Last month at the USTA Texas Annual Meeting, I was exposed to an idea that created a seismic shift in my perspective. Once upon a time, I wrote, “The USTA addition of an 18-39 league is probably the dumbest idea that ever saw its way to implementation.” While I subsequently walked back that position in “Revisiting 18-39 USTA League Play,” I now regard that post as a mere waypoint on my journey of discovery.
It was an offhand comment from one of the leaders of the “Young Adult Transition” Committee, which was recently rebranded from “Gen Y / Gen Z.” Her observation was that people who are under 39 are unable to play USTA League during vast parts of the year because 18+ offerings only occupy a tiny part of the USTA League calendar. The struggling early Adult demographic lives in a world where they are excluded from participation in USTA League most of the time. I was floored.
My original reservations about the 18-39 USTA League were based primarily on the exclusion of the older demographic from participating. I bristled at the exclusionary nature of a USTA League that capped participation at 39 years old. However, I simultaneously ignored that the 40+, 55+, and 65+ USTA League essentially does the exact same thing to the younger players.
If the NTRP system works as the organization claims, there is no valid reason for age-based segregation in the first place. While I cannot resist beating that drum, that may not be the most important argument against doing it.
The USTA wonders why engagement and retention are low for players in the 18-39 age range. The fact that they are systematically excluded from participation in USTA League for the majority of the year is one of the likely root causes. It is insidious to exclude players from participating throughout much of the league calendar.
Theoretically younger adults can continue to practice and engage in social tennis with older players when 18+ Leagues are out of season. However, the reality of the USTA League schedule is that older people are unavailable due to their 40+, 55+, and 65+ team obligations. Additionally, USTA League play also takes up a lot of courts. It can be difficult to even find a place to play during prime hours.
Essentially, these younger players are left to their own devices for large swaths of time during the year. Without the pull of USTA League play, other players to practice with, and available courts, they simply drift away to other pastimes. Tournaments should potentially fill that void, but the domination of USTA League play has also effectively curtailed participation there. Segregating NTRP tournament play into age divisions has only exacerbated the issue.
There is no quick fix for the fact that the age-based orientation of USTA League systematically excludes players from the younger demographic. However, recognizing that the structure is a part of the problem is critical if the organization is truly serious about supporting participation in what should be a vital part of the tennis ecosystem.
This is where I close with a variation of a crazy idea that I surface from time to time. The USTA needs to be more intentional about how they incentivize player behavior within the tennis ecosystem. It should be recognized that conducting USTA League “National Championships” influences how players behave and prioritize their play. I think all the niche National Championships is depressing participation in the 18-39 age ranges, even for 18+ Leagues.
There should be an absolute emphasis that 18+ USTA League play is the most prestigious division. One way to create that focus is if the USTA decided that National Championships would only be conducted for 18+ USTA NTRP levels. To accommodate those players who only want to compete against players their own age, USTA League National Championships could still be conducted outside of NTRP leveling. That would essentially make it age-group open team based play.
The exclusionary nature of age-based segregation within the USTA League calendar undermines engagement and retention in the sport. It deprives younger players of crucial opportunities to compete. A reevaluation of how the structure of USTA League contributes to low participation in the 18-39 demographic is desperately needed. Prioritizing 18+ USTA League play and reimagining the role of National Championships for older players could be a great first step toward recovery.
There must be a difference in your local leagues and the ones I play in (Raleigh, NC). Above you said, “The fact that they are systematically excluded from participation in USTA League for the majority of the year is one of the likely root causes. It is insidious to exclude players from participating throughout much of the league calendar.” In our local leagues, every season there is an 18+ league. In the spring, it’s men’s or women’s teams. In the summer, there are singles and mixed. In the fall, there is combo. Each of those leagues has 18+, 40+, 55+ and sometime 65+. Does your section not have 18+ leagues for each season?
I appreciate your observation that the ratings levels should not require age groups but it’s been my experience that 18+ 3.5 is very different than 55+ 3.5 play.
Indeed, the USTA League calendar varies from Section to Section, and there is also great variation within Texas. In my local area, outdoor tennis is a year-round sport. January and February are dominated by 55+ and 40+ leagues with no 18+ options. 18+ is just now getting underway at the start of March.