Why Tennis Isn't As Big As Soccer: The Structural Barriers Holding the Sport Back
- Pavł Polø
- 7 minutes ago
- 11 min read
Have you seen this match on TV, or in a lounge, live stream, or etc? It’s not like soccer where you have more exposure.Â
Have you ever wondered why tennis isn't as big as soccer? Despite producing global superstars like Roger Federer, Serena Williams, and Rafael Nadal, tennis remains a distant second-tier sport in worldwide popularity and participation. The answer isn't about the quality of competition or athletic excellence—it's about systematic structural failures that make tennis inaccessible, expensive, and socially isolated compared to soccer's community-driven model. Why tennis isn't as big as soccer comes down to four critical factors: prohibitive infrastructure costs, absent fan immersion experiences, significant athlete development roadblocks, and a lack of accessible club systems for skill development.
Tennis enthusiasts and aspiring players face these persistent frustrations:
Astronomical entry costs: Equipment, court fees, and coaching create financial barriers that eliminate 80% of potential participants
Social isolation: No communal viewing spaces or fan hubs make tennis a solitary spectator experience
Development dead zones: The gap between recreational play and competitive tournaments leaves talented players stranded
Geographic lottery: Living far from major tournaments means zero live engagement opportunities
Club tennis scarcity: Unlike soccer's ubiquitous club system, organized tennis communities barely exist outside elite circles
Talent funnel breakdown: Promising junior players hit insurmountable financial and logistical walls before reaching professional levels
Let's examine exactly why tennis isn't as big as soccer by dissecting the structural deficiencies that prevent tennis from achieving mass-market appeal and participation rates comparable to the beautiful game.
Why Tennis Isn't As Big As Soccer?
The Infrastructure Gap: Why Tennis Courts Can't Compete With Soccer Fields
The most fundamental answer to why tennis isn't as big as soccer lies in basic infrastructure accessibility. According to research from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, the United States has approximately 270,000 tennis courts serving a population of 330 million—roughly one court per 1,222 people. Compare that to soccer fields: over 3 million playing spaces including parks, schools, and informal areas, or approximately one space per 110 people.
The math reveals the problem immediately. Soccer requires minimal infrastructure—any flat space with makeshift goals works perfectly. Tennis demands precisely maintained hard courts, clay surfaces, or grass courts with nets, proper dimensions, and regular maintenance. A study published in the Journal of Sport Management examining facility availability and sport participation rates found that every 10% increase in facility accessibility correlates with a 7.3% increase in participation rates.
Infrastructure Comparison: Tennis vs. Soccer
Factor | Tennis | Soccer | Accessibility Advantage |
Average facility cost | $25,000-$45,000 per court | $500-$5,000 per basic field | Soccer: 10-50x cheaper |
Maintenance annual cost | $5,000-$8,000 per court | $1,200-$3,000 per field | Soccer: 3-5x cheaper |
Space required | 7,200 sq ft per court | 5,000+ sq ft (flexible) | Soccer: Adaptable |
Players accommodated simultaneously | 2-4 per court | 10-22+ per field | Soccer: 5x more |
Setup time | Permanent installation | Minutes (portable goals) | Soccer: Instant play |
Source: Analysis from U.S. Tennis Association Economic Impact Study and U.S. Soccer Foundation Community Impact Report
Dr. Janet Young, whose research at George Washington University focuses on sports facility planning and community engagement, explains that "infrastructure scarcity creates a self-reinforcing cycle of exclusivity. When facilities are limited and expensive to access, participation drops, which reduces demand for new facilities, perpetuating the scarcity."
Tennis's infrastructure problem extends beyond simple availability. Court reservation systems, membership fees at private clubs, and limited public court hours create additional barriers. According to the International Tennis Federation's Global Tennis Report, 73% of tennis courts worldwide are privately owned with restricted access, compared to just 12% of soccer playing spaces.
The Fan Experience Desert: Where's the Tennis Pub Culture?
Another critical reason why tennis isn't as big as soccer is the complete absence of communal fan experiences outside tournament grounds. Soccer has mastered the art of fan immersion—from neighborhood pubs broadcasting matches on massive screens to official fan zones at major tournaments. Tennis? Virtually nothing.
The ATP and WTA tours, along with Grand Slam tournaments, have failed spectacularly at creating accessible fan engagement spaces. Research from Two Circles Sports Marketing reveals that less than 8% of tennis tournament venues offer dedicated fan zones with large-screen viewing, food, and social spaces—compared to 94% of major soccer tournaments.
