⚠️To get clear facts about PTC and USTA, please open the original petition link on your phone and scroll down one full page. 

You’ll see an icon that says ‘XX Updates.’ Tap that icon to open all previous updates and read the full information.

Some players have asked whether a short 2–3 year test period with USTA might be a safer option. On the surface, that idea sounds reasonable — but even a temporary lease would create serious, immediate impacts for players and the broader PP&R system.

Here’s why:

 
1. The Access Discount Program would end on Day 1

The levy can only reimburse discounts at PP&R‑run facilities.
If USTA operates PTC, there is no legal way to continue the discount program — even temporarily.
Players would pay full USTA fees immediately.

 
2. Once PP&R steps out, it’s very hard to step back in

A “test” would still require PP&R to:

• reassign staff
• shut down scheduling systems
• give up operational control
• stop collecting revenue

Rebuilding all of that after 2–3 years would be extremely difficult.

 
3. USTA gains long‑term leverage, even in a short trial

During a test period, USTA would:

• set prices
• control scheduling
• build its customer base
• shape the culture

That gives them a strong position to argue for a permanent takeover later.

 
4. The levy cannot reimburse anything during a test

Under USTA, there is:

• no PP&R fee
• no PP&R program
• no PP&R revenue
• no “gap” to reimburse

So the levy cannot legally subsidize tennis at PTC during a test period.

 
5. A short 2-3 years run can still cause long‑term damage

Even if PP&R took PTC back after 2–3 years, the community would face:

• lost players
• lost juniors
• lost staff
• higher pricing expectations
• fractured community culture

A temporary experiment can create permanent harm.

 
🌟 Bottom line

A 2–3 year test period may sound harmless, but it still removes discounts, disrupts PP&R operations, and creates long‑term risks for players and staff. Even a short trial would be a significant loss for the PTC community.