The United States Tennis Association recently announced that it passed rules requiring that 10-and-under tournaments be played using smaller courts and lighter equipment. 
Their press release quoted USTA President Lucy Garvin as saying, “We’re very excited about what this change means to the future of tennis in the United States. Competition is an important element of learning and growing the game, and now all children 10 and under will have the proper platform with which to compete.”
In addition, Kurt Kamperman, Chief Executive, Community Tennis, USTA said, “This rule change to the competition format for kids 10 and under is critical to the long-term growth of our sport, and ultimately will help us develop new generations of talented players.”
The press release continued by saying that the change in tournament format by both the USTA and the ITF was reached after weighing the benefits for beginners as well as recurring and high-performing youth players. Studies have found that competition, when conducted in a welcoming environment that allows for multiple play opportunities, enhances kids’ enjoyment of the game. And for aspiring collegiate and professional players, the QuickStart Tennis play format fosters proper technique and enhances strategy, key components to success in competitive play.
Over the years teaching professionals, coaches, and manufacturers have endorsed the notion that multiple play opportunities, short courts, lighter racquets, and quality instruction increase the chances that juniors will enjoy and stay in the game. In fact they have developed short racquets, lighter balls, and have had short court programs in place since the mid-1980s.
The mandate handed down by the USTA was not welcomed by some prominent teaching professionals and many in the industry. The following objections to the 10U ruling are from a variety of sources:
• Some 10-year olds have advanced beyond the short court teaching tools and are playing competitive tennis on a full court. For that reason, an appropriate rule change would have allowed short courts for 10U competitive play rather than mandating them.
• The ruling in counter-productive. Ten-year olds who are already playing on a regular court will avoid the 10Us and play the 12Us.
• This is yet another attempt by the USTA to create a monopoly. They want to take credit for the work of others and try to control all aspects of the industry.
• The ruling has not been put in place for the benefit of the sport, but rather the benefit of increasing USTA power.
• Garvin and the USTA do not support the teaching profession. This is illustrated by her comment “Now all children 10 and under will have the proper platform with which to compete.”
• The USTA has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the Player Development program, but have had limited success in development of world class players. This rule change illustrates they are not in touch with the sport or the needs of the tennis industry.
• Every USTA President and Board wants to leave their mark on the sport. This mandate is nothing more than that.
• The USTA is schizophrenic in its decision-making. It wasn’t that long ago that the USTA eliminated lower level age division rankings because research had demonstrated that competition was bad for players under 12 years of age. Now they are calling for increased competition at the younger ages.
• Over the past 20 years, clubs have gone out of business and courts have been eliminated at existing facilities. Dedicating space for new junior courts or converting existing courts for 10U play is not a cost effective investment for recreation departments, tennis facilities, or country clubs.
• The U.S. still has not fully recovered from the Great Recession. The USTA, which has not been a articipant in the recession, is not in touch with the challenges facing the industry.
• Similarly, the new ruling creates barriers to entry for new clubs. 10U courts have limited potential for revenue generation.
Even after the decision has been made, this remains a contentious issue between the USTA and some members of the industry. The real question remains, “Will the 10 and under players ultimately be the winner?”
Over the years, the USTA has introduced a number of excellent programs. Time will tell whether the recent 10U mandate will prove to be a “critical driver of long-term growth of the sport” and a generator of “generations of talented players”. In the meantime it is up to the teaching professionals and the industry to track the success of this USTA decision and hold them accountable if it turns out to be another USTA boondoggle.