Why the numbers behind a pickleball facility can look very different from the demand you see on the courts.

Walk into a busy pickleball facility on a Tuesday evening and the business opportunity can look almost irresistible.

Every court is occupied.

Players are waiting.

Programs sell out.

People complain they can't find enough court time.

Across North America, private operators, investors and developers are looking at this extraordinary demand and reaching what seems like an obvious conclusion:

We should build a pickleball facility.

Find a building.

Put in eight, ten or twelve courts.

Sell memberships.

Run leagues and lessons.

Charge for court time.

With this much demand, how could it possibly not make money?

At the same time, municipalities are confronting the same growth from a completely different perspective.

Residents want more courts.

Existing facilities are overcrowded.

Councils are being pressured to respond.

So a municipality decides it needs eight courts.

Or 12.

Or 20.

But there's a question both groups should be asking before millions of dollars are committed:

What do the numbers actually say we should build?

Because one of the things we've learned from analyzing pickleball facilities is that the answer isn't always what people expect.

Demand is real.

Profitability isn't guaranteed.

And for municipalities, simply building more courts doesn't necessarily mean you've made the right infrastructure investment.

Demand Is Only the Starting Point

There is little question about the popularity of pickleball.

But popularity and financial sustainability are two different things.

A private facility can have packed courts every evening and still struggle financially.

It can sell hundreds of memberships and still have the wrong membership model.

It can have a waiting list at 7 p.m. while significant court capacity sits empty at 1 p.m.

It can generate substantial revenue while struggling under commercial rent, labour, utilities, financing and operating expenses.

And it can look enormously successful from the parking lot while generating disappointing returns for the people who invested the capital.

That's one reason Pickleball Partners has been cautious about the economics of private pickleball facilities.

The sport can be terrific.

The business model still has to work.

The Court-Hour Is Perishable Inventory

One of the most important concepts in pickleball facility economics is also one of the easiest to overlook.

An unused court-hour today can never be sold tomorrow.

Consider an eight-court facility.

At 7 p.m. on Tuesday, all eight courts may be occupied with additional players wanting access.

That looks fantastic.

But what happened at 10 a.m.?

What happened at 1 p.m.?

What happened at 3 p.m.?

What happens late in the evening?

Those unused court-hours are gone forever.

That's why simply assuming something like "60% utilization" across an entire facility tells you very little.

A proper analysis needs to understand utilization by daypart and day of week.

Early morning.

Mid-morning.

Afternoon.

Prime time.

Late evening.

Weekdays.

Weekends.

Then comes the next question.

What should be happening on those courts?

Not All Court-Hours Are Worth the Same

Suppose you have one available court for two hours.

What's its best use?

Four members playing under an unlimited membership?

A paid court rental?

A league?

A clinic?

A lesson?

A youth program?

An organized drop-in?

A corporate event?

Those activities can produce dramatically different economics.

But revenue isn't the only consideration.

Some programs attract new customers.

Some improve retention.

Some build community.

Some introduce beginners to the game.

Some fill difficult off-peak periods.

And some consume your most valuable court capacity without producing sufficient incremental revenue.

That's why the objective isn't simply:

Fill the courts.

The objective is to understand what those court-hours contribute to the entire operating model.

Membership Models Can Make or Break the Facility

This is another area where pickleball facilities can get into trouble.

An operator may look at 700 memberships and see predictable monthly revenue.

That's understandable.

But those 700 memberships also represent claims against a finite amount of court capacity.

What happens when everyone wants Tuesday at 7 p.m.?

What happens if the membership includes too much court access?

What happens when heavy users consume substantially more capacity than occasional players while paying essentially the same amount?

And what happens when members discover they're paying every month but can't book the times they want?

Now you've created two problems.

An economic problem.

And:

A customer-experience problem.

Eventually, one affects the other.

The wrong membership model can make a club appear successful while quietly undermining both its economics and the experience required to retain its members.

Then Come the Costs

This is where enthusiasm needs to meet mathematics.

How much is the lease?

How long is the commitment?

What are the common-area costs?

Utilities?

Insurance?

Staff?

