One of the most frustrating things to me after writing about the drama at the WFCC in “Racquet Sports at War” a few weeks ago was the comments along the lines that tennis has to be willing to “share the space” with pickleball. To be clear, this site has not historically advocated against the idea of dual-use courts. If anything, I have mostly written about ways the two racquet sports can share the space better. However, for sharing to work, that necessarily has to be a two-way street.
Here is an allegory that summarizes how I think about the court-sharing relationship between tennis and pickleball. It is like you go to a restaurant and order french fries with a friend who elected not to order that side. When the food arrives, they remark that the fries look delicious, so you tell them that they are welcome to have a few. That is sharing.
To kick that up to pickleball level, they slide the fries over to their side of the table and slap your hand whenever you have the temerity to reach for them yourself. They then lecture you about how they were entitled to the fries because you weren’t eating them and tell you that you are selfish for trying to eat the food you ordered. That’s the pickleball model of “sharing.”
It frustrates me that anyone might think the recent drama at the WFCC resulted because the tennis community refused to share the space. On the contrary, the facility had made changes in an attempt to support both pickleball and tennis. In fact, pickleball had adequate capacity in this situation but felt entitled to push beyond reasonable bounds anyway.
Breaking down the numbers, the WFCC had permanently converted one of six outdoor tennis courts to four pickleball courts with permanent nets. The adjacent outdoor tennis court was also lined for dual use with portable nets, creating four more pickleball courts. Additionally, one of the three covered tennis courts was dual-lined to support four pickleball courts as well.
That brings the capacity tally to 4 permanent pickleball courts and 8 dual-use pickleball courts for a total of 12. There were 6 permanent tennis courts and 2 dual-use courts on the tennis side.
Not once during my membership at the club did I see more than four pickleball courts in use at the same time. However, there were quite a few occasions when I could not get a tennis court at the precise time that I wanted. Demand for the tennis courts was at the razor’s edge of capacity and was constraining the ability of the club to increase participation in things like league programming.
Pinning down pickleball usage numbers at the WFCC is a challenge because the playing community felt free to bypass the pro-shop sign-in sheet. They also did not embrace the court reservation system, but why should they? The facility had more courts than the pickleball community needed. I will allow that there were probably times with more pickleball players onsite than peak court capacity. However, in my observation, the play-in culture of pickleball results in a bunch of players sitting around watching even when courts are available.
As evidence of that, on the very last Sunday evening of my membership at the WFCC, I went up to the courts for one last look around. Coincidently, this is one of the alleged “peak” usage times for pickleball. There were 12 players in the facility on a gorgeous Sunday afternoon. 8 were playing, and 4 were watching. I couldn’t help but wonder what possessed the club management to rid itself of the tennis nuisance for… this.
Putting some numbers behind it, this level of pickleball participation is what apparently drove the WFCC to squeeze out the Director of Racquet Sports, run off the entire pro-shop staff, and yawn as at least 30 tennis-playing families (at last count) followed them out the door. The hostility toward the tennis-playing community remains palpable to this very day.
A handful of tennis-playing families retained their club membership because they also golf. When the tennis courts are in use, the players are accosted and questioned over the validity of their club membership. The belligerence of the pickleball community in that facility is rivaled only by the enthusiasm for quickly converting more courts to exclusive pickleball. Since the club has zero budget for capital improvements amidst the ongoing cash flow crisis, they are seeking voluntary donations to make it happen.
The WFCC management clearly expects pickleball play to surge now that tennis is out of the way. It seems delusional to think that people will join an expensive private club for pickleball. Especially since the club courts are less than a mile from ten permanently lined pickleball courts at the public facility. In related news, those courts are now under competent management after a highly qualified Director of Racquet sports recently fell into the city’s lap. The membership cost and/or the pay-as-you-go court fees are significantly lower for better courts nearby.
Tennis is an older sport with years of experience fairly allocating scarce court space. The reservation system at the WFCC was in line with what is considered normal and customary at facilities in the larger metropolitan areas in the state.
Tennis and pickleball players had equal opportunity to reserve court space when needed at the WFCC. Tennis players inherently understand that a court reservation is strongly advised if they want to play at a specific place and time. In contrast, pickleball bristled at the idea of reservations and expected court availability on-demand.
From my perspective, the former Director of Racquet Sports at the WFCC was justified in challenging the idea that an additional outdoor tennis court needed to be permanently converted to pickleball. The participation numbers from both sports at that facility simply did not justify permanently reducing the tennis court capacity in favor of pickleball space.
The fundamental issue at the WFCC wasn’t that the tennis community wasn’t willing to share the space with pickleball. The problem is that the pickleball players didn’t want to share at all.
Sometimes it is useful to remember that the sport is still in its early formative years. Pickleball is essentially a toddler throwing a tantrum over unreasonable demands. That tactic shouldn’t work. However, extenuating circumstances at the WFCC made this particular racquet sports saga play out the way it did. Regardless of that, there are still lessons to be learned for the tennis community from what transpired.
Sharing is unavoidable. Sometimes you have to say no. Every once in a while, we all have to give something back. If constraints are put into place, and communication is handled with firm but loving kindness, perhaps someday pickleball will develop into responsible adult members of racquet sports society.
Private, indoor pickleball facilities are being built in metropolitan areas. Capitalism should provide a solution if pickleball players are willing to pay-to-play. If not, perhaps attaching senior living apartments to the pickleball facilities will allow Medicare will pay the players’ court fees. Private courts with government subsidies? That’s the average pickleballer’s dream come true!