Tennis growing, competition declining?

[Moon Shooter]

the UTR effect looms large. I think lots of players that used to pack the schedule with USTA mens opens are backing off too, from what I hear from former collegiate teammates. This is tricky because tournament draws will get smaller and the same players will meet week after week. USTA and UTR need to find synergistic ways to stimulate the desire to compete at all levels

I would think many players want the tournament to effect their utr. Do you think more are worried about losing points than those who hope to gain points? Rating were the absolute only reason to pay money and play in a more official setting in chess. If it weren’t for a uscf rating system I don’t think there would be any official us chess adult armature tournaments at all.

 

[Chopin]

Assuming your observations are accurate (which I am not in a position to know), I'll bet the cause is based in generational psychological differences, not externalities like pandemics.

This is probably true. I'm not sure younger generation embraces the competition of recreational tennis in quite the same way. I wonder if automatic line calls at the amateur level would change that at all. I've played a fair amount of tournaments over the years, and line calls are always an issue, despite what the USTA says.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I'm posting this here because I think it is more relevant to this discussion then the thread it was posted in.

Your premise is off base. for wealthy parents, $19 is nothing compared to what they have to pay for lessons etc. the $19 is important to lower income parents that's exposing their kids to tennis. what percentage of the league cost is the $44? to play play leagues, you have to pay court costs.

Paying the $44 does not cover the court costs. League players still have to pay for those. So the question remains what actual service is USTA providing for that $44? I mean I know they run the tennis link website and do something for nationals. But there is no way that can cost anything close that much.

when I was a HS coach, USTA offered HS clinics for free.

That is what I am saying. Most of the high school tennis players I know (not all) have very wealthy parents. So why is USTA taking money from adults (who may not have much money) that simply want to pay league tennis and giving it to these wealthy families? The notion that high school kids playing tennis are more disadvantaged than adults that are trying to play tennis is dubious.

The clinics were great for networking and getting deals on racquets from some companies. at one point, i was able to by two racquets, shoes, six sets of string, overgrips for $275. they still have stuff for coaches and they have been pushing the umpire thing as well.

This is what I am saying. USTA is spending so much money on high school and younger kids who are almost certainly going to stop playing tennis once they are out of high school. Adult players are the ones that keep playing tennis and teach the next generation. Adult players are the key to tennis's future. Yet USTA seems insists on overcharging adults that want to go to the next level and start playing league.

if I'm not mistaken, the league coordinators are paid the USTA. some people didn't have the foresight to get lifetime membership when they were available.

I don't know. But I think people here who seem to know about it are are saying you are wrong. We pay additional league fees for every single team we join and that goes to various things including some amount of that to league coordinators. I don't don't begrudge them any of it. And if a big part of the $44 goes to them then that is fine by me. But I am hearing that is not the case. USTA national apparently expects them to pretty much do volunteer work as they horde all the money they get from players membership fees and their monopoly on the pro game. What is the goal of this redistribution? It seems to me based on what you said and their financials there are mainly two things they do with the horded money:
1) Subsidize parents (who are mostly very wealthy) whose kids are in tennis.
2) Become real estate tycoons.

Additionally to be a part of the UTR Power player, you pay $120 a year. How much do you spend on tennis per year?

Ok good luck to UTR. I do not currently pay for the service but they are a private company that can do what they want. They are not the official organization of US tennis that has a monopoly on the pro game.

Their business is not aimed at adult league players. I think it is likely that many of the people paying for that rating service are the wealthy parents that have tennis playing kids in high school that hope to play in college.

I pay quite a bit but I almost always know what goods and services I am getting for what I pay. Whether it is shoes, court time, coaching, tennis balls etc. The $44 to national usta, I have no idea. It just seems punitive.

This discussion seems better suited for the thread about increasing tennis and decreasing competition so I will copy and paste it there.

 

[Moon Shooter]

just proves my point, you have zero research. I'm waiting for that list of other groups that charge zero. c'mon employment ads? That has nothing to do with a $44. You have provide no facts. what's next a surcharge on US open tickets to cover your $44. at this point, I'm almost willing to Venmo you $44. Use your $44 voucher from Head and Wilson wisely. additionally you get a shirt from tennis-point. sheesh

I have inquired what the $44 goes to. I did not get a voucher for head or wilson and the voucher you posted does not apply to me as a 51 year old that does not live in NC. Again you have not even shown that is coming from the national USTA that collects the $44 but if it does then it is crazy that they are charging older people in the ******* to subsidize younger players in NC.

Keeping the tennis link website and running the same national tournaments that have been running for decades is not costing millions. The financials say they receive 13 million in membership fees. Unless they are really giving some internet company an unbelievably sweet deal they are overcharging. Ok I would rather give more to Saint Jude, Easterseals, Saint Vincent De Paul, or Compassion International, or various local schools and charities, then to wealthy families with a kid playing tennis in Orlando. If USTA gave the extra money to those actual charitable organizations at least I would have my answer. But even there if the purpose of USTA is to promote tennis in the USA why would they directly charge extra fees to play USTA tennis? I mean this just makes no sense.

