Tempe, AZ – In recent weeks, there has been significant public discussion surrounding the elimination of several college tennis programs across the country. At the ITA, we have a responsibility to address these developments directly.
While in recent memory we can recall other times of financial exigency and pandemic that have led to program cuts, this particular situation is a result of larger changes to higher education and a massive reorganization of the intercollegiate athletics enterprise.
Over the past several years, and continuing today, beginning with NIL, continuing with conference realignments and the transfer portal, and culminating with the House v. NCAA, college athletics have experienced tectonic changes. For context, a reminder that prior to the settlement, the ITA, in its leadership role as the governing body of college tennis and the coaches association for the sport, wrote a public letter to Judge Claudia Wilken in which we did not oppose the settlement but opined on the current state of college athletics and the potential detrimental impacts on Olympic sports in the event of a settlement as detailed. We proposed that should the settlement be approved as submitted, colleges and universities which sign on and opt in to the terms of the settlement must agree to maintain their current sport offerings and to continue to fund all of these sports at a minimum of their current funding. Sadly, this recommendation was not adopted.
While every college and university and athletic department must make their own decisions regarding the future of their respective program, the ITA is deeply concerned about the loss of opportunities for college athletes, particularly the loss of tennis programs. We recognize the significant pressures confronting the higher education enterprise, including declining enrollment trends and reduced state and federal funding. Presently, the current challenges facing most athletic departments are primarily the need to navigate the brave new world of the post-House settlement in making internal decisions, a reality that many within the industry openly acknowledge.
Kirby Smart, the national championship football coach at the University of Georgia, and others, rightly question whether the future of college athletics should be 10-15 college football programs competing with 50 million dollar per year rosters at the risk of Olympic sports being relegated to club status, as the extreme scenario. Many in the tennis universe and beyond wonder whether John Calipari’s University of Arkansas Men’s basketball team, for example, needs one more $2.3 million player at the expense of two entire teams, 18-20 tennis roster spots.
It is important to acknowledge that the decision to eliminate a tennis program is rarely simple. Based on ongoing conversations with athletic directors, several consistent challenges have emerged:
- Limited or non-existent on-campus tennis facilities, particularly indoor courts
- Costs associated with maintaining or upgrading tennis facilities
- Restricted access to courts, leading to suboptimal student-athlete experiences
- Difficulty meeting roster expectations
- Inconsistent alumni and community engagement
- Coaching turnover
While these are real and complex issues, they are not insurmountable.
Despite these challenges, college tennis remains in a strong position compared to many other sports, with more than 1,900 programs across all divisions (NCAA DI, NCAA DII, NCAA DIII, NAIA, NJCAA, CCCAA, Wheelchair). The sport continues to provide meaningful opportunities for student-athletes and, in many cases, offers revenue-generating potential through facilities, programming, and events. As some college tennis programs are being eliminated, others are seeing significant investments through new facilities and additional scholarship monies.
The ITA has also seen meaningful growth in visibility and engagement across its platforms, reflecting increased interest in college tennis. Social media impressions grew from 13.3 million in 2024 to 35.3 million in 2025 and are already over 32 million in just the first four months of 2026, while followers across ITA channels have increased by 20% year over year for the past three years. Streaming viewership has doubled over the past four years, further expanding the sport’s reach and relevance.
At the same time, college tennis continues to establish itself as a viable pathway to professional success. Recent Grand Slams have seen record participation from players with college tennis backgrounds, reinforcing the strength of the collegiate model. The ITA’s relationships with key governing bodies, including the ATP, ITF, and USTA, have never been stronger, and overall participation in tennis continues to grow, up 54% to 27.3 million players in the United States since 2019. Tennis is frequently cited as one of the world’s healthiest sports.
We believe that college tennis remains an underactivated revenue platform, with facilities and courts often sitting idle rather than being leveraged as productive assets. Too frequently, program elimination reflects unrealized value rather than minimal or an absence of value, as many decisions are made without a full evaluation of the sport’s potential upside. Cutting programs should be a last resort—not the default response—particularly given that college tennis serves not just as a varsity sport, but as a broader community asset with meaningful institutional and local impact.
One topic that has received increased attention is the role of international student-athletes in college tennis. This is a complex matter and requires more nuanced public discourse. Tennis is a global sport. American colleges and universities, and their presidents, tout the global impact of their institutions of higher education. International tennis student-athletes not only contribute to the competitive landscape of our sport, but also enrich the teams and universities with whom they train and learn. This situation is similar in concept to musicians and prospective engineers from around the world studying at American colleges and universities.
There are presently approximately 20,000 college tennis student-athletes. It should be noted that without international student-athletes, many programs would struggle to field full rosters. Efforts to limit their participation risk undermining competitiveness, reducing institutional revenue, and ultimately threatening the viability of programs themselves. This is not a hypothetical concern; this is playing out in real time. Recent developments in Idaho, for example, underscore these broader concerns. Athletic directors and coaches across the state strongly opposed proposed legislation (ID S1357) that would have capped international student-athlete scholarships at 10%. Ultimately, the legislation did not pass, but it highlighted how policy decisions can directly threaten the viability of college tennis programs. Efforts to cap international student athlete participation in any U.S. college sport may also run afoul of existing federal and state laws and regulations, risking increased litigation and costs.
Recognizing the value of international student-athletes does not mean ignoring legitimate concerns. Age disparities, particularly cases involving significantly older incoming international student-athletes, have drawn understandable review. The NCAA is expected to address eligibility rules in the near future, and moving forward, there must be a fair and consistent framework in which all student-athletes, both domestic and international, compete on equal footing.
At the same time, international student-athletes must remain connected to their programs after graduation. Ongoing engagement and financial support, regardless of coaching changes or team performance, are essential to the long-term sustainability of college tennis.
This moment calls for thoughtful leadership. Colleges and universities have a responsibility to provide a wide range of opportunities for students, both in the classroom and through athletics. To be clear, many are, and we applaud them! For example, ten (10) schools have recently added college tennis to their offerings. Also, as a result of and allowed by the House settlement some DI tennis programs are seeing significant increases to their scholarship allocations. Not every student thrives in the same environment. Sports like tennis offer a distinctive combination of individual accountability and team experience, helping develop resilience and leadership skills that extend far beyond competition. Eliminating opportunities diminishes not only athletic diversity but also the pipeline of future leaders shaped through this sport. These decisions often involve significant financial commitments to a single sport for a very limited number of roster spots, and there is no guarantee of corresponding impact on the field or court. Meanwhile, the elimination of a tennis program permanently removes access, participation, and developmental opportunities for future generations of student-athletes.
We urge university leaders, athletic directors, and policymakers to adopt a long-term view, one that values broad-based participation, which includes both team and individual sports.
For those who care about the future of college tennis, there is also a role to play. Supporting local programs through attendance, advocacy, and financial contributions helps ensure these opportunities remain available for future generations. Sustained visibility and investment are critical to the long-term health of our sport.
The ITA remains committed to working collaboratively with institutions across the country to preserve and strengthen the future of college tennis. The ITA calls on the University of Arkansas and all other schools which recently dropped programs to reconsider their decision and re-institute their tennis teams. We encourage university leaders to engage with us before making decisions that could impact program viability, so that together we can explore solutions that support both institutional goals and student-athlete opportunities. The ITA stands ready to participate in and contribute to discussions beyond specific program cuts to envision and shape the future models that could and will work best for tennis and other Olympic sports.
For easy access to any of the links included above, please explore the following:
