Country Club Intel
The Annual Register
Country Club Intel
For private-club executive search firms

You know the range. Make the board believe it.

Named peer clubs and what each reported paying the seat, from what private clubs filed with the IRS, every figure cited to the club’s own return.

Apply and send a live searchHow it works
private clubs on record
2,256
officers and real dollars, not averages
Named
coverage note on a live search, within two business days
Free
What a report shows · live from the filings
General Manager pay, by club revenue
$5M–$10M revenue$208,227.5
320 GMs · 313 clubs
$10M–$25M revenue$318,715
313 GMs · 311 clubs
$25M+ revenue$552,606.5
46 GMs · 46 clubs
Median reportable pay (Form 990 Part VII, columns D + E), each club’s latest filing. A Brief narrows this to the peer clubs you approve for your search and names them.

What you get, and what it costs

Free first · paid per search · no subscription
  • Free

    A coverage note on your live search

    Free. Send the club and the role; within two business days you get the named peer clubs we'd compare it with and how many of them report pay for that seat. You see how deep the evidence goes before anything is bought.

  • $1,000 per search

    The Compensation Brief

    $1,000 per search. The club against peer clubs you approve by name, for the role you're filling, every figure cited to the club's own return. If fewer than eight peers report pay for the seat, the coverage note says so and we don't sell it.

  • Free in beta

    Research Access

    By application, free during the beta. Search named officers across clubs and roles, with each person's reported pay history as filed. Useful for checking what a candidate's club reported paying them, a year or more back.

Start with the coverage note on one search you’re running. If the peer set is thin, it says so, and we don’t sell you a Brief.

Apply and send a live search

You know the range. Does the board?

the moment that costs searches

Every club search turns on one number: what should this seat pay? You’ve placed enough executives to know it cold. But your judgment isn’t evidence — and the people you answer to are volunteers on a search committee who’ve never run a comp study in their lives, and who are spending the membership’s money.

When one of them pushes back — “that seems high” — “trust me” isn’t an answer. The survey report is a year old, generic to the club, and locked behind a membership half the room doesn’t have. So the search stalls, or your recommendation gets talked down, in a room where you’re supposed to be the expert.

Your recommendation deserves an evidence base that a skeptic can check for themselves.

A committee pushes back on the comp recommendation, and there’s nothing to point to.
A survey’s peer set doesn’t match the club the search is for.
Pulling 990s by hand for every search takes hours.
A candidate’s expectations need checking against what their club reported.
The difference

A survey tells the board an average. The public record tells them the truth — and lets them check it.

The survey report
  • Self-reported by the clubs that opt into a survey
  • Gated behind CMAA membership or a subscription
  • Published once a year, from the clubs that took part
  • An anonymized average, never this club or these peers
  • Built for the club to benchmark itself, not for you
The public record, structured
  • Public record — what clubs actually told the IRS
  • Every 501(c)(7) club we identify that files a 990, not just survey volunteers
  • Named officers and real dollars, not an average
  • Peer clubs chosen for your search, named, and approved by you
  • Verifiable by a skeptical board member on the spot
What the data is

Officer compensation exactly as each club reported it on its Form 990: the named officer, their reportable pay (Part VII columns D and E), the club’s revenue and peers. Every figure is cited to the filing it came from. A board member can pull the same return and see the same number. That is the whole point.

What it isn’t

It isn’t the full negotiated package — housing, a car, dues, a bonus formula live in a contract, not a filing — and it’s as-filed, so the freshest figures run a year or so behind. We never impute what isn’t there. It’s the verifiable anchor you build the conversation on, not a replacement for your judgment.

How it works

three steps · nothing is charged until step 3
  1. 01Send a club and a role.Apply for Research Access and name a live search, or tell us after you’re approved. Nothing to learn and no data to submit.
  2. 02Get the coverage note.Within two business days: the named peer clubs we’d compare it with and how many report pay for the seat. Free.
  3. 03Approve the peers, get the Brief.Add or remove clubs by name, then pay $1,000. The target is three business days after scope confirmation and payment, every figure cited.

Straight answers

the questions a good recruiter asks
I already know the comp ranges from experience. Why would I need this?+

You probably do — you've placed enough GMs to carry the range in your head. This isn't for you; it's for the moment the board doesn't believe you. It's the evidence layer behind your recommendation: when a committee member pushes back, you hand them a number they can verify in the public record instead of asking them to trust your gut.

Isn't 990 data old, or missing the real package?+

It's the public anchor, and we show it straight. It's as-filed, a year or more behind, and it reports what the club paid the people it was required to name — reportable pay, including any bonus paid that year — not the housing, car, or deferred and benefit amounts that sit elsewhere in a package. We never impute what isn't there. Used for what it's good at — a verifiable, peer-set benchmark to anchor and defend a number — it's the strongest evidence in the room. We're upfront about the rest.

How is this different from the CMAA / Club Benchmarking report?+

Those are survey-based, self-reported, gated to members, published annually, and designed for a club to benchmark itself. Ours is public record, covers every club in our index that files a 990 (not just survey participants), names the officer, filters to your specific search, and — the part that matters in a boardroom — is independently verifiable by anyone. Different source, different job.

CFO and Controller searches are the hardest to benchmark. Does this help?+

Often, yes. Both appear on the 990 by name: CFOs usually as officers, Controllers mostly among the highest-paid employees a club must list once they earn over $100,000. That covers the senior finance hires a search is usually for; more junior finance staff fall below the reporting threshold. The free coverage note shows how many peer clubs report the seat before you buy anything.

What does it cost?+

The coverage note is free. A Compensation Brief is $1,000 per search, and you approve the peer list, with its coverage, before you pay anything. There's no subscription today. Research Access is free during the beta, by application.

Is it branded to our firm?+

Not today. Briefs carry Country Club Intel's name and cite every figure to the club's own return, so a committee can check it. We'd like to hear whether your firm would want its own branding.

Put the public record behind your number. Free, before anything is bought.

Send one search you’re running: the peer clubs we’d use and how many report pay for the seat. A person reads every application and replies within two business days.

Apply and send a live search