Everyone Knows that College Tennis Is Failing American Players

College tennis likes to present itself as healthy. The level of play is high. Lineups are deep. Results are competitive. But that surface success hides a system that increasingly fails American players—and quietly frustrates the people inside it.

This is not an accident. It is the result of choices.

A Closed Door for American Players

Men’s Division I college tennis is now dominated by international players. Roughly 60–65% of D-I men’s rosters are foreign, with many top programs fielding lineups that are overwhelmingly international. D-I women’s teams are not far behind.

This is not a complaint about international athletes. College sports have always been global. But tennis has crossed a threshold where domestic players—especially American boys—are systematically crowded out before they ever reach campus.

The incentives explain why. Tennis is a low-roster sport. Coaches are under pressure to win immediately. International recruits tend to arrive older, battle-tested, and closer to their ceiling. In the NIL era, with transfers normalized and development devalued, certainty wins.

American boys, especially late developers, lose.

The message to families is clear: there is no reliable college pathway. Participation responds accordingly.

NIL Didn’t Help—It Hardened the Market

The NIL era was supposed to empower athletes. In tennis, it has mostly accelerated a transactional model that already existed. Coaches recruit for immediate impact, not long-term development. Players want to play, and not sit on the bench. Rosters churn. Patience disappears.

That may help programs survive year to year. It does nothing to sustain a domestic pipeline.

And it leaves American juniors—rationally—wondering why they should stay in the sport through high school.

The Bigger Miss Is on the Girls’ Side

If men’s college tennis reflects exclusion, women’s college tennis reflects neglect.

Women have real opportunity in college tennis—far beyond scholarships. Tennis can provide preferred admissions, roster stability, and access to elite academic institutions. In many cases, it is one of the strongest admissions advantages available to female applicants.

Yet that reality is barely communicated.

Girls leave tennis in large numbers when they reach high school. Not because they lack ability, but because they do not see a reward worth the cost. Other youth sports have figured this out. They sell college opportunity relentlessly. Tennis does not.

What makes this especially frustrating is how attainable many women’s college roster spots actually are—particularly outside Division I.

At elite Division III institutions, tennis often functions less as a competitive arms race and more as a persistence filter. In plain terms: for many programs, the key qualification is staying in the sport long enough.

If more junior girls could see the actual level of play at strong academic D-III schools, many would realize that college tennis is not about being exceptional. It is about being durable.

Depth Raises the Level

This misunderstanding creates a self-inflicted wound. Because so many girls quit early, college programs recruit from a shrinking pool. Competitive standards adjust downward—not by design, but by necessity.

The fix is obvious. If more girls stayed in tennis, those roster spots would become more competitive, not less. Depth drives quality. Internal competition raises standards across practices, lineups, and divisions.

Women’s college tennis does not suffer from too much access. It suffers from too little retention.

Coaches Don’t Like This Either

This dysfunction is not popular with college coaches.

Today’s tennis coach is no longer primarily a coach. They are a recruiter, a fundraiser, a compliance manager, and—thanks to NIL—a roster churn specialist. Development has been replaced by constant replacement.

Many coaches would prefer continuity, domestic depth, and players with longer arcs. Instead, the system forces short-term optimization. International recruiting becomes a necessity, not a preference.

A healthier pipeline would not just benefit players. It would make college coaching a developmental profession again.

Participation Isn’t the Problem—Retention Is

Tennis participation in the U.S. is at historic highs, with more than 25 million Americans playing. The sport is not short on interest.

It is short on believable pathways.

Some organizations understand this. Universal Tennis Rating has leaned into college showcases and exposure because clarity keeps families engaged.

The United States Tennis Association has done the opposite—doubling down on a professional-development narrative that applies to a fraction of one percent of players while under-selling the college opportunities that could retain thousands.

This Is a Choice

College tennis is not failing because the level is too high. It is failing because incentives are misaligned.

If American tennis wants participation to mean something long-term, the priorities must change:

• College—not the pros—must be presented as the primary destination.

• Women’s college opportunity must be marketed honestly and aggressively.

• Domestic development must stop being sacrificed for short-term certainty.

  
  

Until then, college tennis will continue to look strong while quietly eroding the very base it depends on.

That is not sustainable. And everyone involved knows it.