People here (including you) have told me it goes to subsidize families (regardless of how wealthy they are) who have juniors playing tennis. Everywhere I have lived in this country the families who had kids playing tennis were wealthier than the average family - much wealthier. Yes people like the Williams sisters and a few others were not necessarily from very wealthy families but when you look at tennis players over all compared to say football, basketball, baseball, they seem overall to be much much wealthier. Did you grow up in the USA? Because I find it hard to believe anyone that has lived in this country would not see that.

You have posted a coupon that applies to adults under 35 who live in NC regardless of how wealthy they are.

You are the one making posts about how they are discriminating based on age not me. I am just listening to people like you trying to defend this. I am not saying you or others are giving accurate information. But if you are then USTA is seriously messed up.

And what is the difference between charging a certain group more or less based on age and giving bonuses to those groups based on age? I am not saying it is illegal (although I am definitely not saying it is legal either!). But both are discrimination based age.

Again the $44 is not an issue for me. But if you want to venmo the $44 for all the people I talk to about league play and balk at the cost then great!!

 

[Moon Shooter]

Your original statement was "Most of the high school tennis players I know (not all) have very wealthy parents."

Your subsequent statement was "the kids playing tennis in the US are from wealthier then average families."

There's a giant difference between "very wealthy" and "wealthier than average".

Your sample size also changed from "players I know" to "the kids...in the US".

If you live in a wealthy area, likely the kids playing tennis [or any sport] will come from wealthy families. But it's the opposite for a poor area.

Yes I admit my statements are anecdotal. I have offered my experience from where I live now and admit that the overall country may not be the same so it is not really the question.

The question is whether families who have children playing tennis in the USA are especially deserving of forced charity from adult players that simply want to play USTA tennis. I find it hard to believe that is the case. I grew up in the south suburbs of Chicago. My neighborhood was not poor. But it wasn't wealthy enough for me to have even have heard of tennis teams I could join. Do you think the median family income of a tennis player at any level, grammar school, jr high, high school, college (assuming the player was raised in the USA) or pro (again assuming the player was raised in the USA) is going to be lower than the median family income of a football, basketball, or baseball player? They are forcing a donation to a largely well to do demographic.

Ok I admit I do not have actual data. But my experience is so overwhelming that I would be shocked if that was not the case. I think maybe some tennis players know of a few poor kids on their high school team or something and then that makes them think well tennis is just like other sports in America. But when you compare it to other sports then you realize it is not. Tennis is a country club sport, are people actually trying to maintain that tennis families are especially deserving of charity?

 

[Moon Shooter]

I received the Wilson code on 11/22/2022. it should be in your email.

Thanks. I did not get the coupon. I will check with my local person. To see if players should be getting this. It would be helpful for my recruiting efforts and keeping players members. But I think this is likely something your section is doing independent of USTA national or something USTA national does but localities need to opt into. I will let you know what I find out.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Yes I admit my statements are anecdotal. I have offered my experience from where I live now and admit that the overall country may not be the same so it is not really the question.

The question is whether families who have children playing tennis in the USA are especially deserving of forced charity from adult players that simply want to play USTA tennis. I find it hard to believe that is the case. I grew up in the south suburbs of Chicago. My neighborhood was not poor. But it wasn't wealthy enough for me to have even have heard of tennis teams I could join. Do you think the median family income of a tennis player at any level, grammar school, jr high, high school, college (assuming the player was raised in the USA) or pro (again assuming the player was raised in the USA) is going to be lower than the median family income of a football, basketball, or baseball player? They are forcing a donation to a largely well to do demographic.

Ok I admit I do not have actual data. But my experience is so overwhelming that I would be shocked if that was not the case. I think maybe some tennis players know of a few poor kids on their high school team or something and then that makes them think well tennis is just like other sports in America. But when you compare it to other sports then you realize it is not. Tennis is a country club sport, are people actually trying to maintain that tennis families are especially deserving of charity?

I'd imagine USTA is doing it to build the youth program. If you don't agree with the charge and/or what it's used for, you can try and get them to change their policy or you can opt out.

I don't think your argument is going to convince many at USTA, even if you could prove it to be true. It would be interesting to see the demographics.

I've also participated in [and donated to] clinics for the youth of underserved communities so that skews my outlook.

You're also posing a false dichotomy: if your fees didn't go to youth tennis, they would not go to youth football [ie families with median income less than tennis families]. The USTA would simply find another use for the money [rather than lowering membership fees].

 

[silentkman]

I have inquired what the $44 goes to. I did not get a voucher for head or wilson and the voucher you posted does not apply to me as a 51 year old that does not live in NC. Again you have not even shown that is coming from the national USTA that collects the $44 but if it does then it is crazy that they are charging older people in the ******* to subsidize younger players in NC.

Keeping the tennis link website and running the same national tournaments that have been running for decades is not costing millions. The financials say they receive 13 million in membership fees. Unless they are really giving some internet company an unbelievably sweet deal they are overcharging. Ok I would rather give more to Saint Jude, Easterseals, Saint Vincent De Paul, or Compassion International, or various local schools and charities, then to wealthy families with a kid playing tennis in Orlando. If USTA gave the extra money to those actual charitable organizations at least I would have my answer. But even there if the purpose of USTA is to promote tennis in the USA why would they directly charge extra fees to play USTA tennis? I mean this just makes no sense.

