The racquet sports sector is making consequential decisions — facility builds, investments, market entry — on fragmented information and personal intuition. No standardized benchmarks, no comparable facility data, no structured KPIs exist. Sport-by-sport fragmentation and rapid growth have masked this gap, but as markets mature, the margin for error is shrinking. The industry needs structured knowledge infrastructure that combines evidence with experience to support better de

Commercial racquet sports facilities face a harsh reality: below a sport-specific court threshold, the math does not work. Fixed costs are virtually identical whether you operate 3 courts or 10. This analysis examines minimum viable scale for padel, pickleball, and squash, why 3–4 court facilities are trapped by their cost structure, and where the margin inflection point transforms the business.

Two facilities can offer the same sports, serve the same city, and still require completely different strategies — because their fundamental orientation differs. Whether a venue is built around performance, participation, commercial growth, community, or a structured hybrid, that orientation shapes design, programming, staffing, and measurement. Without strategic clarity on purpose, facilities drift between conflicting logics. This article explains why defining orientation ea

Most racquet sports projects start with the wrong question. They focus on sport mix, court count, or visual concept — before defining what kind of facility they are actually building. The Racquet Sports Institute works with five distinct facility types: Commercial/For-Profit, Non-Profit/Public/Training Academy, School/University, Member Club, and Add-on Hospitality/Hotel/Workplace. Each type requires different metrics, different design logic, different staffing, and different

Most racquet sports facilities fail strategically before construction begins. The error is starting with design decisions instead of purpose. A facility is defined by its operating logic — not its sport. The right first question is not "How many courts?" but "What problem does this facility solve, for whom, and under what business model?"

Racquet sports facility concepts cannot be copied blindly from one market to another. Growth, visibility, and court numbers may suggest momentum, but they do not reveal market maturity, operational depth, or long-term fit. The real challenge is to understand what is transferable, what needs adaptation, and what must remain local. Better facility decisions come from structured comparison, not imitation.

This article argues that racquet sports should not automatically be viewed as direct competitors. Instead, squash, padel and pickleball can play different strategic roles within one venue, attracting different user groups and strengthening the overall facility model when the mix is planned properly.

Racquet sports can no longer be planned as separate worlds. As squash, padel, and pickleball increasingly share audiences, business models, and facility realities, operators and investors need a more integrated way of thinking about growth, design, and long-term sustainability.

McKinsey’s 2025 report shows Latino fans will drive one-third of U.S. sports growth by 2035. For racket-sports facilities, this signals huge potential: Latino communities are young, family-oriented, digital, and community-driven—matching the DNA of modern clubs. Facilities should focus on youth programs, cultural authenticity, bilingual digital outreach, and social-event concepts in high-growth Latino regions like California, Texas, and Florida.

Jean Vacca (CEO, Padel Now France) says France’s FFT-backed non-profit base expands access but anchors low prices, pressuring private clubs. Upside: committed players seek premium indoor courts, advanced coaching, leagues and community. Playbook: sell the environment, own development, run must-show programs, price around public anchors, target the committed, and partner with municipalities. 2024–25: 814 new courts; 1,000+ forecast; 85k+ competitors; 100k+ licences; subsidies

This paper shows how mass-participation policy channels public money into low-cost courts, boosting access while squeezing private clubs on price and utilization. Case studies: squash in England (decline; leisure centers), U.S. pickleball (boom on public courts; private model strained), and Spain’s padel (public provision + demand; private wins via quality/programming). Conclusion: clubs must differentiate through experience, community, positioning, partnerships, and professi

The Racquet Sports Institute’s third article explores what recreational squash players actually spend across Europe and the United States. It breaks down membership fees, court costs, gear, and coaching, showing how access drives expenses. Squash remains the most facility-dependent of the three racquet sports, with higher costs tied to indoor clubs and memberships—especially in major U.S. cities.