,000 total builds that work in a 10x12 spare bedroom, not just a 15x21 garage

Some of these products exist. The Square Golf launch monitor is interesting precisely because it’s a camera-based unit at a radar-based price — it works in tight indoor spaces the way a Garmin R10 can’t. The Uneekor Eye Mini Lite takes the same approach at a higher price tier. But the marketing around these products still emphasizes price (“now more affordable than ever”) when it should emphasize space (“fits in rooms radar units can’t touch”).

What the 70/6 gap means for buyers

If you’re one of the 94% who doesn’t own a simulator and you’ve told yourself the reason is money — reconsider.

The budget you need is lower than you think. A functional setup with club data, GSPro compatibility, and an enclosure starts around $1,500. A barebones net + mat + launch monitor starts around $700. The Garmin R10 package I mentioned above — the whole thing — costs less than a new driver.

The real question is whether you have the room.

Here’s a quick self-test. Stand where you would hit. Take your driver. Make a practice swing. If you can swing without hitting the ceiling, a light fixture, or a wall, you have enough space for at least a net-based setup. If you can’t, you need a shorter club, a more compact swing, or a different room.

For the space-constrained buyer, the formula is: camera-based launch monitor + portable net + roll-up mat. That combo fits in an 8-foot ceiling, an 8x10 spare bedroom, or a corner of a living room. It’s not as immersive as a full enclosure with a projector, but it delivers real swing data and real improvement — and it fits in spaces the traditional formula can’t.

A market waiting for someone to build the right product

The 70/6 problem is a market signal. 70% of avid golfers have tried the product category. They know what a simulator does. They’ve hit balls on one. They liked it. They just don’t own one.

The bottleneck is not awareness. It’s not desire. It’s not price. It’s physical — they don’t have a room that fits the standard formula.

The company that figures out the compact home sim — a product that works in a 9x9x8 space, packs down to a closet, and delivers real data without compromise — will own the next wave of home golf. Right now, nobody has cracked it. The pieces exist (small launch monitors, portable nets, compact projectors), but nobody has assembled them into a single product that solves for space first and price second.

Until someone does, the 70/6 gap will persist. Not because simulators are too expensive. Because they’re too big.

Go measure your garage. That’s the first step. Not your budget. Your ceiling height. The industry has been telling you the barrier is money. The data says otherwise.