Wilson · Golf Balls & Equipment
Wilson Staff Model Golf Glove
Golf glove likely lower concern. Treatment composition unclear.
Wilson Staff golf gloves use leather and synthetic materials with water-resistant treatment. The brand discloses nothing about PFAS, and treatment chemistry is unknown but typical water-repellent coating finishes may contain PFAS.
The better-graded swap
Honma
HONMA GOLF D1 2022 GOLF Ball
85/100 safety
Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned Excellent.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
Leather palm, synthetic backing with water-resistant treatment
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
What’s concerning
Category baseline
The starting point for this type of product, before anything specific to this product is counted.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement from the brand about PFAS in this product.
Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment
Water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.
water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) composition
Water-resistant treatment on synthetic backing is unspecified; may contain fluorinated PFAS or non-fluorinated water-repellent coating depending on manufacturing batch. Composition is not disclosed by Wilson or most golf-glove makers. Direct skin contact during use is moderate but gloves are removed promptly after play.
What’s reassuring
Leather tanning and dyes
No documented hazards specific to Wilson Staff Model leather sourcing or finishing. Leather is a finished material with minimal leaching risk after curing. Standard chromium or vegetable tanning used in premium golf gloves does not present acute safety concern in this form.
Synthetic backing off-gassing (polyester/nylon)
Polyester and nylon backing pose minimal VOC risk under normal storage and use. Golf gloves are not heated, worn continuously, or in enclosed spaces for extended periods, limiting volatile emission exposure.
Azo dyes in leather or synthetic materials
No recalls or regulatory findings have flagged azo-dye use in Wilson golf gloves. Premium leather-glove suppliers typically avoid restricted azo compounds, though third-party testing is not published for this product.
Skin sensitization or irritation from treatment residue
No documented cases of dermatological reaction to Wilson Staff Model gloves are recorded. Brief contact during sports use and quick removal minimize exposure window; allergic risk is low but formaldehyde-based water-repellent coating finishes can theoretically sensitize with prolonged contact.
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Wilson Staff Model gloves combine a leather palm (usually goat or sheep leather) with synthetic backing, typically polyester or nylon. The water-resistant treatment applied to maintain grip in wet conditions is the least transparent component; these finishes often include water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) chemistry, which may contain fluorinated compounds (PFAS) or non-fluorinated alternatives depending on manufacturing date and supplier. Leather itself carries minimal chemical hazard in finished form, but the dyes and tanning agents used in production do require scrutiny at the source.
The brand's record and disclosure
Wilson (owned by Amer Sports, now True Brands) has not issued public statements on PFAS use in sports apparel or disclosed water-treatment chemistries for golf gloves. The brand does not hold major certifications (Bluesign, GOTS, OEKO-TEX) for this product category, limiting third-party chemical verification. No recalls or documented safety incidents for Wilson golf gloves have been recorded in public databases. Lack of transparency on water-repellent coating composition is typical for the sporting goods industry but leaves treatment content unconfirmed.
How it compares in its category
Golf gloves occupy a narrow niche within apparel; most competitors (Titleist, FootJoy, Callaway) use identical or near-identical leather-synthetic constructions with comparable water-resistant finishes. Few brands disclose water-repellent coating chemistry openly. Gloves represent lower dermal exposure risk than base layers or prolonged-contact apparel because they are removed after use and exposure time is brief. This product sits in the industry mainstream with respect to transparency and hazard profile.
If you buy it
Store gloves in a dry place and allow them to air-dry naturally after wet rounds; avoid direct heat or machine washing, which can degrade the water-resistant finish prematurely and potentially release coated particles. Replace when the palm becomes slick or leather shows deep cracking, typically after 10-20 rounds of heavy use. Wash hands after removing if concerned about residual treatment; no evidence of acute skin hazard exists, but this is precautionary. Rotate multiple gloves if possible to extend lifespan and reduce cumulative exposure to any single treated surface.
What we don’t know
- Basis
- Model estimate, 62% confidence, not a lab result
- Lab test
- None on record for this exact product
- Brand statement
- Wilson has made none
Formulations change between production runs, so check the current label. How we grade.
Better-graded alternatives in Golf Balls & Equipment
Vice Golf
Vice Drip Golf Balls
synthetic polymer core with urethane/elastomer cover
PFAS unlikely. Brand silent on composition details.
⚠Brand says nothing about PFAS
Bridgestone
Men's Pair Golf Gloves
Leather, synthetic leather, or textile blend
Chromium in leather tanning residue
Limited concern
Azo dyes in colored leather or synthetic components
Limited concern
Heavy metals
Limited concern
Lower PFAS concern, but brand provides no transparency.
⚠Brand says nothing about PFAS
Bridgestone
Lady Golf Glove
Synthetic leather or leather with standard stitching
Formaldehyde / VOCs
Limited concern
Microplastic shedding from synthetic leather
Limited concern
Golf glove with typical materials, lower concern profile.
⚠Brand says nothing about PFAS
More golf balls & equipment 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.