The Drama of Pro Paddle Testing with Tom Barnes from Selkirk (Part 1)

 

The UPA-A Drama: A Deep Dive with Tom Barn

Co-owner and Head of Engineering at Selkirk Sports Discusses Industry Concerns

In this exclusive interview with Pickleball Studio's Chris Olson, Tom Barn, co-owner and head of engineering at Selkirk Sports, addresses the recent controversies surrounding The United Pickleball Association Of American (UPA-A) and their paddle testing protocols. The interview provides an insider's perspective on the challenges facing paddle manufacturers and the broader pickleball industry. (Part 1)

0:00 - Intro 

Chris: This interview was recorded just before Christmas Eve, after Tom texted me and flew out specifically to discuss these issues. The total recording time was about 4 hours, making it the longest episode ever recorded. The conversation covers both the UPA-A drama and paddle manufacturing, though we're splitting these into two separate parts.

Summary: The interview was hastily arranged but deemed important enough for Tom to travel specifically for this discussion, indicating the urgency of the issues at hand.

2:17 - What was the goal of the reprieve letter? 

Q: What was the main objective of the recent letter sent to UPA-A?
A: The primary goal was to request a one-year delay in testing implementation. The letter, which wasn't written by me alone but was a collaborative effort from multiple manufacturers, aimed to address the concerns of more than half of the manufacturers by revenue.

Q: Why do you feel a delay is necessary?
A: We had to submit paddles by the end of November to be guaranteed use in the next event, either through the provisional or interim pipeline. We submitted paddles before the deadline but haven't received any feedback, and with Masters coming up in about 10 days, this creates significant logistical challenges.

Summary: The reprieve letter called for a one-year delay in implementation due to concerns about rushed timelines and lack of communication from UPA-A.

11:34 - Phone call with manufacturers 
Q: What feedback did you receive from other manufacturers?
A: I organized a video call with about 20 manufacturers, representing 70-80% of pickleball revenue. Through anonymous polling, about 95% said they weren't happy with UPA-A's direction and felt forced to submit paddles for testing.

Q: Why do manufacturers feel forced?
A: We're contractually obligated to provide paddles to our pro players. With UPA-A's new mechanisms, we must submit paddles or risk breaking these contractual obligations. The compressed timeline makes it impossible to adjust contracts appropriately.

Summary: The vast majority of manufacturers are unhappy with the current situation and feel coerced into participating in UPA-A's testing program.

19:05 - The new random fees popping up 
Q: What financial concerns are manufacturers facing?
A: Multiple new fees are being introduced, including certification fees, marketing licensing fees, and late fees. For example, I was charged a $20,000 late fee, and there are additional fees like a $50,000 charge to allow UPA-A-approved paddles to be played with.

Q: How does this affect smaller manufacturers?
A: While larger companies like us can absorb these costs without raising product prices, these mechanisms seem specifically designed to make it difficult for smaller and medium-sized brands to compete.

Summary: Manufacturers are facing escalating and seemingly arbitrary fees that disproportionately affect smaller companies in the industry.

26:12 - Everything is a moving target 
Q: How is the constantly changing situation affecting manufacturers?
A: Rules and requirements change frequently, sometimes the night before or during tournaments. There's a lack of clear communication about standards, and different representatives give conflicting information. This creates confusion not only for manufacturers but also for players and the general public.

Q: How does this affect the amateur market?
A: While UPA-A claims their standards only affect the pro game, their certification stamps are appearing on paddles sold to amateur players, creating market confusion about what these certifications mean.

Summary: The lack of consistency and clear communication is creating widespread confusion in both professional and amateur markets.

In-Depth Summary

The interview reveals deep-seated issues within the pickleball industry's governing bodies and certification processes. Key concerns include:

• Rushed implementation of testing protocols without adequate manufacturer input
• Lack of transparency in testing methods and standards
• Escalating and seemingly arbitrary fees
• Confusion between pro and amateur markets
• Poor communication and constantly changing requirements
• Potential negative impact on smaller manufacturers

These issues point to a broader crisis in the industry's governance and the need for more structured, transparent, and collaborative approaches to paddle certification and industry standards. 

Crisis in the Courts: Pickleball's Growing Pains Expose Industry Rifts

Leading Manufacturer Challenges UPA-A's Controversial Testing Protocols

In a revealing interview that signals deepening tensions within America's fastest-growing sport, Tom Barn, co-owner and head of engineering at Selkirk Sports, has pulled back the curtain on what industry insiders are calling a crisis of governance in professional pickleball. The controversy centers around the United Pickleball Association of America's (UPA-A) new paddle testing protocols and certification requirements, which manufacturers claim are being rushed through without proper industry consultation or transparency.

A Call for Pause

At the heart of the dispute is a recent letter, co-signed by manufacturers representing more than half of the industry's revenue, requesting a one-year delay in implementing UPA-A's new testing protocols. "We're being asked to submit paddles into a black box," says Barn, highlighting the industry's frustration with what he describes as an opaque process. With major tournaments looming, manufacturers find themselves in the precarious position of submitting equipment for approval without understanding the testing criteria or standards they're expected to meet.

Industry Unity in Opposition

In an unprecedented show of solidarity, a recent poll of major manufacturers revealed that 95% oppose UPA-A's current direction. This statistic becomes more significant when considering that the participating companies represent approximately 75% of the industry's revenue. The unity among competitors underscores the severity of the situation, as manufacturers large and small voice concerns about what they perceive as forced compliance with unclear standards.

Financial Barriers and Market Access

The new certification system introduces substantial financial hurdles that many fear will reshape the competitive landscape. With fees ranging from $20,000 for late submissions to $50,000 for paddle approval, smaller manufacturers face what some describe as insurmountable barriers to entry. "While we can absorb these costs without raising our prices, many smaller brands simply can't," Barn explains, suggesting that the new system could effectively consolidate the market among a handful of larger manufacturers.

Regulatory Confusion

Perhaps most concerning is the growing confusion between professional and amateur markets. Despite UPA-A's insistence that their standards apply only to professional play, certified paddles are already appearing in amateur retail channels, creating what Barn calls "market confusion." This situation raises questions about the broader implications of UPA-A's regulations and their impact on the sport's grassroots development.

Moving Targets and Market Stability

The constant flux in rules and requirements has created an unstable environment for manufacturers, with some changes being announced mere hours before major tournaments. This volatility not only affects manufacturing and distribution but also impacts professional players who rely on specific equipment for their livelihood. The situation has created what one industry insider describes as "a perfect storm of uncertainty."

In-Depth Analysis

The current crisis in pickleball equipment certification reveals deeper issues within the sport's rapidly evolving professional infrastructure. As pickleball continues its explosive growth, the tension between maintaining equipment standards and fostering industry innovation has reached a critical point. The controversy surrounding UPA-A's testing protocols highlights several key concerns:

1. Governance Structure: Questions about the appropriate balance between regulation and industry input in a rapidly growing sport.
2. Market Access: Concerns about whether new certification requirements will create artificial barriers to entry for smaller manufacturers.
3. Industry Standards: The need for transparent, scientifically-based testing protocols that serve both professional and amateur markets.
4. Communication: The critical importance of clear, consistent communication between governing bodies and industry stakeholders.

As pickleball approaches a crucial juncture in its evolution from recreational pastime to professional sport, the resolution of these issues may well determine the future landscape of the industry. The coming months will likely prove decisive as manufacturers and governing bodies wrestle with these fundamental questions of governance, access, and standardization in what has become one of America's fastest-growing sports.