Tennis Industry Association Archives - On One Hand Business... On the Other Hand Sports

Is Tennis Participation Limited by the Way the Sport is Marketed?

September 1, 2019February 9, 2025 horvath Leave a comment

A version of this article was originally posted in Racketbusinessnews.com in September 2019.

Tennis players have historically had demographics that make them an appealing market for companies wanting to sell sports cars, brokerage services, classy watches, and exotic vacation destinations. Hats off to the USTA for exploiting these demographics to generate significant revenue from sponsorships, advertising, and television rights to the U.S. Open.

Without a doubt, the U.S. Open provides positive exposure for the sport, and the USTA has used a portion of this revenue to develop programs that have been passed down to its 17 sections. With that in mind, it is fair to ask whether the use of the industry’s demographics to portray tennis as “the sport of kings” has diminished its appeal to the masses and played a role in equipment sales and participation levels that have been stagnant since 2010.

The following analysis compares the gender, ethnicity, age, education, and household income of the tennis population, as defined by TIA, to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. This data and analysis can be used to develop retention strategies in market segments where the needs of the players have been met. In addition, it points out underserved markets, where more costly and time-consuming investments are required to attract players.

Gender – Tennis is dominated by males. Data not included in the TIA 2019 study shows that 80% of USPTA professionals are male and only 8% of the top 100 women on the WTA tour have a female who coaches in some capacity.

Table I – Gender TIA 2019 vs. U.S. Population
Gender	TIA 2019	Census
Male	55.0%	50.8%
Female	45.0%	49.2%
Total	100.0%	100.0%
Source: TIA, Headwaters Economics, U.S. Census Bureau, WTA, United States Professional Tennis Association.

Over the years, research in women’s sports has been conducted by many credible individuals and organizations. More recently, the WTCA has actively taken steps to increase the number of women tennis players and coaches. What else can industry leaders to increase the number of women players and coaches?

Ethnicity – A majority of tennis players are White/Caucasians. Table II shows that Whites/Caucasians and Asians are overrepresented in the tennis population and Hispanics, Blacks, and other minorities are underrepresented.

Table II – Ethnicity TIA 2019 vs. U.S. Population
Ethnicity	TIA 2019	Census
White/Caucasian	69.5%	61.5%
Hispanic	10.8%	17.6%
Asian	9.4%	5.3%
Black/African American	8.9%	12.3%
Other	1.4%	3.4%
Total	100.0%	100.0%
Source: TIA, Headwaters Economics, and U.S. Census Bureau

For at least 30 years, tennis organizations have established well-intended committees and programs that looked at the challenge of making tennis available to underserved communities. How can the industry provide funding or grants to build courts and hire certified professionals to increase participation in underserved communities where programs and committees have been unsuccessful? What additional actions can be taken to actively meet the needs of underserved areas?

Age of Players – The median age of tennis players is about 10 years younger than the overall population, in part because about one-in-four players are under the age of 18. In addition, about half the tennis population is between the ages of 18 and 44.

Table III – Age TIA 2019 vs. U.S. Population
Age of Players	TIA 2019	Census
6 to 12	13.5%	9.7%
13 to 17	12.6%	7.1%
18 to 24	13.7%	10.4%
25 to 34	20.4%	14.8%
35 to 44	17.0%	13.7%
45 to 55	12.4%	14.5%
55+	10.6%	29.8%
Total	100.0%	100.0%
Median Age (all values)	30.0	40.4
Median Age (over 17)	36.7	46.8
Source: TIA, Headwaters Economics, and U.S. Census Bureau Note: The Census data was adjusted for unique TIA categories. In addition, TIA only counted players who were older than 5 years.

The data shows the importance of retention in increasing tennis participation. Tennis is a sport that can be played for a lifetime; however, the data shows there is a sharp drop off in play when players turn 45. Will this decline in senior participation increase as senior take up pickleball and golf? What can the industry do to attract more juniors and retain existing juniors?