People here (including you) have told me it goes to subsidize families (regardless of how wealthy they are) who have juniors playing tennis. Everywhere I have lived in this country the families who had kids playing tennis were wealthier than the average family - much wealthier. Yes people like the Williams sisters and a few others were not necessarily from very wealthy families but when you look at tennis players over all compared to say football, basketball, baseball, they seem overall to be much much wealthier. Did you grow up in the USA? Because I find it hard to believe anyone that has lived in this country would not see that.

You have posted a coupon that applies to adults under 35 who live in NC regardless of how wealthy they are.

You are the one making posts about how they are discriminating based on age not me. I am just listening to people like you trying to defend this. I am not saying you or others are giving accurate information. But if you are then USTA is seriously messed up.

And what is the difference between charging a certain group more or less based on age and giving bonuses to those groups based on age? I am not saying it is illegal (although I am definitely not saying it is legal either!). But both are discrimination based age.

Again the $44 is not an issue for me. But if you want to venmo the $44 for all the people I talk to about league play and balk at the cost then great!!

it's ironic that you didn't receive the code form the USTA when other people did. Yes, I grew up in States. High Schools isn't a upper class sport. when you become a junior that wants to travel an play tournaments that's upper class most likely. when I was coaching, we had kids that tried out that didn't have racquets. what bonus are you talking about? all USTA members should have received the code from Wilson, Head and tennis-point. My point about Venmo since you have been complaining incessantly $44. read my note again, I said almost. it's just silly to complain about $44. Talk to your League Coordinator about your issues and them them if they want to do it for free? you should because the League coordinator yourself. The NC was a example obviously, talk to the USTA in your region about doing something similar. Some people are never happy and are complainers but won't do anything about it.

 

[silentkman]

it's ironic that you didn't receive the code form the USTA when other people did. Yes, I grew up in States. High Schools isn't a upper class sport. when you become a junior that wants to travel an play tournaments that's upper class most likely. when I was coaching, we had kids that tried out that didn't have racquets. what bonus are you talking about? all USTA members should have received the code from Wilson, Head and tennis-point. My point about Venmo since you have been complaining incessantly $44. read my note again, I said almost. it's just silly to complain about $44. Talk to your League Coordinator about your issues and them them if they want to do it for free? you should because the League coordinator yourself. The NC was a example obviously, talk to the USTA in your region about doing something similar. Some people are never happy and are complainers but won't do anything about it.

i received the code on 11/22/2022

 

[Moon Shooter]

I'd imagine USTA is doing it to build the youth program. If you don't agree with the charge and/or what it's used for, you can try and get them to change their policy or you can opt out.

I don't think your argument is going to convince many at USTA, even if you could prove it to be true. It would be interesting to see the demographics.

I can also post about it on tennis forums.

I've also participated in [and donated to] clinics for the youth of underserved communities so that skews my outlook.

Clinics that are specifically for "financially poor" or "tennis poor" communities makes sense. I know usta does some of that and I am on board. but it seems very little compared to their real estate and general junior programs that typically benefit the very wealthy.

Which way does that skew your outlook? That USTA should be taking more money from all adults interested in tennis and spending it on juniors whose families have lots of money?

You're also posing a false dichotomy: if your fees didn't go to youth tennis, they would not go to youth football [ie families with median income less than tennis families]. The USTA would simply find another use for the money [rather than lowering membership fees].

I am not suggesting a dichotomy. I am not saying they would or should pay for football. But it seems you and silentkman are challenging me on my claim that US kids that play tennis tend to be from wealthier than average families. I am just suggesting you look at more widespread sports and see if you really believe that. It is obvious to me that tennis kids tend to come from wealthier families.

Why do you say they would not lower membership fees, if they see the overcharge cuts against their goal of promoting tennis in America?

 

[bobleenov1963]

High school tennis in the US is not an upper class sport? Really? Tell that to kids who play tennis at McLean, Langley or TJ high schools in Northern Virginia. They all look like an upper class sport to me because they consistently win the state championship year in and year out.

 

[ktx]

I just looked at the numbers - curious why you think our membership fees are going to subsidize wealthy jr tennis families...I'm seeing in the 2021 financials 13.7 for player development and 96.4 for "community tennis" which includes adult leagues and presumably some jr tennis - and almost 200m for tour events. Jrs pay membership fees just like us and I bet the competitive ones pay a lot more in tournament entry fees than we pay in league fees over the course of the year. USTA's mission is to develop tennis in the US and that requires investment in under-served communities to expose the non-country-club kids. I guess I am just not seeing the through-line here.

 

[silentkman]

High school tennis in the US is not an upper class sport? Really? Tell that to kids who play tennis at McLean, Langley or TJ high schools in Northern Virginia. They all look like an upper class sport to me because they consistently win the state championship year in and year out.

dude you are talking the the elite areas. Robinson and TJ are great. Look at the other schools. If you are top ranked junior, it's 50 50 that play high school tennis because the competition is weak.

