Junior Tennis Has a Points Problem, and It’s Shrinking the Game

Southern California has one of the deepest junior tennis pools in the country. The climate is ideal, the court inventory is massive, and the level of play—especially at the top—is strong.

And yet junior tennis here is increasingly distorted by an unhealthy obsession with points and rankings.

For many players and parents, tournaments are chosen not for the quality of competition but for the number of points on offer. Families travel hours—or fly out of state—for marginal ranking gains, even though equally strong or stronger competition exists locally. That pressure drives up costs, disrupts school and family life, and quietly pushes many capable players out of the sport.

This is not making tennis better. It is making it smaller.

Southern California does not need constant travel to produce elite competition. The depth here is extraordinary. In most age groups, strong local events offer more meaningful matches than lightly attended “high-point” tournaments elsewhere. Repeated competition against a deep local field develops players far more effectively than chasing rankings across regions.

When points become the organizing principle, the player pool shrinks. Families without the time or resources to travel opt out—not because their children lack ability, but because the system demands too much. Less participation means less depth, and less depth ultimately hurts even the strongest players.

One of the biggest structural gaps is the lack of organized elite-level match play outside tournaments. The USTA Southern California operates Area Training Centers, but their value should not be measured by coaching. Southern California has no shortage of coaches claiming to be “elite,” and players attending these centers already have solid instruction.

What is missing is organized, competitive match play.

These centers should function primarily as practice-based competition hubs, bringing strong players together regularly to play meaningful matches—without points, travel, or elimination pressure. That model would keep players local, reduce costs, increase match volume, and refocus development on performance rather than ranking.

There is also a persistent misconception that staying local means settling for less. In Southern California, the opposite is often true. Playing more often against strong local opponents builds resilience, adaptability, and confidence—while keeping tennis affordable and enjoyable.

This is not a talent problem. It is a participation problem driven by incentives.

If Southern California wants to grow its tennis base, the priorities are clear: de-emphasize points as the primary motivator, promote deep local competition, and use training centers to organize elite match play—not more coaching.

The courts are here. The players are here. The competition is here.

The system just needs to stop pushing people away.