Tennis Is Growing. Now We Need to Build More American Players.

American tennis is in a strange position. The sport is growing, participation is up, and courts are busier than they have been in years. But the competitive junior pipeline still feels too narrow, too expensive, too rankings-driven, and too focused on a relatively small number of national events.

That matters because the future of American tennis will not be determined only by how many people try the sport. It will be determined by how many young players stay in the sport, learn to compete, develop over time, and become strong enough to fill the many tennis opportunities that already exist, including college roster spots.

The USTA reported that tennis participation in the United States reached 27.3 million players in 2025, up 1.6 million from the prior year and up 54% since 2019. The same report noted that tennis now has 14.5 million core players, meaning players who played at least ten times during the year. That is real growth. It is good for the sport. But it also raises the next question: what is American tennis doing with that growth?

Right now, the answer is not clear enough.

The USTA’s 2025 participation report noted that adults age 35 and older drove nearly 95% of the sport’s growth, while youth participation, although improving, still trails its 2021 peak. That should be a major concern for anyone focused on the long-term health of the game. Adult participation can keep courts busy. But junior participation builds the future ecosystem of the sport: high school players, college players, teaching pros, volunteers, tournament directors, tennis parents, league captains, and lifelong players.

The problem is not that kids are uninterested in tennis. The problem is that the competitive pathway is too narrow for the number of players we need to develop.

The Points Trap

One of the most damaging features of USTA junior tennis is the way it makes certain parents and players obsessed with points.

The system teaches families to chase rankings, acceptance lists, and entry into national events. For the top players, that may make sense. But for most families, the points chase becomes the organizing principle of junior tennis. The question becomes: how do we get enough points to get into the next event?

That is the wrong question.

The better question is: is the player getting enough meaningful match play to improve?

A junior system should be built around development. Kids need repeated competitive experiences. They need to play different styles. They need to lose and play again. They need to learn how to handle pressure, adjust during a match, recover emotionally, and compete over time. None of that happens through a pathway that makes families feel like a handful of ranking events define a player’s future.

The national events themselves are much smaller than they feel. A draw of 256 players may sound large, but it is not large in relation to the number of kids in the country, the number of high school players, or the number of college opportunities available. The USTA Billie Jean King Girls’ 18s and 16s National Championships, for example, describes itself as bringing together nearly 400 of the best young players in the country across the two divisions. Older tournament schedules also reflect 256-player rounds in the 16s and 18s divisions.

Those are prestigious events. They matter. They should exist.

But they are not the sport.

A few hundred players across two age divisions is a very small slice of the American junior tennis population. Yet the culture of junior tennis often treats entry into those events as if it is the central measure of success. That narrows the imagination of families and players. It also narrows the development system.

American tennis does not need more families obsessing over scarce national draw spots. It needs more players getting better.

College Tennis Shows the Real Opportunity

The strongest evidence that the junior pipeline is too narrow is college tennis.

There are many more college tennis opportunities than most families understand. USTA’s college tennis page states that there are more than 1,100 women’s programs and more than 950 men’s programs across NCAA Division I, Division II, Division III, NAIA, and junior college tennis. That is a massive destination point for developing players.

College tennis should be one of the sport’s great selling points. A junior player does not need to win Kalamazoo, Billie Jean King at San Diego, Easter Bowl, or Clay Courts to have a meaningful tennis future. A player can become a strong high school player, a Division III player, a Division II player, an NAIA player, a junior college player, or a college club player. There are many levels of opportunity.

But the current pipeline does not produce enough American players ready to fill those opportunities.

That is why so many college roster spots are filled by international players. This should not be framed as criticism of international players. They are talented, motivated, and often better prepared for college competition. College coaches are trying to win. They recruit players who can help them win.

But the reality should force American tennis to ask a hard question: why is a country with 27.3 million tennis participants not producing enough college-ready American players to fill more of these roster spots?

The NCAA’s own data shows the scale of the issue. Among first-year Division I tennis student-athletes in 2022, international players made up 64.0% of men’s tennis and 61.4% of women’s tennis. In Division II, international players made up 62.6% of first-year men’s tennis players and 45.4% of first-year women’s tennis players.

Again, the point is not that international players should be excluded. The point is that American junior tennis should be producing more players capable of competing for those same spots.

