Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Repurchase Commitments In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve accordingly. When a potential loss reserve is recorded it is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected. The total amount financed under the floor financing programs with repurchase obligations was $79,599 and $161,356 as of June 30, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of sales in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. For fiscal year 2021, the Company did not repurchase any boats under its repurchase agreements. For fiscal year 2020, the Company repurchased two units from a lender of one of its former dealers and those units were subsequently resold in fiscal year 2020 above their cost and at minimal margin loss. For fiscal year 2019, the Company repurchased eight units from a lender of two of its former dealers and those units were subsequently resold in fiscal year 2020 above their cost and at minimal margin loss. Accordingly, the Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of June 30, 2021 and 2020, respectively. The Company has collateralized receivables financing arrangements with a third-party floor plan financing provider for European dealers. Under terms of these arrangements, the Company transfers the right to collect a trade receivable to the financing provider in exchange for cash but agrees to repurchase the receivable if the dealer defaults. Since the transfer of the receivable to the financing provider does not meet the conditions for a sale under ASC Topic 860, Transfers and Servicing, the Company continues to report the transferred trade receivable in other current assets with an offsetting balance recorded as a secured obligation in accrued expenses in the Company's consolidated balance sheets. As of June 30, 2021 and 2020, the Company had financing receivables of $95 and $375, respectively, recorded in other current assets and accrued expenses related to these arrangements. Contingencies Product Liability The Company is engaged in a business that exposes it to claims for product liability and warranty claims in the event the Company’s products actually or allegedly fail to perform as expected or the use of the Company’s products results, or is alleged to result, in property damage, personal injury or death. Although the Company maintains product and general liability insurance of the types and in the amounts that the Company believes are customary for the industry, the Company is not fully insured against all such potential claims. The Company may have the ability to refer claims to its suppliers and their insurers to pay the costs associated with any claims arising from the suppliers’ products. The Company’s insurance covers such claims that are not adequately covered by a supplier’s insurance and provides for excess secondary coverage above the limits provided by the Company’s suppliers. The Company may experience legal claims in excess of its insurance coverage or claims that are not covered by insurance, either of which could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse determination of material product liability and warranty claims made against the Company could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and harm its reputation. In addition, if any of the Company products are, or are alleged to be, defective, the Company may be required to participate in a recall of that product if the defect or alleged defect relates to safety. These and other claims that the Company faces could be costly to the Company and require substantial management attention. Refer to Note 9 for discussion of warranty claims. The Company insures against product liability claims and, except as disclosed below, believes there are no material product liability claims as of June 30, 2021 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Litigation Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. If the assessment of a contingency deemed to be both probable and reasonably estimable involves a range of possible losses, the amount within the range that appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range would be accrued. When no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount in the range is accrued even though the minimum amount in the range is not necessarily the amount of loss that will be ultimately determined. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below, management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at June 30, 2021 or June 30, 2020 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal Proceedings On January 12, 2018, the Company filed suit against Skier’s Choice, Inc., or "Skier’s Choice," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company's complaint alleges Skier’s Choice’s infringement of three utility patents - U.S. Patent Nos. 9,260,161, 8,578,873, and 9,199,695 - related to wake surfing technology. Skier’s Choice denied liability arising from the causes of action alleged in the Company's complaint and filed counterclaims alleging invalidity of the asserted patents. On June 19, 2019, the Company filed a second action against Skier’s Choice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company’s complaint alleges Skier’s Choice’s surf systems on its Moomba and Supra lines of boats infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,322,777, a patent related to wake surfing technology. Skier’s Choice denied liability arising from the causes of action alleged in the Company's complaint and filed counterclaims alleging invalidity of the asserted patents. On June 27, 2019, Skier’s Choice filed a motion to consolidate these two actions, and to continue deadlines in the earlier case for nine months, which the Company opposed. On August 22, 2019, the motion for consolidation was referred by Judge Thomas Varlan to Magistrate Judge Bruce Guyton, and the two cases were stayed pending resolution of that motion. On November 27, 2019, Judge Guyton ordered the two cases to be consolidated. On January 7, 2020, the consolidated cases were reassigned to Judge Jon McCalla. On January 23, 2020, Judge McCalla issued a Scheduling Order, scheduling trial on the consolidated cases to begin on September 29, 2020. On July 23, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss its allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,199,695, which Skier’s Choice opposed. On August 25, 2020, Judge McCalla issued a claim construction order and set a scheduling conference for August 27, 2020, for purposes of resetting the pretrial calendar and trial dates. On September 11, 2020, the Court issued a Scheduling Order resetting the trial for the consolidated cases to begin on January 25, 2021. On December 11, 2020, the Court issued an Order resetting the trial for the consolidated cases to begin on May 10, 2021. During the trial, the Court found that Skier’s Choice did not infringe one claim of the ’873 Patent, and also found that Skier’s Choice did infringe one claim of the ’777 Patent. On May 21, 2021, a jury returned a verdict finding that Skier’s Choice did not infringe three claims from the ’777 and ’161 Patents, and also found four claims from the ’777 and ’161 Patents to be invalid. Malibu did not pursue an appeal of the verdict. On June 4, 2021, Skier’s Choice filed a motion seeking an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Malibu opposed Skier’s Choice’s motion. The Company is a defendant in a product liability case alleging defective product design and failure to warn. The case is Stephen Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder Individually, as Administrators of the Estate of Ryan Paul Batchelder, deceased, etc., et al Plaintiffs, v. Malibu Boats, LLC, f/k/a Malibu Boats, Inc.; Malibu Boats West, Inc., et al, Defendants, In the Superior Court of Rabun County, Georgia, Civil Action Case No. 2016-CV-0114-C. The case involves a personal injury accident involving the propeller of a boat manufactured by the Company. Plaintiffs seek damages, including economic and punitive damages, alleging that the accident was caused by a design defect and a failure to warn. The Company maintains product liability insurance that is applicable to this case. The complaint was initially filed in the Superior Court of Rabun County, Georgia on May 9, 2016. The trial commenced on August 16, 2021 and is continuing as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Company believes that the allegations in the case are unfounded and denies that there was a design defect or that any defect in the boat was a legal cause of the injury. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss.