Public Tennis Courts In Southern California Are Becoming Less Public

Public tennis courts were built to be shared community spaces. In much of Southern California, however, they are increasingly being used as revenue platforms—controlled during the week by elite academies and on the weekends by tournament directors who often run those same academies.

The effect is a two-step squeeze that prices the public out of public tennis.

On weekdays, prime after-school and early-evening hours at park courts are routinely locked up by elite junior academies. These programs charge premium prices while operating on publicly owned land, benefiting from low fixed costs and guaranteed access. Elite training has a place in tennis, but public parks were never intended to function as private high-performance centers for a small subset of players. When that happens, recreational players, families, seniors, and working adults are pushed to the margins—or pushed out entirely.

On weekends, the same courts are often taken over again, this time by junior tournaments run by directors who are frequently affiliated with the academies themselves. Entire parks can be unavailable for days at a time. Free play disappears. Leagues scramble for space. The public pays tournament entry fees on top of already rising lesson and court costs.

None of this is necessary. Southern California has thousands of tennis courts, including many at public high schools that sit vacant on weekends and during school breaks. Those courts are publicly funded, playable, and well suited for tournament use. But using them requires coordination with school districts and a willingness to spread events across multiple sites. Concentrating everything in a single park is easier—and more profitable. Scarcity justifies higher fees.

This weekday-weekend model manufactures congestion and monetizes it. Elite academies benefit from exclusive weekday access. Tournament operators benefit from weekend monopolies. The broader tennis community pays more for less.

That dissatisfaction is no longer quiet. In Los Angeles County, community members have circulated petitions calling for changes to how public tennis courts are operated, with particular focus on iTennis, which manages multiple county park facilities. The petitions reflect a growing concern that current operating models prioritize revenue efficiency over public access, transparency, and affordability.

Whatever one thinks of the specific operator, the message is clear: the status quo is not working for a large segment of the tennis community.

The solution is not radical. Elite academies should not be based in public parks. High-performance training belongs in private facilities or purpose-built centers, not on courts meant to serve the entire community. Public parks should prioritize open play, affordable instruction, leagues, and inclusive programming.

Similarly, junior tournaments should be required—or at least strongly incentivized—to use high school courts for weekend play. Doing so would immediately relieve pressure on park facilities, preserve access for recreational players, and make better use of existing public infrastructure. Other sports do this routinely. Tennis has simply failed to insist on it.

Governing bodies and public agencies bear responsibility here. Organizations charged with growing the game should not be reinforcing a system that rewards exclusivity and congestion. Public courts cannot remain accessible if they are treated as private assets during the week and commercial venues on the weekend.

This matters beyond tennis scheduling. When courts feel unavailable, cities respond by converting tennis courts to pickleball to address demand conflicts. Tennis is not losing courts because interest has faded; it is losing courts because access has been poorly managed.

Southern California has the courts, the climate, and the participation to support tennis at every level. But that requires a reset in priorities: public parks for the public, elite training elsewhere, and tournaments distributed across all available courts.

Until that happens, the community will keep paying more for less—and tennis will keep shrinking from the middle out.