Management?

Technology?

Marketing?

Maintenance?

Cleaning?

Equipment?

Financing?

Working capital?

Build-out?

And what happens if membership and utilization take considerably longer to ramp up than anticipated?

A long-term commercial lease can be particularly unforgiving.

Once you've signed it, built the courts and invested significant capital, changing direction becomes extremely expensive.

That's why some of the most important work on a pickleball facility should happen before the facility exists.

Why We Built the Pickleball Partners Facility Feasibility Analyzer

We wanted to answer a deceptively simple question:

Does this pickleball facility actually work?

So we spent considerable time developing the Pickleball Partners Facility Feasibility Analyzer.

Rather than beginning with the assumption that a proposed facility will succeed, we begin with the economics and determine what needs to happen for it to succeed.

The model can examine variables including:

• Number of courts and available capacity

• Operating hours

• Utilization by daypart and day

• Membership structures

• Membership pricing

• Court rentals

• Leagues

• Clinics

• Lessons

• Drop-ins and other programming

• Staffing

• Occupancy costs

• Operating expenses

• Capital requirements

• Financing

• Break-even requirements

• Cash flow

• Profitability

• Investment returns

Then we can change the assumptions.

What happens if utilization is lower?

What happens if rent is higher?

What happens with six courts instead of ten?

What happens if membership growth takes longer than anticipated?

What happens if pricing changes?

What happens if the programming mix changes?

What happens if too much prime-time capacity is consumed by memberships?

What happens if a new competitor opens nearby?

The model doesn't tell us what we hope will happen.

It helps show us what needs to happen for the numbers to work.

And sometimes the results are surprising.

Sometimes the Right Answer Is: Don't Build

This isn't theoretical.

We've had prospective facility operators approach Pickleball Partners to evaluate projects they were seriously considering.

They saw the demand.

They identified potential locations.

They believed they had attractive opportunities.

Then we ran the numbers.

Once we incorporated the proposed lease, number of courts, realistic utilization by daypart, pricing, programming, operating expenses and required investment, some of those projects simply didn't make economic sense.

Our recommendation was not to proceed.

You could argue that's not particularly good for our consulting business.

A facility that doesn't get built doesn't become a long-term operating client.

But that's exactly why feasibility work needs to happen first.

Our job isn't to tell a client what they want to hear. It's to tell them what the analysis is telling us.

Sometimes that means:

Don't build.

Sometimes it means:

Don't build there.

Renegotiate the lease.

Find another building.

Change the number of courts.

Rethink the membership structure.

Change the pricing.

Change the programming.

Reduce the capital requirement.

Or redesign the entire concept.

And sometimes, after testing those alternatives, the answer remains:

Walk away.

That's not a failed feasibility study.

That's a successful one.

If proper analysis prevents someone from signing a long-term lease and committing millions of dollars to a business whose economics don't work, the analysis may have produced its greatest possible return.

But Private Operators Aren't the Only Ones Who Need Feasibility Analysis

There's another side of the pickleball infrastructure boom that deserves considerably more attention.

Municipalities.

Across Canada, municipalities are beginning to invest significant amounts of public money in pickleball infrastructure.

That's encouraging.

But municipalities face their own version of the feasibility question.

A municipality may decide:

"We're going to build 10 pickleball courts."

The obvious question should be:

Why 10?

Why not eight?

Why not 12?

Why not 16?

Why not a 20-court regional hub?

What is the actual demand?

What will demand look like five or ten years from now?

How large is the realistic catchment area?

How many people are likely to use the facility?

What will utilization look like throughout the day?

How much capacity is required for recreational play?

Leagues?

Lessons?

Youth?

Seniors?

Tournaments?

Community organizations?

And perhaps one of the most important questions:

How should access be priced?

Those decisions can—and should—be modelled before the facility is built.

Municipal Economics Are Different

A municipality doesn't have the same objective as a private operator.

A private operator needs to generate sufficient returns to justify the investment.

A municipality may have broader objectives.

Affordability.

Accessibility.

Participation.

Youth recreation.

Healthy aging.

Community building.

Social connection.