 

[Moon Shooter]

it's ironic that you didn't receive the code form the USTA when other people did. Yes, I grew up in States. High Schools isn't a upper class sport. when you become a junior that wants to travel an play tournaments that's upper class most likely. when I was coaching, we had kids that tried out that didn't have racquets. what bonus are you talking about? all USTA members should have received the code from Wilson, Head and tennis-point.

I did not receive it. I suspect it is something for your area only or only for players under 35. You know the link you sent specifically says it is a young adult voucher right?

The Wilson.com and the head voucher. The head voucher is worthless, but the Wilson voucher is good. The wealthy high school is silly. Most wealthy parents that have good high school players don't even play high school tennis.

Thank you for your interest! This was a program that we did for the 2023 and is not continuing for the 2024 year.

form.jotform.com

My point about Venmo since you have been complaining incessantly $44. read my note again, I said almost. it's just silly to complain about $44.

I am asking why they have to pay it because when I try to get new people to be on a team they ask about total costs and the $44 is a substantial part of it. What justifies that fee? It's a straightforward question. And if the only answer is it is charged to pay for USTA real estate investments, or to redistribute to wealthy families, well I think that justification is lacking in light of USTA's stated purpose.

Talk to your League Coordinator about your issues and them them if they want to do it for free? you should because the League coordinator yourself. The NC was a example obviously, talk to the USTA in your region about doing something similar. Some people are never happy and are complainers but won't do anything about it.

Thanks for the advise but I don't have time to haggle with people about $44. The league coordinator has no power to waive the fee so it is silly to suggest I should be the league coordinator. I am not interested and my local league coordinator is great anyway. I would not be doing tennis any service by taking her place.

I am a very happy person, but thanks for the concern. I am running teams for USTA in leagues that haven't existed in years. I am just pointing out that the $44 is a deterrent for a small but significant number of adults looking to join USTA. (maybe 10%?) I think once people try USTA and they get into it then it is not much of a factor. They will either continue to play and possibly get on more teams if they like it, or they will stop if they don't - regardless of the $44. But as someone that is putting teams together that are 80% new players I can tell you it is a barrier to entry for some.

Even if it were the case that the $44 is completely eaten up by the costs of the national entity running the leagues, I would still say first time USTA members should have the first year fee waived even if that meant every repeating member had to pay a slightly higher fee. I think there would be enough new members leagues and teams so that they could make the first year free, and they would actually charge less than $44 to the repeat users. The notion that you will make more money by overcharging everyone as much as possible is not how it works.

Total membership revenue went down to 13.6 million in 2021 from 18.9 in 2019.

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/2020-pdfs/USTA%20Association%202019%20fst%201231%20EV_3.27.20_FINAL_SIGNED.pdf

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/2022-pdfs/USTA%20Association%202021%20fst%201231%20EV_Final%20draft_3.23.22_(secured)_FINAL%20SIGNED.pdf

You can claim the decrease in members has nothing to do with the cost of membership, but that is simply denying fundamental economics.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I can also post about it on tennis forums.


Clinics that are specifically for "financially poor" or "tennis poor" communities makes sense. I know usta does some of that and I am on board. but it seems very little compared to their real estate and general junior programs that typically benefit the very wealthy.

Which way does that skew your outlook? That USTA should be taking more money from all adults interested in tennis and spending it on juniors whose families have lots of money?

Having exposure to underserved communities skews my outlook towards thinking there are more underserved communities than there possibly actually are.

I also don't hang around elite juniors, which further skews my outlook.

I am not suggesting a dichotomy. I am not saying they would or should pay for football. But it seems you and silentkman are challenging me on my claim that US kids that play tennis tend to be from wealthier than average families. I am just suggesting you look at more widespread sports and see if you really believe that. It is obvious to me that tennis kids tend to come from wealthier families.

"Wealthier than average" could mean $1K/year above the median.

Some tennis kids come from wealthier families. I just don't know what the big picture says. My perception may be skewed by the relatively few kids of wealthy families. If I wanted to make policy, I'd gather the data first.

Why do you say they would not lower membership fees, if they see the overcharge cuts against their goal of promoting tennis in America?

Because like cancer, many organizations' prime directive is to grow, regardless of if it makes sense. So I don't think they would cut membership fees.

I'm not claiming the USTA is cancerous. I'm making a generalization about organizations and narrowly applying it to membership fees.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Total membership revenue went down to 13.6 million in 2021 from 18.9 in 2019.

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/2020-pdfs/USTA%20Association%202019%20fst%201231%20EV_3.27.20_FINAL_SIGNED.pdf

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/2022-pdfs/USTA%20Association%202021%20fst%201231%20EV_Final%20draft_3.23.22_(secured)_FINAL%20SIGNED.pdf

You can claim the decrease in members has nothing to do with the cost of membership, but that is simply denying fundamental economics.

If there was a direct, inverse correlation, a 28% decline in membership revenue would have been caused by a 28% increase in membership fees.