Missing fan engagement elements in tennis:
No tennis pub culture: Unlike soccer where fans gather in bars and restaurants to watch matches communally, tennis viewing remains isolated to home televisions
Tournament exclusivity: Can't afford $200+ tickets? You're completely excluded from the live atmosphere
Geographic barriers: Living 500 miles from the nearest tour stop means zero opportunity for live engagement
Limited broadcast accessibility: According to Nielsen Sports, 62% of tennis fans report difficulty finding matches on accessible channels
Social viewing infrastructure: No official or unofficial spaces designed for group tennis watching experiences
Tournament viewing lounges: Virtually non-existent spaces where fans without tickets can watch matches on big screens while experiencing tournament atmosphere
Dr. Daniel Funk, Professor of Sport Management at Temple University, whose research examines sport consumer behavior and fan engagement, argues that "tennis has failed to democratize the fan experience. Soccer creates belonging through accessible communal viewing. Tennis creates exclusivity through scarcity, which limits market growth."
Consider Wimbledon, arguably tennis's most prestigious event. If you can't secure tickets (which sell out within hours) or afford the astronomical secondary market prices, your only option is watching alone at home. Compare this to the FIFA World Cup, where official fan fests in dozens of cities create free, immersive experiences for millions who'll never enter a stadium. Why tennis isn't as big as soccer becomes obvious—one sport embraces mass participation in the experience, the other maintains aristocratic exclusivity.
The Athlete Development Gauntlet: Financial and Logistical Roadblocks
Perhaps the most damaging answer to why tennis isn't as big as soccer lies in how sports develop talent. Soccer's pyramid structure—from youth clubs to professional academies—creates clear pathways with institutional support. Tennis? It's a financial minefield where families must self-fund development, often spending $100,000+ before a player reaches professional levels.
Research published in the International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics examining talent development pathways in individual versus team sports found that tennis players face average development costs 12 times higher than soccer players reaching equivalent competitive levels.
The tennis development cost breakdown:
Ages 5-10 (Introduction): $3,000-$8,000 annually (lessons, court time, equipment)
Ages 11-14 (Development): $15,000-$30,000 annually (intensive coaching, tournament travel, specialized training)
Ages 15-18 (Elite Junior): $50,000-$100,000+ annually (national tournaments, international competitions, full-time coaching)
Ages 18-22 (Professional transition): $75,000-$150,000+ annually (if not earning prize money to offset costs)
According to USTA Player Development research, only players from families earning $200,000+ annually can realistically sustain the development pathway without financial catastrophe. This economic gatekeeping eliminates approximately 94% of potential talent from ever reaching professional levels.
Dr. Joseph Cooper, whose research at the University of Connecticut examines athlete development systems and socioeconomic barriers, explains that "tennis operates as an oligarchic talent system where access correlates almost perfectly with family wealth. Soccer's club system democratizes development through institutional investment rather than family-funded models."
Comparing athlete development support systems:
Development Factor | Tennis | Soccer |
Average cost to age 18 | $200,000-$500,000 | $5,000-$25,000 |
Institutional funding available | Minimal (< 5% of players) | Extensive (club academies) |
Talent identification systems | Informal, self-presenting | Organized scouting networks |
Geographic mobility required | Extensive (national/international) | Local/regional until elite levels |
Professional pathway clarity | Opaque, high-risk | Clear progression through tiers |
Family financial burden | 95%+ of total cost | 20-40% of total cost |
The tournament circuit itself creates additional roadblocks. Unlike soccer where clubs pay player salaries from youth levels upward, tennis players must fund their own tournament entries, travel, coaching, and accommodation until they're earning enough prize money to break even—which ITF data shows doesn't occur until players crack the top 150-200 in world rankings.
The Club Tennis Void: Where's the Community Infrastructure?
A defining factor in why tennis isn't as big as soccer is the near-total absence of accessible club tennis culture. Soccer thrives because neighborhood clubs provide organized play, coaching, competition, and community for players of all abilities. Tennis offers private country clubs for the wealthy and... not much else.
According to the Aspen Institute's Project Play research, only 11% of American communities have organized tennis club structures open to the general public, compared to 76% for soccer. This void creates a massive gap between casual recreational players and competitive tournament players with no middle ground for skill development.