Education – Tennis players have high educational aspirations.

Table IV – Education TIA 2019 vs. U.S. Population
Education	TIA 2019	Census
High School Graduate	98.5%	87.3%
Bachelor’s Degree	41.2%	30.9%
Graduate or Professional	23.5%%	11.8%
Source: TIA, Headwaters Economics, and U.S. Census Bureau Note: The TIA data was adjusted to account for only adults.

Student-athletes and their parents should be strong advocates for tennis programs in PK-20 education. How can tennis players be stronger advocates and supporters of tennis and physical education programs in elementary and secondary education? How can the industry motivate high school players to play tennis or other sports on a year-round basis? How can junior tournament players be motivated to play in high school programs? What can be done to improve the quality of coaching in high school programs? How can high school tennis players be encouraged to continue their careers in college athletic, club, or intramural programs? What type of funding or grants can the industry provide to build more courts and create more programs at high schools and colleges?

Household Income (HHI) – Tennis players have a median HHI that is significantly greater than the U.S. HHI.

Table V – HHI TIA 2019 vs. U.S. Population
HHI	TIA 2019	Census
$100,000 +	41.7%	26.2%
$75,000 to $99,999	17.4%	12.3%
$50,000 to $74,999	16.8%	17.7%
$25,000 to $49,999	16.1%	22.5%
Less than $25,000	8.0%	21.4%
Total	100.0%	100.0%
Median HHI	$88,100	$57,462
Source: TIA, Headwaters Economics, and U.S. Census Bureau

It is possible for players to spend anywhere from a small amount of money to tens of thousands of dollars playing tennis each year. How can the tennis industry make the sport more accessible or affordable for players in lower income brackets? Can more unstructured or informal play, such as drop-in tennis, be incorporated in more facility programs to meet the needs of players who are not interested in formal or structured activities? How can the profession make tennis sexier and have the allure that it had when Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in the Battle of the Sexes?

Using Demographics to Promote Participation –Wouldn’t it be great if industry leaders took a more in-depth look at the sports demographics, and other data, to find ways to make tennis more appealing to the masses? Wouldn’t it be great if the industry leaders developed attraction and retention programs that were designed, supported, and financed by the industry? Wouldn’t it be great if industry leaders could legitimately say there are 30 million tennis players in the U.S. and equipment sales, junior and adult participation, and the number of teaching professionals have been on the rise for the last eight years?

TIA Positively Spins the Value of Tennis Industry

June 2, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

On March 22, the Tennis Industry Association (TIA) issued a press release titled, ” 2014 State of the Industry Values Tennis Economy at $5.55 Billion.” The emphasis was placed on $5.55 million.

There is a reason the TIA press release did not mention the amount of change in the value of the industry. A year ago TIA reported the tennis industry was valued at $5.4 billion in 2011. Between 2011 and 2013, the value of the tennis industry increased by $.15 billion, or 2.8%. Between 2011 and 2013, the CPI for all items increased by 3.2%.

The value of the industry did not keep up with the increase in inflation. In other words, the net value of the industry declined slightly over the past two years.

Tennis is an important part of our society, it is a small industry that employs workers in all states; however, the tennis industry is not a significant part of the U.S. economy.

Nominal GDP increased from $15.5 trillion in 2011 to $16.7 trillion in 2013, an increase of 8.2%. (The nominal GDP is used because the TIA data is not adjusted for inflation).

The value of the industry increased at a rate less than GDP output. In other words, the value of the tennis industry expanded at a rate lower than the overall economy, i.e. tennis is losing market share.

There are three possible reasons for the “stagnation” of the value of the industry.
• Over the past year, the sport attracted more “occasional players” than “frequent” players. While the total number of players may have increased, the newcomers didn’t spend as much as the industry core, the “frequent” player. Historically, the industry has a poor track record of converting “occasional players” to “frequent players.” For example, there were only 5.9 million frequent players in 1999. Today that number is about 5.4 million.
• There is a flaw in the methodology for the collection of the TIA data.
• The industry is growing; however, there are weaknesses.