If college coaches are importing players to fill rosters, that is market feedback. It tells us that the demand for competitive players exists. The roster opportunities exist. The missing piece is a broader domestic development pipeline.

The Pipeline Is Too Focused on Sorting, Not Developing

The current system is very good at sorting players. It identifies who has points, who gets into the national event, who is highly ranked, and who is already on the elite track.

But a strong national development system should do more than sort. It should create players.

That requires a different mindset. The goal should not be to determine, at age 12 or 14, which kids are already elite. The goal should be to dramatically expand the number of kids who are playing real matches, improving steadily, and staying in the sport long enough to become serious players.

This is where tournament format matters. Too many junior events provide too little match play. Single-elimination draws, short scoring formats, weak consolation structures, and limited back draws may be convenient for tournament directors, but they are not always best for player development.

A young player who loses one match and goes home has not received enough competitive value. A player who gets three or four matches against comparable players has a much better developmental experience. That player learns more, competes more, and has a better chance of staying engaged.

The USTA already recognizes the value of non-elimination formats at the entry level. USTA Junior Circuit events use non-elimination, round-robin formats designed to provide match experience in a tournament setting. That concept should not disappear as players advance. The principle should carry through the pathway: more matches, more meaningful competition, more chances to develop.

The system should reward development, not just point accumulation.

The Scarcity Culture Is Hurting the Sport

The obsession with points creates a scarcity culture. Families begin to believe that there are only a few meaningful events, only a few meaningful rankings, and only a few meaningful outcomes.

That is bad for players. It is also bad for tennis.

Most junior players are not going to become professional players. Most are not going to play for top-25 Division I programs. But many could play college tennis somewhere. Many could become excellent high school players. Many could become lifelong adult players. Many could become the future coaches, volunteers, and tennis parents the sport needs.

The system should be built to retain those players, not discourage them.

When families believe that the only meaningful path is through a small set of national events, many players eventually conclude that they have failed. That is unnecessary and damaging. A player who is not top 100 nationally may still be a very strong player. A player who is not accepted into a Level 1 national event may still have a college tennis future. A player who develops later may still become excellent.

But the system has to leave room for that development.

American tennis needs to stop treating the national championship pathway as the center of the junior universe. It should be treated as one part of a much broader competitive ecosystem.

What a Better Pathway Would Look Like

A healthier junior development system would focus on match volume, affordability, access, and retention.

That means more guaranteed-match tournaments. More compass draws. More round robins. More team-based competition. More local circuits. More events that do not require families to travel long distances. More tournament structures that provide meaningful play. More competition that allows players to develop without constantly chasing points.

It also means making the college pathway more visible.

Families should understand early that college tennis is not limited to elite Division I. There are opportunities across NCAA Division I, II, III, NAIA, and junior college. USTA’s own materials identify hundreds of men’s and women’s programs across those levels. The sport should be educating families about that full landscape, not allowing them to believe that junior success is defined by entry into a small national draw.

If the system wants more American players in college tennis, then it must create more college-ready American players. That does not happen by making families chase points. It happens by giving more kids more matches, better coaching, better local competition, and a clearer reason to stay in the game.

The Growth Opportunity

The USTA’s national growth strategy aims to reach 35 million tennis players by 2035. That strategy emphasizes retention, access to programs, coaching, and facilities. Those are the right themes. But the junior competitive pathway needs to be treated as a central part of that growth strategy.

Tennis can add millions of casual players and still fail to build the competitive base the sport needs.

The participation boom is a gift. But it will not automatically produce more college players, more coaches, more tournament directors, or more lifelong tennis families. That requires a wider development pathway.

The sport does not just need more people trying tennis. It needs more kids competing. It needs more kids playing three or four matches in a weekend. It needs more kids who can lose and keep playing. It needs more kids who can see a future in the sport even if they are not among the few hundred players accepted into a national championship.

College tennis is telling us something important. The opportunities are there. The roster spots are there. The demand for competitive players is there.

The question is whether American junior tennis is willing to build enough players to meet that demand.

Right now, the pipeline is too narrow. The points chase is too consuming. The national-event culture is too small for the sport we are trying to build.

If American tennis wants to keep growing, it needs to stop merely sorting players and start developing many more of them.