.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
In Miami, during a panel at RacquetX—the self-styled epicenter of sport tech innovation—a group of men sat under stage lights surrounded by salesmen, athletes, and facility owners. What had been a casual sport was now a booming industry. And like any sport played by millions globally, it had outgrown its rules.
The event, titled Navigating Pickleball’s Wild West: Mastering Equipment Standards, became a battleground for pickleball’s future. Rather than navigating the chaos, the panelists—representing Joola, Gearbox, USA Pickleball, and the UPA-A—found themselves defining where the roads even were.
What was supposed to be a conversation about surface texture, grit, and paddle testing soon escalated into a story about identity, control, and the increasingly complex intersection of hedge fund money and grassroots sport.
1. The USAP and UPA-A Will Converge—But Not Merge
The tension between the two major governing bodies, USA Pickleball (USAP) and the UPA-A, was clear from the start. While the USAP has long been the dominant force in amateur pickleball, the UPA-A has slowly been carving out its own territory, particularly within professional play.
Carl Schmits, CTO of USAP, addressed the possibility of convergence between the two entities. His language was deliberate: "Converge," not "merge."
He noted that, from a technical standpoint, both organizations’ standards are “very close,” with only minor differences in specifications. Yet, the philosophical divide remains significant. Schmits suggested that while converging might be a natural evolution, "There’s a lot of philosophical stuff we need to sort out between the organizations."
Jason Aspes, President of the UPA-A, echoed a similar sentiment but emphasized that the organization’s focus is purely on professional play. “I think we could easily get to the same standard. It’s not that big a deal right now," he said, before stressing that the UPA-A’s priorities remain with the pro tier.
2. UPA-A’s Influence Extends Beyond Pro Play
Despite Aspes’ insistence, the reality is that UPA-A-certified paddles are making their way into recreational play, blurring the lines between professional and amateur standards.
Rafael Filippini of Gearbox noted, “We’re seeing paddles that are entering the market...that are supposed to be for pro leagues only, but we’re seeing them at the recreational level.” This market fragmentation, as Schmits put it, “creates confusion.”
Nick Bicanic, CEO of Reload, pressed further: “The thing about the professional standard of paddles is it’s not really a professional standard because it’s a standard that consumers want to buy and will buy if it’s available... this is not about pro play. This is about selling paddles.”
His observation, which was followed by a long applause, highlighted the underlying business strategy driving much of the push for UPA-A standards – one that goes beyond serving professional players to tap into a broader market of consumers eager to buy the same equipment as the pros.
3. Clear Standards Are Crucial—But Conflicts of Interest Make Them Hard to Achieve
Tom Barnes, Co-Owner of Selkirk, brought the conversation back to the pragmatic side of manufacturing. For brands like his, the lack of clarity surrounding paddle standards is a significant hurdle. He explained, "There’s no understanding or proof of how these new standards may or may not improve the stated goal of actually making the sport more fair."
However, Barnes argued that the real challenge lies not just in defining clear standards, but in addressing the “conflicts of interest” that arise when governing bodies also have financial stakes in the industry.
He expressed concern over how business interests could shape decisions about what is or isn’t allowed in professional play. “It becomes a meritocracy of value...but the fact is when you work with other companies and disclose technical aspects...that makes the organizational side extremely concerning.”
Barnes also drew attention to the growing financial influence on the sport, saying, “This is a commercialization test… of what happens when hedge fund managers come in and start controlling a sport. And that's why we're here. That's what's going on.”
His comment underscored the financial dynamics shaping the standards and governance within pickleball, revealing how the sport’s expansion has invited corporate interests to increasingly play a role in decision-making.
4. Rising Certification Fees Creates a Higher Barrier to Entry
The increasing fragmentation in the market has been a recurring theme. Barnes explained that having multiple standards has made it more difficult for smaller brands to enter the pro market. The introduction of additional fees for certification, he said, has created a “barrier to entry.” Small brands, once the backbone of the pickleball industry, are now struggling to compete against larger, well-funded entities.
While much of the panel’s conversation focused on technical standards, the issue of the UPA-A’s business practices loomed large.
Barnes raised concerns about the financial motivations driving the UPA-A’s certification processes.
He argued that the UPA-A’s shift toward a for-profit model, which includes certification fees, has raised concerns about fairness in the market. “It’s baked into the pie for small, medium-sized brands... It’s very difficult for them now to enter the pro game due to these additional fees. And that’s concerning for us.” He went on to highlight how this shift could limit competition and harm the overall health of the pickleball industry.
5. The UPA-A’s Shift Toward Nonprofit Status
In a surprising twist, Aspes revealed that the UPA-A is in the process of transitioning toward nonprofit status. While this move is intended to bring more confidence to the organization, some panelists questioned the timing, especially considering the UPA-A’s continued influence on the recreational market.
Aspes defended the decision, noting that the move to nonprofit status would foster greater transparency and independence, particularly in light of the criticism the organization has faced.
6. The Future: A Unified Standard?
Ultimately, the panelists seemed to agree that a unified standard would be the ideal outcome—both for the sport and for the manufacturers. “From a business standpoint, there are market opportunities that can come about from that,” Kaye said. However, the path to unity remains fraught with challenges.
As Filippini who witnessed the rise and stagnation of racquetball summarized, “We have to be very careful with what’s happening now. There’s a lot of infighting, and if that continues, investment will go elsewhere.”
The future of pickleball may well hinge on how these governing bodies and manufacturers navigate the tensions between regulation, technology, and business. But for now, as Filippini put it, the sport is in the midst of a “discovery state.” Whether the industry can come together to find clarity remains to be seen.
The potential for sustainable growth exists, but significant work is needed behind the scenes. The sport’s future will depend on whether the governing bodies can navigate these deep divides, or if the market fragmentation will ultimately be too great to overcome.