Since membership fees didn't go up by that much, if indeed they went up at all, how can you claim the decline in membership revenue is solely due to membership fees? I'm not claiming they are unrelated but you appear to be claiming they are 100% related. I don't look at the absolute level; I look at the delta. And I don't see any delta that's going to account for a 28% decline in membership revenue.

I would think a much bigger factor was the pandemic: USTA halted activity and restarted it slowly. During that time, maybe people got accustomed to playing outside of USTA.

 

[cks]

all USTA members should have received the code from Wilson, Head and tennis-point.

I received a $44 coupon from head.com on my USTA membership renewal. I could not find a email from Wilson nor tennis-point for any additional coupons. My renewal receipt, and head.com coupon were sent by USTA Customer Care <noreply@email.usta.com>.

When I log into USTA web site, it states that I should receive coupons from Wilson and Head. I guess there was a computer glitch.

Head Tennis Equipment
As a paid USTA member, you will receive coupon (s) for discounts on tennis equipment.

Wilson Tennis Equipment
As a paid USTA member, you will receive coupon (s) for discounts on tennis equipment.

 

[cks]

I am just pointing out that the $44 is a deterrent for a small but significant number of adults looking to join USTA. (maybe 10%?)

+1
I agree. For the price conscious adult rec tennis player, they may think twice before trying out USTA league. Paying $44 has been questioned by a few, not most, players that I've tried to recruit to play USTA league.

I think once people try USTA and they get into it then it is not much of a factor. They will either continue to play and possibly get on more teams if they like it, or they will stop if they don't - regardless of the $44.

Agree.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I just looked at the numbers - curious why you think our membership fees are going to subsidize wealthy jr tennis families...I'm seeing in the 2021 financials 13.7 for player development and 96.4 for "community tennis" which includes adult leagues and presumably some jr tennis - and almost 200m for tour events.

You mean "Community tennis including national campus and depreciation" right? Yes they own a huge amount of real estate. If you have any information that some of that money is going to adult leagues then let us know. But what I am hearing from people that seem to understand how adult leagues are run it is the seperate league fees that you pay for each team you join that goes to that.

Jrs pay membership fees just like us

Why you think that?

All Plans

Includes plans of org and individual memberships.

www.usta.com

and I bet the competitive ones pay a lot more in tournament entry fees than we pay in league fees over the course of the year.

Well ok that is up to them. They are paying for a service. I don't mind paying for the tournament organization or court time etc when I play either. The competitive juniors I know are from families that are swimming in money. Now I realize that is not everyone and if they said junior or adult membership would be free if you are below a certain household income or something then ok. But on the whole I think a charity for "families with a child involved in tennis" is absurd. What next should we be starting a charity for "families with children involved in yachting"?

USTA's mission is to develop tennis in the US and that requires investment in under-served communities to expose the non-country-club kids. I guess I am just not seeing the through-line here.

I would be fine if you showed me the money is directed to under-served communities. There is some, but the overwhelming majority of the "free youth" programs seems available to even the wealthiest families.

If you want to develop tennis in a community get adults playing tennis. That is how most of the kids I see learn tennis. They have a parent grandparent aunt or uncle that taught them. The vast majority of these youth players will quit right after high school.

 

[silentkman]

I did not receive it. I suspect it is something for your area only or only for players under 35. You know the link you sent specifically says it is a young adult voucher right?





I am asking why they have to pay it because when I try to get new people to be on a team they ask about total costs and the $44 is a substantial part of it. What justifies that fee? It's a straightforward question. And if the only answer is it is charged to pay for USTA real estate investments, or to redistribute to wealthy families, well I think that justification is lacking in light of USTA's stated purpose.




Thanks for the advise but I don't have time to haggle with people about $44. The league coordinator has no power to waive the fee so it is silly to suggest I should be the league coordinator. I am not interested and my local league coordinator is great anyway. I would not be doing tennis any service by taking her place.

I am a very happy person, but thanks for the concern. I am running teams for USTA in leagues that haven't existed in years. I am just pointing out that the $44 is a deterrent for a small but significant number of adults looking to join USTA. (maybe 10%?) I think once people try USTA and they get into it then it is not much of a factor. They will either continue to play and possibly get on more teams if they like it, or they will stop if they don't - regardless of the $44. But as someone that is putting teams together that are 80% new players I can tell you it is a barrier to entry for some.

Even if it were the case that the $44 is completely eaten up by the costs of the national entity running the leagues, I would still say first time USTA members should have the first year fee waived even if that meant every repeating member had to pay a slightly higher fee. I think there would be enough new members leagues and teams so that they could make the first year free, and they would actually charge less than $44 to the repeat users. The notion that you will make more money by overcharging everyone as much as possible is not how it works.

Total membership revenue went down to 13.6 million in 2021 from 18.9 in 2019.

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/2020-pdfs/USTA%20Association%202019%20fst%201231%20EV_3.27.20_FINAL_SIGNED.pdf

https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/2022-pdfs/USTA%20Association%202021%20fst%201231%20EV_Final%20draft_3.23.22_(secured)_FINAL%20SIGNED.pdf

You can claim the decrease in members has nothing to do with the cost of membership, but that is simply denying fundamental economics.