The missing club tennis infrastructure:
No neighborhood tennis clubs: The community hub that makes soccer accessible simply doesn't exist for tennis
Skills development gap: After basic lessons, recreational players have nowhere to systematically improve
Social isolation: Tennis remains an individual sport without community structures to build connections
Competition deserts: Limited organized leagues or competitions between beginner lessons and serious tournaments
Coaching accessibility: Quality coaching confined to expensive private arrangements rather than club-provided instruction
Practice partners: No system for matching players of similar abilities for regular practice
Professor Richard Bailey, whose comprehensive research on youth sport development published in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy examines participation patterns, found that "club-based sports show 340% higher long-term participation rates than individually accessed sports. The club creates social bonds that sustain engagement beyond the activity itself."
Tennis Australia has recognized this deficit and created the Tennis Clubs Network initiative, which aims to transform how Australians access organized tennis. Early results show promise—communities with robust club structures show 67% higher participation rates than areas relying on traditional private club or public court models.
Soccer's club advantage over tennis:
Organized weekly training: Club-provided sessions with qualified coaches
Built-in competition: Regular fixtures against other clubs creating structured progression
Social infrastructure: Clubhouses, team events, parent communities building lasting connections
Affordable access: Membership fees covering most costs rather than pay-per-use models
Pathway visibility: Clear progression from recreational teams through competitive ranks
Community identity: Belonging to something larger than individual play
The Lawn Tennis Association in the UK attempted to address this with their "Community Tennis Clubs" program, but as of 2024, they've established only 320 clubs nationwide—compared to over 7,000 community soccer clubs in England alone according to The Football Association data.
The Broadcast and Media Visibility Problem
Why tennis isn't as big as soccer extends into media consumption patterns. According to Nielsen's Year in Sports Media Report, Grand Slam tennis tournaments average 3-8 million U.S. viewers for finals matches, while major soccer tournaments routinely exceed 20-40 million viewers domestically and hundreds of millions globally.
The problem isn't quality of play—it's accessibility and cultural integration. Soccer matches fit neatly into broadcast schedules, are widely available on basic cable and streaming platforms, and have established viewing traditions. Tennis broadcasts are scattered across premium cable channels (Tennis Channel requires upgraded cable packages), streaming services, and network television with inconsistent scheduling.
Media accessibility comparison:
Free broadcast availability: Soccer matches frequently on network TV; tennis predominantly on paid cable/streaming
Consistent scheduling: Soccer matches at predictable times; tennis matches with uncertain start times and durations
Highlight culture: Soccer goals dominate social media; tennis highlights limited to niche accounts
Cultural penetration: Soccer references permeate popular culture; tennis remains relatively isolated
Local coverage: Local soccer matches receive community media attention; recreational tennis is invisible
Dr. Jimmy Sanderson, Associate Professor at Arizona State's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, whose research focuses on sports media and digital engagement, notes that "tennis hasn't adapted to modern media consumption patterns. The sport requires appointment viewing of 3-5 hour matches, while soccer delivers concentrated 90-minute experiences perfect for social viewing and highlights that spread virally."
Economic Sustainability: The Prize Money Problem
The professional tennis economic model reveals another dimension of why tennis isn't as big as soccer. While top players earn enormous sums, the vast majority struggle financially. Research from the Professional Tennis Players Association shows that players ranked 100-250 in the world typically earn $50,000-$100,000 annually from prize money—before subtracting coaching fees, travel costs, and training expenses that can exceed $80,000 yearly.
Compare this to soccer where fourth-tier professional leagues in many countries pay salaries sufficient for full-time athletic careers. The USL Championship in American soccer, a second-tier league, provides salaries ranging from $40,000-$500,000 with teams covering travel and many training costs.
Professional viability comparison (players ranked 100-250 in the world):
Economic Factor | Tennis | Soccer (Equivalent Level) |
Gross annual earnings | $50,000-$100,000 | $100,000-$400,000 |
Self-funded expenses | $60,000-$100,000 | $5,000-$15,000 |
Net annual income | -$10,000 to $40,000 | $85,000-$385,000 |
Economic viability | Unsustainable without external funding | Sustainable professional career |
Health insurance | Self-funded | Typically club/league provided |
Retirement planning | Individual responsibility | Often pension schemes included |
This economic reality means talented players from middle-class backgrounds often abandon tennis in their early twenties when the financial burden becomes unsustainable. Professor Stefan Szymanski, sports economist at the University of Michigan whose work on professional sports labor markets is widely cited, explains: "Tennis's winner-take-all economics create a broken talent market. Soccer's pyramid structure with sustainable wages at multiple levels allows more talent to develop and mature professionally."
