For readers who may be new to the organized tennis landscape, the Friend at Court is the USTA’s compendium of all rules governing sanctioned play in the United States. It includes the ITF Rules of Tennis, USTA Regulations, and additional guidance specific to competition in the United States. The Code is nested within the Friend at Court. That section outlines the “unwritten” traditions, expectations, and standards of conduct that guide player behavior. The Code can be thought of as the ethical framework for every match that recreational and competitive players experience in this country.
We are in the midst of breaking down every principle in The Code as a meticulous overthinking exercise that is the hallmark of this site. This week, we are smack dab in the middle of Principle 3, which is all about the warm-up. As it turns out, a player is not obligated to participate in the warm-up. The Code speaks directly to what happens if that occurs.
If a player declines to warm up the opponent, the player forfeits the right to a warm-up, and the opponent may warm up with another person.
USTA Friend at Court 2025 , The Code, Principle 3 (Partial Excerpt)
This is a rule where the implications are significantly different between singles and doubles. If the match in question is doubles, the obvious solution is for a player to just warm up with their partner, and a future clause in Principle 3 states exactly that. On the other hand, singles are more situationally complex in this scenario. This is arguably why this Principle even exists in the first place. In other words, this is a very singles-oriented post.
In an individual tournament setting, the right of refusal is generally straightforward. If a player chooses not to warm up with their opponent, the officials on site would typically help find someone for their opponent to hit with. This preserves fairness, maintains the cooperative spirit of the pre-match warmup, and avoids disadvantaging the player who did not initiate the refusal. Tournament environments almost always include coaches, tournament staff, or players waiting for their next match, making it relatively easy to find a suitable warm-up partner.
A similar dynamic applies to USTA League team events. If an opposing player exercises their right to refuse the warmup, a teammate is nearly always available to step in. Teams naturally bring built-in support structures, and the social environment makes parallel warmups routine. In this context, refusal is rarely disruptive and usually resolves itself without conflict because everyone has other affiliated players ready to help.
The best and most extreme example that demonstrates the potential complications for this part of the Principle is the uncommon but very real scenario of an isolated singles makeup match. Here, the logistics are different. Players arrive alone, without teammates, coaches, or officials. In this environment, refusing the warmup is not just unhelpful. It can cross into the territory of unsportsmanlike gamesmanship. The worst version of this would be a player conducting their own warmup with a coach or hitting partner at their home facility and then refusing to warm up with the visiting opponent who has no one available. That creates a fundamental competitive imbalance and violates the spirit of The Code. I would hope that players would never stoop to that level, but eventually someone will probably pop up in the comments to confirm that it has happened.
In more public settings, I would much prefer that a player refuse a warmup outright than intentionally tank one. I covered this behavior in an earlier “Tanking the Warm-Up” post. It is far more disruptive to hit erratically, rip winners, or conduct a performative non-cooperative warmup than to decline and allow the opponent to find another solution. A bad warmup wastes everyone’s time and sets a negative tone before a single ball is struck. At least with a clear refusal, both players know where they stand and can proceed accordingly.
Doubles presents an entirely different landscape, as there is always a partner available. If the opponents decline the warmup, a cooperative warmup still occurs. The warmup dynamics in doubles are inherently less susceptible to the logistical challenges that plague singles makeup matches.
It is also important to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for recusing oneself from a warm-up. Injury, illness, fatigue, or medical precautions could make a player unable to participate safely. In those cases, declining is a responsible and appropriate choice. That said, it is somewhat ironic that injuries sometimes originate from inadequate or undisciplined warm-ups in the first place. Warm-ups exist to reduce risk, not to create it.
A more delicate question is whether a player who refuses the warm-up may then conduct their own parallel hitting session. My personal opinion is that the answer should be no. A player cannot ethically decline a cooperative warmup and then hit with someone else in a parallel session. There is also the potential scouting advantage. If the refusing player can observe their opponent’s warmup but the opponent cannot observe theirs, the match can be started on uneven footing. That undermines the mutual trust that The Code is designed to preserve.
Ultimately, players must understand that they are absolutely entitled to refuse the warmup. That right is clearly articulated in The Code. But they also need to be aware of what follows from that decision. Similarly, any player whose opponent refuses to warm up with them is entitled to an alternate warm-up with someone else.
Refusal carries responsibilities. It should not disadvantage the opponent, should not become a tool for gamesmanship, and should not create scouting opportunities that tilt the first few games. Exercising the right to refuse the warmup requires an equal commitment to fairness, courtesy, and respect for the opponent.
As a personal footnote, every once in a while, I draft a post that reveals that my thinking about tennis remains firmly biased toward singles. This is one of those cases. After I completed the initial draft, I had to go back and address the differences between the singles and doubles scenarios. That psychological difference could serve as a litmus test to determine whether people are naturally singles or doubles-oriented players. If your reaction to this rule is that you would be stranded, you see the world through the singles lens. If your reflex was that you would just hit with your doubles partner, you are a doubles player. I was mildly surprised to learn that I am still singles-oriented.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2025
- Friend at Court: The USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2001. (Hardcopy.)
Hi Teresa:
I have a player who played 4.0 for one year and was just bumped up to 4.5. We do not have that level at STC. What are your suggestions on how she might be able to find a team? We appreciate any suggestions that you might have to help our player.
Thanks,
Mia
It could be challenging to find a team and get playing time in Fort Worth because there are only two teams on each flight day, and both have rather large rosters. Recently, someone tried to form a third team on Saturday, and it turned out to just be the same team that already existed under a different captain once the dust settled. Your player may have more success finding a team in Dallas. In either case, unless she has ties to a captain or player on an existing team, the move is to let the league coordinators know she is looking. (If she goes a couple of weeks into the season without landing on a team, a Hail Mary move is to find the teams that are 0-2 or 0-3 and reach back out to that captain. Once teams start losing, people lose enthusiasm, and playing time may open up.)