And the broader benefits I've previously described through The Connected Court.

But having different objectives doesn't mean economics should be ignored.

Quite the opposite.

Municipal decision-makers should understand:

How much facility do we actually need?

What will it cost to operate?

How heavily will it be used?

What should residents pay?

What should non-residents pay?

Should there be memberships?

How should memberships work?

What programming produces the greatest community benefit?

What level of cost recovery is appropriate?

What subsidy, if any, will taxpayers provide?

And how do we make sure public capacity isn't consumed disproportionately by a relatively small group of heavy users?

The objective isn't necessarily maximum profit.

It's finding the appropriate balance between:

Access + Utilization + Affordability + Programming + Financial Sustainability

Build the Model Before You Build the Facility

Imagine a municipality considering a new pickleball facility.

Instead of beginning with a predetermined answer—"We're building 10 courts"—begin with scenarios.

Model eight courts.

Model 12.

Model 16.

Perhaps model 20.

Then ask:

What happens to utilization?

What happens to programming capacity?

Can children actually get court time?

Can beginners be integrated?

Can leagues coexist with recreational play?

Can tournaments be accommodated?

What happens at peak times?

What happens off-peak?

Can local clubs help deliver programming?

What should residents pay?

What should non-residents pay?

Should it operate year-round?

Would a larger regional facility produce better economics and better community outcomes than several smaller municipal facilities?

And what does each scenario cost taxpayers?

Those decisions should be made in the model before they're made in concrete.

Building too small can leave a community with an expensive facility that becomes overcrowded almost immediately.

Building too large can leave taxpayers supporting unused capacity.

Building without an operating and programming model can produce beautiful courts without creating the community outcomes the investment was intended to achieve.

Good feasibility analysis shouldn't be used to justify a predetermined number of courts.

It should help determine what should actually be built.

Think Regionally, Not Just Municipally

This question becomes even more important as governments increase recreation infrastructure investment.

Ontario, for example, has expanded its Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund to $500 million. Certainly, not all—or even most—of that funding will go toward pickleball. But it creates a significant opportunity for municipalities to rethink how recreation infrastructure is planned.

Pickleball may be particularly well suited to a regional approach.

Instead of every municipality trying to squeeze a few courts into whatever land happens to be available, there may be opportunities to develop strategically located regional hubs.

Imagine a large year-round facility serving several neighbouring municipalities.

Enough courts for recreational players.

Competitive players.

Beginners.

Children.

Seniors.

Lessons.

Leagues.

Tournaments.

Community events.

And enough capacity that all of those activities don't continually compete for the same few courts.

That's a very different infrastructure strategy.

And it needs to be modelled.

There's Another Competitive Risk Private Operators Need to Understand

This is where the public and private sides of the pickleball boom intersect.

In many Canadian communities, private operators have been filling a legitimate infrastructure void.

Demand grew much faster than municipal facilities could respond.

Entrepreneurs saw the opportunity and invested their own capital.

But investors need to understand something very important:

Today's court shortage may not be tomorrow's court shortage.

If you're signing a 10- or 15-year commercial lease, you aren't investing only in the pickleball market that exists today.

You're investing in the market that may exist five or ten years from now.

What happens if a municipality builds a major facility nearby?

What happens if provincial funding helps create a regional hub?

What happens if that facility offers significantly lower prices?

And what happens if the municipality gets four things right?

Pricing.

Programming.

Access.

Community.

A private operator carrying commercial rent, financing, build-out costs and a required return on capital could suddenly be competing against a facility with a fundamentally different economic structure.

That belongs in the feasibility model.

Newmarket Shows Why This Matters

Newmarket provides an interesting example of why private operators need to watch municipal planning carefully.

The municipality has been pursuing a major dedicated pickleball facility capable of accommodating up to 20 bubbled courts, creating the potential for substantial year-round municipal pickleball capacity.

For players, that's potentially terrific news.

For a private operator considering a nearby long-term lease, it's also highly relevant competitive information.

If a large public facility is properly designed, intelligently programmed and appropriately priced, it can materially change the economics of private pickleball within its catchment area.