Your case was presented as if the majority of the people are complaining about paying $44. That is false. The league coordinator can tell how the money works and how much they make from each registration. I'm happy that you are happy running teams. as you know, I have a issue with League tennis anyway. Not everyone cares about league tennis. I would encourage your section to look at implementing something like the North Carolina model. The UTR is a competitor to the USTA now, so I'm not surprised that revenue has gone down. from what I found the UTR revenue is 16 million. The UTR has their own tour now. why would a high player join the USTA anyway. Then you have people like me with life memberships that don't pay anything. I think the Wilson code should a selling point, because everyone buys balls.

 

[cks]

I think the Wilson code should a selling point, because everyone buys balls.

Anyone want to share their $44 Wilson coupon code? I'll give you my Head.com coupon.

 

[Moon Shooter]

High school tennis in the US is not an upper class sport? Really? Tell that to kids who play tennis at McLean, Langley or TJ high schools in Northern Virginia. They all look like an upper class sport to me because they consistently win the state championship year in and year out.

Yeah it is like some of the posters are living in a different universe. For example, East Saint Louis is an underserved area here in Illinois. Lots of kids playing football and many championships won. But I don't see the ESL Flyers winning many state tennis tournaments. I searched for "East Saint Louis tennis" just to see if I missed them. I was surprised to see they were going to play in an Illinois championship! But then I clicked on the link and it was actually for football. They do at least have a girls team, but I don't see a boys team at all.

Now if you said USTA is going to send coaches to East Saint Louis and run some tennis clinics there etc. I would definitely be on board and I would tell people that want to join USTA how that $44 bucks is spent. But come on! Claiming generally that families with a junior playing tennis are a valid target for charity is absurd.

I would love to see some evidence that this fee to adults that want to simply play usta tennis, is actually helping poor kids learn tennis, as opposed to pursue special interests of people running clinics and academies which by and large cater to Americas wealthiest families. But so far I am not seeing it.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Your case was presented as if the majority of the people are complaining about paying $44. That is false.

Huh? I never said anyone was complaining about it. I simply suggested that about 10% (it might be more) don't join because of the overall costs. The $44 is a considerable part of that cost. Gas is another but we often car pool as a team for people that are concerned about that.

The league coordinator can tell how the money works and how much they make from each registration. I'm happy that you are happy running teams. as you know, I have a issue with League tennis anyway. Not everyone cares about league tennis. I would encourage your section to look at implementing something like the North Carolina model. The UTR is a competitor to the USTA now, so I'm not surprised that revenue has gone down. from what I found the UTR revenue is 16 million. The UTR has their own tour now. why would a high player join the USTA anyway. Then you have people like me with life memberships that don't pay anything. I think the Wilson code should a selling point, because everyone buys balls.

I asked my local coordinator and she already responded saying neither she nor the ******* adult coodinator were aware of it. But it seems legit. She is amazingly organized and prompt! The link says we should have all gotten an email from USTA but obviously that is not happening. I agree that if we get a credit from Wilson or head this makes the fee much more palatable and I will let my team and new recruits know about it. I will let you know.

What is the problem with the head credit? I use head racquets so I would be interested in that one as well.

 

[ktx]

K I did not realize that jrs don't pay for membership anymore. It has not always been that way. I am finding it disingenuous though to claim that our league fee is subsidizing rich jr players instead of everything else the USTA is making money on. Why isn't it the pro tour revenue - almost 200m IIRC- subsidizing the jr players? Membership fees are a drop in their revenue bucket.

A separate issue though is it is hard to take your position seriously when you assert your opinions without a basis of knowledge. This took me a 2 second google search: https://playtennis.usta.com/eslcta/Coaching/Session/4e883b7e-2627-49ec-8f5e-421e946170c2 The USTA does subsidize a lot of low-income tennis programs - there is no question about that.

 

[silentkman]

Huh? I never said anyone was complaining about it. I simply suggested that about 10% (it might be more) don't join because of the overall costs. The $44 is a considerable part of that cost. Gas is another but we often car pool as a team for people that are concerned about that.



I asked my local coordinator and she already responded saying neither she nor the ******* adult coodinator were aware of it. But it seems legit. She is amazingly organized and prompt! The link says we should have all gotten an email from USTA but obviously that is not happening. I agree that if we get a credit from Wilson or head this makes the fee much more palatable and I will let my team and new recruits know about it. I will let you know.

What is the problem with the head credit? I use head racquets so I would be interested in that one as well.

just a personal preference, I don't used their racquet and nothing else is available. Head directs you to the retailer for balls, which sucks. To get a case of balls for $75 from Wilson is a great deal.

 

[cks]

I emailed USTA support regarding my missing $44 Wilson coupon code. Below is there response.

Thank you for contacting USTA Customer Care.

Unfortunately, you are not eligible for the Wilson coupon as you renewed your membership on 26 May 2022.

Starting on October 13th, 2022, when you renew or purchase an adult or senior USTA Membership, you will receive $44 off qualifying merchandise at Wilson.com with a minimum purchase.

Looks like I'm out of luck until next year.

