FootJoy · Golf Balls & Golf Gloves
FootJoy Golf RainGrip Gloves
RainGrip implies water-repellent coating treatment; FootJoy discloses nothing about PFAS.
Golf gloves marketed for water repellency likely use water-repellent coating, a common PFAS application. FootJoy provides no transparency on chemical composition or PFAS avoidance.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
Synthetic leather or microfiber with water-repellent treatment
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
Why this grade
Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment
water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.
Category baseline
clothing is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
FootJoy RainGrip gloves use synthetic leather or microfiber engineered for grip and water resistance. The water-repellent finish almost certainly relies on fluorinated compounds (PFAS-class treatments) to achieve durability and performance. Synthetic microfiber and PU-coated leather bases themselves are relatively stable, but the applied water-repellent coating is the primary chemical concern. These materials shed microfibers with wear and washing, though glove use generates minimal direct skin contact compared to apparel worn for hours.
The brand's record and disclosure
FootJoy (Acushnet Company) does not publicly disclose PFAS content or water-repellent coating chemistry for any golf product line, including RainGrip. The brand has no published statements on PFAS phase-out commitments or safer alternatives. No major recalls or regulatory actions specific to FootJoy gloves for chemical hazards are on record. The silence is notable given competitor transparency trends in athletic apparel.
How it compares in its category
Golf gloves are a niche apparel category with minimal third-party testing or certification standards for chemical content. Compared to mainstream sports gloves, golf gloves see intermittent skin contact (hands only) and are washed less frequently, reducing exposure pathways. Unbranded or budget microfiber gloves often lack quality control, making established brands marginally safer. PFAS-free alternatives are not marketed in golf specifically, though leather or untreated synthetic options exist with trade-offs in grip or durability.
If you buy it
Wear gloves dry; avoid prolonged water immersion or wringing, which can accelerate coating degradation and microfiber shedding. Machine wash in cool water sparingly, as hot water and frequent laundering degrade synthetic coatings faster. Replace gloves when grip deteriorates, seams fray, or coating visibly peels (typically 1-3 seasons of heavy use). Store in a cool, dry place to extend coating life and minimize off-gassing of volatile residues.
Beyond PFAS: other things we checked
Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”
Fluorinated water-repellent (water-repellent coating) treatment / PFAS compounds
RainGrip designation strongly implies fluorochemical water-repellent coating. FootJoy provides no ingredient disclosure. PFAS compounds in textiles persist and can migrate onto skin, particularly during sweating or wet conditions. Handled separately per brief, but is primary chemical concern.
Azo dyes or colorant heavy metals
No recalls or reports of cadmium, lead, or restricted azo dyes in FootJoy gloves. Synthetic leather and microfiber accept dyes readily, but major golf manufacturers generally comply with textile safety standards. No specific testing data available for this product.
Formaldehyde resins in fabric finishing
Microfiber and PU-coated leather may use formaldehyde-based resins for shape-holding or water resistance. FootJoy does not disclose resin chemistry. Formaldehyde off-gassing is typically minimal in gloves due to small surface area and intermittent wear, but is not ruled out.
Microfiber shedding and inhalation
Synthetic microfiber gloves shed fibers with repeated use and washing. Inhaled particles are largely cleared by respiratory tract, but long-term micro-plastic burden in lungs is not fully understood. Glove use generates lower shedding than garments but is not negligible with frequent wear.
Contact dermatitis from coating or dye residues
Unreacted monomers or finish chemicals can trigger irritation in sensitive users. FootJoy does not publish patch-test data or allergen disclosures. Reports of irritation are sparse but not absent in golf forums; risk is individual.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 45% confidence. It is not a lab result.
No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.
The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.
Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.
Safer alternatives in Golf Balls & Golf Gloves
Bridgestone
Men's Pair Golf Gloves
Leather, synthetic leather, or textile blend
Lower PFAS concern, but brand provides no transparency.
⚠Risky category by default
Bridgestone
Soft Grip Golf Glove
Leather, synthetic grip material, textiles
Lower concern. Golf glove without known waterproofing or Teflon-family coating treatment.
⚠Risky category by default
Bridgestone
Lady Golf Glove
Synthetic leather or leather with standard stitching
Golf glove with typical materials, lower concern profile.
⚠Risky category by default
More golf balls & golf gloves grades
How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.