Tennis to padel conversion: compare space, cost and court yield

Replacing a tennis court with padel can look like a simple capacity play: exchange one large playing area for a smaller court and sell more sessions. The arithmetic is less simple. A padel court is 20 by 10 metres, while a tennis doubles court’s marked playing area is 23.77 by 10.97 metres. Those dimensions are not the whole site footprint, and they do not mean two complete padel courts fit inside the tennis lines.

For operators weighing a tennis to padel conversion, the first useful comparison is not revenue per court. It is court yield per usable square metre after accounting for clearances, access, structures and the facilities players expect.

Start with the actual footprint

The 20-by-10-metre padel dimensions describe the court itself. A conversion plan also needs room for the enclosure, safe access, circulation and any required separation from neighbouring courts or buildings. Tennis sites often have space outside the playing lines, but that area may be needed for run-off, player movement, seating, lighting or maintenance access.

One padel court may fit within an existing tennis court’s broader site envelope, but two courts cannot be assumed to fit. Two 10-metre court widths require 20 metres before adding any gap or access space. Two 20-metre lengths require 40 metres. Both comparisons exceed the dimensions of a tennis doubles playing area. A survey of the full available site, not a sketch based on line markings, is the right starting point.

Layouts can change where adjacent land or unused space is available. A club might convert one tennis court to one padel court, use a larger area for multiple courts, or retain tennis and add padel elsewhere. Each option has a different effect on court mix, player access and revenue. A plan that squeezes courts together but leaves awkward access can cost more in operations than it saves in land.

Build cost is a site question

There is no reliable universal conversion price. Two sites with the same number of proposed courts can require different work. The cost analysis should separate the padel court and enclosure package from ground preparation, drainage, electrical work, lighting, access routes and any changes to existing services. Demolition and disposal of the tennis surface may also be part of the job.

Ask contractors to price the same scope and state what is excluded. Confirm whether the existing base can be reused and what condition it must meet. Check local planning, noise, lighting and building requirements before treating a supplier estimate as a project budget. If the project depends on shared access, parking or utilities, include those constraints early rather than after the court layout is fixed.

Compare that full capital figure with the alternatives: resurfacing or retaining the tennis court, converting only one court, or adding padel on a separate part of the property. Keeping tennis protects existing demand and avoids giving up a sport that may support coaching, memberships or regular bookings. Conversion makes more sense when the site’s tennis use is weak and local padel demand is demonstrable, not merely plausible.

Model net yield, not theoretical capacity

More courts create more sellable time only if players book them. Build a forecast from available hours, expected occupancy by time of day, realised price per booking and the share of revenue retained after payment fees, staffing, maintenance and other operating costs. Subtract any revenue lost from the tennis court being removed. Include coaching, leagues or tournaments only where there is a credible plan to run them.

A basic payback calculation is capital cost divided by annual incremental net operating contribution. The word “incremental” matters: it is the difference between the conversion case and the best realistic alternative, not all revenue generated by the new courts. Test conservative, expected and strong-demand cases. If payback works only at near-full occupancy or at prices the local market has not supported, the plan is fragile.

Seasonality also matters. A court that sells well on weekday evenings may sit quiet in the middle of the day. A second sport can diversify demand, but it can also shift bookings from existing courts rather than add new visits. Track whether new padel customers are genuinely new to the club and whether converted-court revenue replaces the tennis contribution.

Choose the operating model with the build

For a small club, a one-court conversion limits capital exposure while testing demand. A larger operator may prefer a purpose-planned padel cluster if the site can support the courts, circulation and staffing. A mixed facility preserves tennis choice and spreads risk, but needs enough space and demand for both. None is automatically the best layout; the answer depends on the land, local player base and the cost of the work.

Before committing, record current tennis bookings and revenue by hour, then compare those figures with a demand test for padel. Include maintenance downtime and the time required to secure approvals and complete construction. Once operating, court reservations, payments and booking patterns need to be tracked consistently. Platforms such as Playgeko offer court reservation and automated scheduling, payment processing, and analytics dashboards; those tools can help operators monitor use, but they cannot make a weak site or an unsupported demand forecast pay back.

The conversion decision is a property and operating decision before it is a software decision. Measure the full envelope, price a like-for-like scope and judge the investment on incremental net revenue. Court count is a useful input. It is not the return.