That doesn't mean private facilities can't compete.

Far from it.

Private operators can differentiate through service, premium amenities, superior programming, coaching, events, community and exceptional player experiences.

But you need to know the competition is coming before you commit the capital.

Your Competition Isn't Just What Exists Today

When evaluating a location, don't simply identify the facilities operating within 10 or 15 kilometres today.

Look forward.

What municipal projects are planned?

What recreation master plans are underway?

What land has been identified?

What government funding is available?

What could be built five years from now?

Could a regional hub emerge nearby?

How would lower-cost municipal access affect your pricing?

What happens to your membership model if comparable court access becomes available at substantially lower prices?

Long-term leases require long-term thinking.

Community Is Part of the Economics

There's one final piece that spreadsheets alone cannot create.

Community.

A sustainable pickleball facility cannot simply provide courts and assume people will continue arriving forever.

Players need great games.

Beginners need pathways into the sport.

Members need appropriate competition.

Leagues and programming need to work.

Children need opportunities.

People need to feel welcome.

And facilities need to develop something competitors cannot easily reproduce:

A genuine community.

Community also has economic value.

Community drives retention.

Retention supports recurring revenue.

Programming improves utilization.

Quality play creates loyalty.

And loyalty makes customers less likely to leave simply because another facility opens nearby.

The financial model and the community model aren't separate.

They reinforce one another.

Build the Business Before You Build the Courts

The pickleball boom is creating tremendous opportunities.

For entrepreneurs.

For investors.

For developers.

For municipalities.

And most importantly, for communities.

But enthusiasm isn't a feasibility study.

Packed courts aren't a business plan.

A waiting list isn't a financial model.

And explosive industry growth doesn't make poor economics disappear.

Before signing the lease...

Before committing the capital...

Before deciding on eight, 12 or 20 courts...

Before designing the memberships...

Before setting the prices...

Before allocating millions of dollars of public money...

Run the numbers.

Understand the demand.

Model the dayparts.

Stress-test the utilization.

Analyze the membership structure.

Model the programming.

Understand the costs.

Evaluate the location.

Examine today's competition.

Model tomorrow's competition.

Sometimes the answer will be:

Build it.

Sometimes:

Change it.

And sometimes:

Walk away.

All three can be valuable answers.

Because the most expensive time to discover that your pickleball facility doesn't work...

is after you've built it.

Pickleball Partners Facility Feasibility Analysis

Whether you're a private investor evaluating a commercial pickleball facility or a municipality planning public recreation infrastructure, the fundamental question is remarkably similar:

What should we build—and what has to happen for it to work?

The Pickleball Partners Facility Feasibility Analyzer was developed to help developers, investors, operators, clubs and municipalities model the variables that determine facility performance before significant capital is committed.

For private facilities, that means understanding profitability, utilization, cash flow, membership economics, operating risk and potential investment returns.

For municipalities, the questions are different.

What is the appropriate facility size?

What does demonstrated and projected demand support?

What utilization can reasonably be expected?

What programming capacity is required?

How should resident and non-resident access be priced?

What membership structure, if any, makes sense?

What level of cost recovery is appropriate?

What public investment or operating subsidy will be required?

And what configuration creates the greatest community return from the infrastructure being built?

The objective isn't to validate a project that's already been decided.

It's to determine what the evidence says should actually be built.

Sometimes that's eight courts.

Sometimes it's 20.

Sometimes a larger regional hub may make more sense than several smaller facilities.

And sometimes the proposed project needs to be fundamentally redesigned.

Don't Guess. Model It.

Learn more about the Pickleball Partners Facility Review & Feasibility Analysis:

Pickleball Partners Facility Review & Feasibility Analysis

Build the model first. Then build the facility.

I think this version gives you a much stronger consulting proposition. The article no longer says merely “we have a profitability calculator.” It says Pickleball Partners can help answer two expensive questions: should a private investor build this business, and what should a municipality actually build? That makes tomorrow's LinkedIn launch relevant to a substantially larger professional audience.

Contacts

pickleballpartnerscanada@gmail.com

Socials

Subscribe to our newsletter