Solutions: What Tennis Can Learn From Soccer's Playbook
Understanding why tennis isn't as big as soccer points toward clear solutions, many of which tennis authorities are slowly beginning to implement:
Infrastructure democratization:
Convert underutilized spaces into public tennis courts using innovative surfaces like PlaySight's Smart Court technology that requires less maintenance
Implement flexible booking systems allowing individual hourly access rather than exclusive club memberships
Create multi-use sports complexes where tennis courts share space with other activities
Fan experience revolution:
Establish official fan zones at tournaments with large-screen viewing, food, entertainment for fans without tickets
Create "Tennis Pubs" franchise model—venues with courts plus social viewing spaces
Develop augmented reality spectator experiences allowing virtual court-side views from anywhere
Development pathway reform:
Implement regional training centers with subsidized access based on talent rather than family wealth
Create junior prize money systems allowing development-stage players to offset costs
Establish club tennis networks following Tennis Australia's model with affordable membership and organized competitions
Club tennis expansion:
Government and USTA/LTA investment in community tennis club infrastructure
Transform traditional private clubs into hybrid models with community access tiers
Develop corporate-sponsored club tennis programs in underserved communities
The Tennis Industry Association's strategic plan acknowledges many of these challenges, but implementation remains frustratingly slow compared to soccer's rapid global expansion fueled by accessible infrastructure and community-based models.
The Bottom Line: Exclusivity Versus Inclusion
Why tennis isn't as big as soccer ultimately comes down to a philosophical difference: exclusivity versus inclusion. Tennis has historically embraced its country club origins, maintaining barriers that preserve an elite identity. Soccer demolished barriers at every opportunity, building the world's most popular sport through radical accessibility.
The numbers tell the story. According to FIFA's Big Count Survey, approximately 265 million people actively play soccer worldwide. The ITF Global Tennis Report estimates 87 million tennis participants—respectable, but a fraction of soccer's reach despite tennis's longer professional history.
Tennis possesses everything needed for mass appeal: athletic excellence, dramatic competition, global superstars, and year-round programming. What it lacks is the structural infrastructure that makes participation accessible and spectating communal. Until tennis authorities dismantle the economic barriers, create genuine club cultures, and build fan immersion experiences that welcome rather than exclude, the sport will remain a beautiful but niche pursuit enjoyed by those with means and access while soccer continues its reign as the people's game.
The question isn't whether tennis can match soccer's popularity—it's whether tennis leadership has the courage to pursue that goal by fundamentally restructuring a sport that has resisted accessibility for over a century.
References
Sports & Fitness Industry Association - Facility accessibility data: https://www.sfia.org/reports/
Journal of Sport Management - Facility availability study: https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsm/27/1/article-p18.xml
U.S. Tennis Association Economic Impact: https://www.usta.com/en/home/about-usta/national/economic-impact.html
U.S. Soccer Foundation Community Impact: https://ussoccerfoundation.org/programs/
George Washington University - Sports facility planning research: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1527002515577887
International Tennis Federation Global Tennis Report: https://www.itftennis.com/en/about-us/tennis-development/global-tennis-report/
Two Circles Sports Marketing - Tennis fan engagement: https://twocircles.com/us-en/insights/global-tennis-report/
Nielsen Sports - Tennis fan insights: https://nielsensports.com/tennis-fan-insights/
Temple University - Fan engagement research: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/16184742.2016.1223735
International Journal of Sport Policy - Talent development pathways: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19406940.2017.1348382
USTA Player Development: https://www.usta.com/en/home/improve/national/player-development.html
University of Connecticut - Athlete development barriers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1441352316300067
Aspen Institute Project Play: https://www.aspenprojectplay.org/state-of-play-2020/designing-community-play
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy - Youth sport development: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17408980701345684
Tennis Australia Clubs Network: https://www.tennis.com.au/join-tennis/find-a-club
Lawn Tennis Association Community Clubs: https://www.lta.org.uk/workforce-venues/tennis-venues/community-tennis-clubs/
The Football Association data: https://www.thefa.com/about-football-association/what-we-do
Nielsen Year in Sports Media: https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2023/year-in-sports-media-2023/
Arizona State University - Sports media research: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19312458.2017.1340693
Professional Tennis Players Association: https://www.ptpaplayers.com/news
USL Championship: https://www.uslchampionship.com/
FIFPro Global Employment Report: https://www.fifpro.org/en/health/global-employment-report
University of Michigan - Sports economics: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/money-and-football
Tennis Industry Association: https://www.tennisindustry.org/about
FIFA Big Count Survey: https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/who-we-are/big-count