Who Governs the Game? The Battle for Pickleball’s Future in Australia Echoes Global Trends

The question of who governs pickleball isn’t just a matter of paperwork; it’s a matter of the sport’s future. In Australia, a quiet but critical tug-of-war is unfolding between Pickleball Australia Association (PAA) and Tennis Australia (TA), both vying for recognition as the official National Sports Organisation (NSO) for pickleball.

And while the game is still finding its footing in the broader sporting landscape, the battle to claim authority could shape everything from school funding and high-performance pathways to uniforms, logos, and perhaps even the very essence of the sport itself.

Why NSO Status Matters

Recognition by the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) as the sport’s official NSO isn’t just symbolic—it unlocks access to government funding, national school programs, integrity support, and branding rights, including the use of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms on national team uniforms. It is, in short, the golden ticket to legitimacy and long-term stability.

Pickleball Australia has already applied twice—in 2022 and again in 2024—but was rejected both times. The reasons?

• Lack of a single, pre-eminent international governing body (a confusing issue that the ASC can waive, but rarely does).

• Multiple applicants, in this case, PAA and Tennis Australia, are applying for NSO status simultaneously. The ASC has made it clear: when two bodies compete, neither is likely to succeed.

Meanwhile in India…

Interestingly, Australia is not alone in navigating these murky waters. A similar—and perhaps even more dramatic—conflict is unfolding in India, where two rival associations are locked in a legal dispute over recognition.

The All India Pickleball Association (AIPA), which has been operating for years, was stunned when the Indian Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports suddenly granted National Sports Federation (NSF) status to a new organisation—the Indian Pickleball Association (IPA)—which had existed for only six months.

AIPA quickly filed a legal challenge, and in a recent court development, the Delhi High Court ordered the Ministry to hand over all documents related to the IPA’s recognition. The court also rejected a government request for delay, making clear that transparency and fairness must guide such decisions.

It’s a procedural win for AIPA and a cautionary tale for other nations: growth without governance invites instability.

What This Means for Australia

For Pickleball Australia, the implications are stark. With the next round of NSO applications now open, the association has called on its members to rally, encouraging wider participation and greater national alignment to present a unified, credible front.

They know that membership numbers, service delivery, and internal governance will all be closely scrutinised. However, they also recognise that without exclusivity—without being the sole body applying—it’s an uphill climb.

The looming presence of Tennis Australia, with its infrastructure, history, and government ties, further complicates the picture. Can a multi-sport giant truly nurture the grassroots soul of pickleball? Or will a dedicated pickleball-led body be the better custodian of the sport’s future?

The Stakes Are High

At first glance, it may seem like bureaucratic red tape. But at its core, this fight is about direction, identity, and opportunity.

Who sets the rules?
Who represents Australia on the global stage?
Who decides where the money goes?

Just as India’s courts are now shaping the future of the sport in that country, Australia’s fate may rest in the hands of the ASC, and how the pickleball community positions itself now could influence the sport’s trajectory for decades.

Because as pickleball rises from pastime to podium, one thing is clear: every sport needs a referee. And in Australia, the game for governance is very much still on.