Fewer Senior Tennis Tourneys, But There Is More to the Story

Recent reporting shows that the USTA organization generated $623.8 million in revenue in its last reported fiscal year while holding near-record cash reserves. That is wonderful, but at the same time, people who have made a living from the sport, as well as those who have enjoyed recreational or senior tennis, are very concerned they will have less and less access to tennis courts in the future. For many of them, longtime USTA members, they are concerned that this new wealth isn't being allocated to address their needs.

One group of players that has been significantly impacted is the 60-plus senior players. That group watched tennis's popularity explode in the early 70s and stay strong for decades. It was made up of people who just enjoyed picking up their racket and heading off to their tennis venue to enjoy the sport. In those expanding years, easy access and recreational play made the game wonderful for baby boomers and their children. That age group also enjoyed the great senior tournaments that were so popular, but sadly have been slowly eliminated.

Once a thriving, popular venue for tennis, senior tournaments have taken a real hit over the last 20 years. The four major national events are still in play, but local senior events have diminished dramatically. Why is this a concern? Easy answer: take away any event that tennis players enjoy, and it’s just another step away from universal growth. But there’s even a deeper concern.

Before addressing that last statement, note that most senior play has shifted to adult team play. The USTA has pushed these programs while cutting back support and promotion for local senior tournaments. The hope is that once-committed senior players will migrate to Adult League play, but that’s not always the case; for some seniors, it just doesn't work because of time commitments or a preference not to be part of any team competition.

So why the push for Adult League play? Is this the result of developing programs that help players find others to play with? Or is it the diminishing services that the USTA had to provide for those tournaments? Or could it be the income these leagues produce for the USTA?

That last factor might be the most interesting. The USTA organization refers to Adult Leagues as a “Cash Cow.” What was once a seasonal event now takes place year-round. This affects two characteristics: first, as mentioned, the diminishing impact on senior tournaments, and second, the impact on some facilities’ ability to still have court time for their own more casual social events. The fact is, the USTA has found a way to be part of the tennis club’s industry profits without spending a cent on any investment in the actual facilities. None of that money goes towards the repair or maintenance of the tennis courts, nor is there any compensation for those facility staff members who play an important role in organizing and supervising their teams.

This dynamic has not gone unnoticed by those investing in private clubs. They see two issues here: first, the fact that the USTA, and not the facilities, is receiving the bulk of the revenue from these leagues. Second, their private club may now have to compete with several non-profit tennis facilities, such as free public courts. It can’t be ignored that in areas where all facilities are competing for new members, having a very popular program available to facilities that do not require the same financial membership requirements could be perceived as unfair competition.

The USTA's response to these questions would be that providing this league play for these facilities does the opposite. It provides a venue for private clubs that can help attract and retain members, especially when team events build bonds with other members and encourage loyalty to the facility. All very true and have great merit, but those merits come up short when weighed against the aforementioned financial and labor inequity issues.

Here are some of the numbers concerning what percentage of a facility is open to non-members playing in a USTA Adult league term. Private and Member-Owned Equity Clubs make up about 25%–35% of venues. A significant portion of strict, high-end private clubs require full club membership to play on their senior league teams. They do this to protect court access for dues-paying members. However, many have shifted toward allowing non-members to play by charging a non-member league fee (ranging from $50 to $150 per season) or a per-match guest fee to help captains fill rosters. It should also be mentioned that many membership-owned clubs see having winning teams as a plus for the image of their club, so much so that some clubs take on an active program of recruiting to bolster their chances of going further in the season…maybe even a national championship.

It’s a little different story with Commercial Fitness & Tennis Centers. Their participation is about 30%–40% in adult league play. Large commercial tennis operators frequently enforce strict membership-only rules. To legally play on a senior league team based out of their facility, you must hold an active monthly or annual membership with the club.

There’s another sticky point. The commonly heard response to growing the game of tennis is that it should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford it. No question, except one very important perspective to point out…if investors leave the industry because of reduced profits, as well as the very real possibility of using their real estate for a more profitable venture than tennis facilities will provide, that will mean less access across the board. This lack of access will likely impact a broader income level and impact growth and participation. The few tennis facilities that will survive the drop in tennis participation will most likely have a business plan that will focus on high-income customers. Free public facilities, which are supposed to be added as a result of dramatic profits from the US Open and Adult league play, will also have the same problems…cost and availability of land. The result will be a loss of access for many young tennis players just getting started with their new independent careers, and the many others who have fixed incomes. Not to mention the many juniors whose parents can afford a club membership, let alone pay for coaching. And then, in turn, less demand for tennis instructors…it’s one domino knocking over another.

Here’s the irony of this transition…we have fought for some time for tennis to be available to all income levels, but this move may have broadened the range of those who can no longer afford the sport. It’s a simple equation: you can’t ‘Grow the Game' unless you also grow access, for EVERYONE.

The decline in adult/senior tournaments should be a red flag. The question is: are the USTA adult leagues truly providing a service that will grow the game? Or is it fostering growth within a selected sector or players? Or is it about the money? Look what happened to the many junior leagues that were USTA-sponsored and then disappeared. The UTR wasn’t just an add-on to the world of tennis; it was a program that recognized an opportunity as a result of a demand that was not being met, and then filled it. It would be a healthy investment for the USTA to find the answers to these questions rather than leave an image for the rest of the tennis world to speculate about why there is this vast void in access and opportunities for everyone or anyone to play tennis.