McEnroe: We are forcing Americans out of college tennis

quote:

---

I was watching the Southeastern Conference men’s tennis championship a couple of weeks ago. Of the 12 players on the court, two were American.

Curious, I checked the Atlantic Coast Conference men’s final for American players, and found only one. Across two championships—among the highest levels of college tennis—only three of 24 singles players were American. That’s more than a statistic. It’s a signal.

I say that as someone who came up through this system. I was a top junior, a very good college player and a decent professional. My parents saw tennis not simply as a sport, but as a pathway to an education.

That model is changing fast. Basic financial pressures are a factor: Last week the University of Arkansas announced it’s cutting its men’s and women’s tennis programs. But larger forces are at work.

Over the past two decades, the share of American players among incoming Division I tennis freshmen has fallen from roughly 70% to 40%, according to Racket magazine. National Collegiate Athletic Association data show that about 64% of men’s Division I tennis players and 61% of women’s players are international—the highest proportion of non-U.S. athletes in any collegiate sport.

These shifts reflect deeper changes in college athletics. Start with incentives. In most athletic departments, football and men’s basketball generate the revenue. Other sports, including tennis, operate under pressure to produce results quickly. Add name, image and likeness opportunities and the transfer portal, and the equation changes further.

Factor in coaches, too, who are rewarded for immediate performance, not long-term development. The most reliable way to win under those conditions is to recruit players who are already developed. That often means going global—bringing in older, more experienced players ready to contribute immediately. Over time, this has created meaningful age and experience gaps, with some players reaching their mid-20s by the time they are upperclassmen.

None of this is an argument against international players. They have long strengthened college tennis and raised the level of competition. But it does raise a question of balance. When roster composition shifts this dramatically, the implications extend beyond who is on the court. They affect who has access to the system in the first place.

For decades, college tennis served as a bridge for American players—those not ready to turn pro at 18 but still capable of developing at a high level. It was a place where potential could be cultivated.

College sports have long been a pathway not only to professional opportunity but also to personal growth, discipline and self-control. Sports foster communal connection—which, for most participants, matters as much as winning. If the pathway narrows, where do players go for that experience?

There is also a longer-term effect. Conversations with families and junior players suggest the pipeline is already under strain. Even highly ranked American juniors are finding fewer opportunities to earn meaningful roles on college teams. Players who once expected to contribute as players in college are now competing simply to make lineups.

For families weighing the significant time and financial investment required to pursue high-level junior tennis, the calculation is also shifting. If the college pathway appears diminished, the incentive to pursue it weakens.

To be sure, increased competition can benefit elite players. Competing against older and more experienced opponents can accelerate development. Recent American professionals such as Ben Shelton, Emma Navarro and Peyton Stearns have emerged from strong college environments. But a system that works primarily for the top tier is less a development system than a sorting mechanism.

That distinction points to a larger question. Are college sports primarily about winning—functioning as a type of professional system whose output is measurable in short-term results? Or are they meant to be part of an educational experience, in which teaching and development still matter?

If the goal is purely competitive success, the current trajectory is understandable. But if college athletics are also meant to develop athletes—over time, within an educational framework—then some recalibration is needed.

Policies that reward multiyear development, encourage roster stability and address discrepancies in age and eligibility could help restore balance without undermining competition.

I have generally been wary of quota systems. Open competition raises the level for everyone. But if incentives and structural adjustments aren’t enough to restore balance, then more-direct measures—such as limits on roster composition—may need to be considered.

The question is whether the system is serving its purpose—and whether it provides the kind of opportunity that once made college athletics a pathway to both education and advancement for players like me. If the answer is no, incremental adjustment may not be enough. More far-reaching reforms may be needed.

---