The TIA has to publicly spin the data – that is what they are getting paid to do. Hopefully they are accompanying the spin with a dose of reality in board rooms and behind closed doors.

Where is the Tennis Industry Really Headed?

March 9, 2013November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

Spin is essential in the sport of tennis, both on and off the court.

For the past two months, the Tennis Industry Association (TIA) has been releasing information from the most recent annual TIA/USTA industry study. Like most sectors of the economy, the tennis industry felt the pain of the Great Recession. Unfortunately, the recovery has closely resembled the bounce of a dead tennis ball on a cold day.

The tennis industry has been in a mature stage since the end of the short-lived 1975 tennis boom. Given the tradition of the sport and its global appeal, it seems reasonable to expect participation in the sport grow at a rate equal to or slightly greater than changes in the population.

Between 1999 and 2012 the tennis population expanded at a slower rate than the overall population. This would infer that Initiatives to generate interest in the sport may have prevented a decline or slower rate of growth; however, they have clearly failed to “grow the game” at or above the rate of population growth.

The tennis industry closely follows the Pareto Principle. Frequent players, those who play 21 times a year or more, account for about 70% of total spending and 17% to 25% of all players. Since 1999, this segment of the tennis population has declined, a sign that long-term efforts to “grow the game” in this critical area have not been successful.

Regular/casual players are responsible for about 30% of the total spending. Since 1999 this group has made up 75% to 83% of total players. Initiatives to generate interest in regular/casual players have had a minimal impact on long-term net increases in participation.

The growth of the tennis industry, as measured by the TEII, has been about half that of Nominal Personal Consumption and GDP for the period 2003 to 2012. The volatility of the global economy has created a challenging environment for the sport’s manufacturers and service providers.

It seems so simple looking on from the outside. Industry leaders need to develop strategies to effectively fix the problem in four areas:

Retain and increase the number of frequent players. This is the easy part – Frequent players already know the merits of tennis. They simply have to be given compelling reasons to keep doing what they love to do.
Convert regular player into frequent players. Again, regular players have a passion for the game. Teaching professionals should create reasons to keep them engaged. Like the age-old bumper sticker said, “Think Globally, Act Locally.”
Create enough excitement about the sport that casual players turn into regular players. The onus for making this happen lies with the tennis professionals.
Strategically introduce players to the game.

For a full review of the latest TIA data, without the spin, read, “Where is the Tennis Industry Really Headed?“

College Tennis in Jeopardy?

February 18, 2013November 13, 2016 horvath 1 Comment

On the heels of a report by the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and the Tennis Industry Association (TIA), the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) released an update on the number of programs that have been dropped in college tennis.

The ITA report stated, “During the first decade of our research study (1970-1980), we have record of 6 programs being dropped. In the next decade (1981-1991), the rate of elimination increased ten-fold, with 60 known programs dropped. In the next decade (1992-2002), the rate of program elimination almost quadrupled, with 209 known programs dropped and more than 40% of these programs (92) dropped in the last three years of the decade. In addition, 175 programs were dropped over two decades (1981-2002), with precise years unknown. The trend of dropped programs appears to be continuing, with 120 programs known to have been dropped during the past eight years.”

College tennis is essential to the tennis industry. Many teaching professionals are former college players and a few even go on to play of the circuit. In many areas, college players coach in community and recreation programs and add to the quality of play in local tournaments during the offseason.

The ITA has provided a list of schools that have dropped programs, added them, and programs that are in jeopardy. It is UGLY!

On a positive note, the ITA is seeking advocates to speak out on behalf of college tennis. If you care about the sport then go to the ITA website and complete a form indicating your willingness to support their efforts.

http://www.itatennis.com/AboutITA/Advocacy.htm