 

[TennisOTM]

I got the Wilson / Head / Tennis-Point emails last week, on the day that my USTA membership renewed. I suppose everyone who pays for a fresh membership year will get these discount codes in the coming weeks. Maybe some people will miss out on them if the partnership is only temporary.

The Tennis-Point one is annoying - it's a "free" USTA-logo shirt or hat, but if you click all the way through on the order, there's a $7 shipping charge at the end. I suppose a $7 shirt is cheap, but that's $7 I would not have spent otherwise, so I'll pass.

The $44 discount codes for Wilson and Head only applies if you spend more than $100.

For Wilson, yes you can get a 24-pack of balls down to $76 from $120. However I would never buy a case of balls for $120. That's $5 per can. I can buy a can at the tennis center right before playing for $4, which rates to $96 per case. I suppose saving 20 bucks is something, but I'm not that interested in cluttering my closet with a case of balls, so I'm borderline on this one.

The Head one would seem to be appealing to me because I use Head racket, but they charge full price on their website. $44 discount from full price is not that great - I can normally find them for much cheaper than that elsewhere.

Overall, not that impressed with the value of the offerings.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I am not trying to bash USTA and it does look they are doing some good things. It looks like USTA did provide some grant money to these tennis courts in East Saint Louis. It looks like the USTA local district (as distinct from the national?) is a partner for this organization as well.

History - East St. Louis Community Tennis Association

In the fall of 2012, Scott Stinson and Stan Angelov went to East St. Louis to play a match for their blog Stlforgottencourts. The inspiration was Jimmy Connors and his close connection to East St. Louis. Finding no courts playable they played their match at a neighboring community and then wrote...

eaststlouiscta.org

That is pretty awesome!
If you are interested in helping spread tennis to an area where they likely don't have much of a presence then it may be a good donation to make:

Donate - East St. Louis Community Tennis Association

Your donation will support programs designed to help children grow through the game of tennis!

eaststlouiscta.org

K I did not realize that jrs don't pay for membership anymore. It has not always been that way. I am finding it disingenuous though to claim that our league fee is subsidizing rich jr players instead of everything else the USTA is making money on. Why isn't it the pro tour revenue - almost 200m IIRC- subsidizing the jr players? Membership fees are a drop in their revenue bucket.

I'm just saying that providing an adult league is an obvious clear cut way to promote tennis in America. Why overcharge people for that so you can just give it away to families that have a junior playing tennis?

A separate issue though is it is hard to take your position seriously when you assert your opinions without a basis of knowledge. This took me a 2 second google search: https://playtennis.usta.com/eslcta/Coaching/Session/4e883b7e-2627-49ec-8f5e-421e946170c2 The USTA does subsidize a lot of low-income tennis programs - there is no question about that.

As I posted above it does look like national USTA gave money to resurface those courts as the link I provided shows. And that is great. I do not see how USTA national is contributing to the link you provided. On the website they only list the local missouri valley USTA as a partner along with other local charities that help make that happen.

https://eaststlouiscta.org/about/partners/

All of the money is fungible. It is not like it makes sense to say the money they get from their pro monopoly is used for this and the money they overcharge adults to play in a league goes to this other thing.

When you say they subsidize "a lot" of low-income tennis programs ok. But lets see some numbers compared to how they subsidize wealthy families. It seems to me that the vast majority of subsidies go to just juniors generally. Like all juniors can join for free. It doesn't matter if they live on Michigan avenue or the south side of Chicago. And hopefully you would agree that as a demographic tennis families overall are not a group that needs charity. Do adults that live in East Saint Louis or the South side of Chicago have their $44 fee waived? The vast majority of the redistribution seems to be going to the general group called "family with a kid playing tennis." But again I hope I am wrong, and definitely support what USTA national did in East Saint Louis in helping pay for those courts along with the state of Illinois.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Anyway I have been reading a bit about this and it is a pretty interesting story.

It seems USTA national donated $25k to help build these courts:
"A USTA Grant has been applied for which may cover up to 25,000 of the estimated 200,000 cost to completely rebuild the courts. The
tennis community appears to be ready to raise the remaining 175,000 from private donors and corporations. "

Jimmy Connors, East St. Louis, Social Media and Relationships – STLForgottenCourts

It seems the cost was actually 300k so they probably needed quite a bit more funding to make this happen.

Between trying to get funding from various government groups it took a while. Here is a clip from a St. Claire county Judge arguing for the courts to a local government board.

East St. Louis – Judge Milton Wharton – STLForgottenCourts

 

[Moon Shooter]

I got the Wilson / Head / Tennis-Point emails last week, on the day that my USTA membership renewed. I suppose everyone who pays for a fresh membership year will get these discount codes in the coming weeks. Maybe some people will miss out on them if the partnership is only temporary.

The Tennis-Point one is annoying - it's a "free" USTA-logo shirt or hat, but if you click all the way through on the order, there's a $7 shipping charge at the end. I suppose a $7 shirt is cheap, but that's $7 I would not have spent otherwise, so I'll pass.

The $44 discount codes for Wilson and Head only applies if you spend more than $100.

