Padel: The Business Is on Court

Padel’s most important commercial space is not necessarily the centre court with a broadcast camera. It is the court somebody pays to play on. The FIP World Padel Impact study, developed with OpenEconomics for the World Padel Report 2026, estimates annual global spending at €6.84 billion, generating €8.6 billion in GDP. Those are substantial headline numbers. The more useful business finding sits underneath: court rental accounts for 67.2% of spending. Professional tournaments account for 1.4%. For anyone deciding where to invest, operate or sponsor, that split deserves more attention than the headline.

Read the economic impact correctly

Published by FIP on 14 October, the report introduces an economic analysis that OpenEconomics says covers 76 countries plus a rest-of-world aggregate. Its estimate of €1.26 in GDP for every euro spent describes an economy-wide relationship. It does not describe a club’s margin, an investor’s return or a sponsor’s sales uplift.

The distinction matters. OpenEconomics separates spending from economic output, which includes purchases between businesses, and GDP, which measures value added without counting those purchases twice. The estimated €13.07 billion in output and €8.6 billion in GDP are different measures, not separate pots of revenue to add together.

Employment needs the same discipline. The study estimates 235,663 annual full-time equivalents: the equivalent of that many full-time jobs for one year across the economic footprint. That is not a headcount of people employed directly by padel clubs.

These are findings from one jointly developed study, presented by the federation and its research partner—not two independent confirmations. They establish the scale and composition of an estimated economic impact. They do not remove the need to investigate an individual business.

The court is the commercial centre

After court rental, construction and maintenance of facilities account for 19.2% of global spending, and player equipment for 12.2%, according to OpenEconomics. The economic centre of gravity is participation and the infrastructure around it.

That suggests a different investment conversation. Rather than treating clubs as supporting scenery for professional padel, assess them as businesses in their own right. The questions should be specific: what does each booked hour contribute after operating costs? How much demand exists outside the most attractive slots? What must be reserved for maintenance? How dependent is the plan on opening another location?

The study does not answer those questions. Nor does a large global rental share establish that a particular club is viable. Rental spending is not rental profit; construction activity is not proof of sustained demand.

For operators, the practical implication is to separate development economics from operating economics. Building courts and filling courts are different tasks. A credible plan should show both, without allowing the excitement of an opening to substitute for evidence of repeat use.

Padel’s economic weight begins with people paying to play, not people paying to watch.

This is not an argument against professional competition. A tournament’s share of measured spending does not measure its cultural influence or ability to attract attention. It is an argument against assuming the most visible part of padel is also its largest spending engine.

Follow the value across borders

The global multiplier is not a universal local multiplier. OpenEconomics estimates that €1.109 billion in spending in Spain produces €1.042 billion in GDP, a ratio of 0.94. In Italy, €810 million produces €826 million, a ratio of 1.02. Neither figure should be read as a club-level financial return.

The geography becomes more revealing beyond Europe. The United States and China together receive 13.5% of the GDP generated by padel while accounting for 4.9% of spending, according to the analysis. OpenEconomics attributes this to supply chains and the wider consumption supported by income, not simply to play moving into those markets.

The employment map differs again. China, Indonesia, India and Egypt account for 39.1% of estimated full-time equivalents but 9.5% of GDP. The research partner links that distribution to differences in labour productivity. It is not a ranking of the best places to open clubs.

For investors, the lesson is to identify which business they are actually buying into: a local playing service, facility provision, equipment or an event proposition. Each occupies a different position in the spending chain. A global padel thesis cannot replace that distinction.

What it means

At DUĒLL we see this as a reason to connect padel’s visibility more deliberately to its playing economy. Brands should not mechanically allocate budgets according to spending shares. They should ask what their partnership helps people do—and how that contribution will be measured.

For sponsors, a club partnership could support introductory sessions, equipment access or amateur competition, with success assessed through participation and subsequent bookings. A tournament partnership can serve a different brief: audience attention, hospitality or brand positioning. The objectives should stay distinct.

For athletes, ambassador agreements can include coaching appearances and club-facing activity alongside media deliverables, with that work explicitly scoped and paid. For communities, commercial support should improve access or the playing experience, not merely add another logo.

Investors need site-level evidence. Operators need a clear account of costs and repeat demand. Sponsors need objectives beyond association. The study’s strongest commercial message is not that everything around padel will succeed. It is that the people paying to step onto the court deserve to sit at the centre of the business plan.