For Wilson, yes you can get a 24-pack of balls down to $76 from $120. However I would never buy a case of balls for $120. That's $5 per can. I can buy a can at the tennis center right before playing for $4, which rates to $96 per case. I suppose saving 20 bucks is something, but I'm not that interested in cluttering my closet with a case of balls, so I'm borderline on this one.

The Head one would seem to be appealing to me because I use Head racket, but they charge full price on their website. $44 discount from full price is not that great - I can normally find them for much cheaper than that elsewhere.

Overall, not that impressed with the value of the offerings.

Wilson will occasionally have some very good sales on tennis balls. If you can use the credit along with the sale it would be a good bargain. But yes I hear you about the racquets.

 

[drivophd]

Looks like I'm out of luck until next year.

Extend your membership now and take advantage of the offer if you’re looking for a discount on Wilson USOs.

 

[silentkman]

I emailed USTA support regarding my missing $44 Wilson coupon code. Below is there response.



Looks like I'm out of luck until next year.

shucks

 

[silentkman]

I got the Wilson / Head / Tennis-Point emails last week, on the day that my USTA membership renewed. I suppose everyone who pays for a fresh membership year will get these discount codes in the coming weeks. Maybe some people will miss out on them if the partnership is only temporary.

The Tennis-Point one is annoying - it's a "free" USTA-logo shirt or hat, but if you click all the way through on the order, there's a $7 shipping charge at the end. I suppose a $7 shirt is cheap, but that's $7 I would not have spent otherwise, so I'll pass.

The $44 discount codes for Wilson and Head only applies if you spend more than $100.

For Wilson, yes you can get a 24-pack of balls down to $76 from $120. However I would never buy a case of balls for $120. That's $5 per can. I can buy a can at the tennis center right before playing for $4, which rates to $96 per case. I suppose saving 20 bucks is something, but I'm not that interested in cluttering my closet with a case of balls, so I'm borderline on this one.

The Head one would seem to be appealing to me because I use Head racket, but they charge full price on their website. $44 discount from full price is not that great - I can normally find them for much cheaper than that elsewhere.

Overall, not that impressed with the value of the offerings.

I may be wrong but the tennis-point offer would come into play if you are planning to buy something else from them. i only buy the premium balls, so the USO price is a great deal for me. I buy a case a year anyway. The Head offer is horrible. A good deal would be a voucher for a online tennis retailer. I think back in the day you would discounts on US Open tickets and other small tournaments. at one point, Life members could pick up something from the USTA display. i do remember back when I hap to pay every year. we would only play when we absolutely needed to. I may have gone a month or two without a membership depending on my playing schedule.

 

[Ruark]

I think there's lots of people who would enjoy competitive tournaments. Unfortunately, in tennis-dense areas, brackets fill up quickly and court-time is scarce, and in tennis-sparse areas, the only tournaments that exist are too far a drive to make it worth it.

Especially when you have to be there ready to play at 8 a.m.

 

[The returner]

Seems to be the same in Oz.

 

[EP1998]

Tournament entry fees in the states are too high. I just looked at an ITF regional tournament and events are well over $100. With the "discount" singles and doubles will cost $240.

 

[silentkman]

I can tell you in our district there used to be 1-3 Junior USTA tournaments per weekend. Now there are 2 Junior USTA tournaments a month if that.

USTA adult tournaments are non-existent and even before there were 1-2 a year and they were bolted on to a smaller junior event.

USTA League participation is also down.

I don't think it is UTR and "the number" for juniors as they need to play to move it up and it won't go up if they just sit.

For Junior USTA tournaments I don't think they are promoted enough by the USTA and I don't think high school tennis coaches push their kids to compete in them like they should. I know when my son started showing an interest in tennis I called the local USTA office and they suggested "single-day showdowns" and other "tennis is fun" type of events and never suggested tournaments. The only reason we got started is a pal at work knew my son was playing a lot and his daughter played tournaments and he kept telling us we should do it so we eventually signed up. I blame that on the USTA and outreach at least in our area. You never see them going to schools and pushing the sport.

For adults and USTA teams as a captain of 3 (and soon to be 4 teams) a summer our local USTA makes the whole process absolutely no fun. They are complete %@$%$#@ in our local office. When people call for info on teams and play or with questions they are flip and rude.

Why would someone put up with that vs. social play?

I ask myself the same question year after year as a captain and I am just too stupid to stop.

Kudos to you for being a captain of 4 teams. I'm happy getting in a tournament every other month in the DMV area. I've found the South to have the best tournaments.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Kudos to you for being a captain of 4 teams. I'm happy getting in a tournament every other month in the DMV area. I've found the South to have the best tournaments.

I miss Texas when I spend time in the South, what part of the south are you funding good tourneys?

 

[silentkman]

I miss Texas when I spend time in the South, what part of the south are you funding good tourneys?

I just played one in Asheville NC. I've played a couple in the Greensboro area. I've played a couple in SC that was good too.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

I just played one in Asheville NC. I've played a couple in the Greensboro area. I've played a couple in SC that was good too.

Omg yes, the Carolinas are great, good growing population, some parts of the south are not as fortunate, especially tennis-wise