Scotstoun Indoor Tennis & Padel Proposal 

Thank you for outlining Glasgow Life’s position regarding the proposed installation of three padel courts over two existing indoor tennis courts at Scotstoun.

While we appreciate the acknowledgement of Scotstoun’s proud reputation as a flagship tennis venue, we fundamentally disagree with the conclusions being drawn and the justification being presented for this proposal. In its current form, the project represents a net loss to indoor tennis provision in Scotland, and the arguments advanced in support of it are neither robust nor convincing.

1. Net Loss of Indoor Tennis Courts – a Strategic Failure

Scotland already suffers from a severe shortage of indoor tennis courts, particularly in comparison to other UK nations and European counterparts. Against this backdrop, the proposal does not “strengthen” provision; it actively reduces it.

• Replacing two indoor tennis courts with three padel courts does not constitute growth in overall court capacity for tennis.
• Claims that six indoor tennis courts “remain sufficient” fail to account for:
• Weather-driven dependence on indoor provision
• Junior performance pathways
• Disability tennis
• Competition hosting
• Peak-time congestion
• Instead of gaining indoor courts, Scotland is losing them, at a nationally significant venue.

This is not future proofing; it is short-term reallocation at the expense of a core sport with long-term participation, performance, and health benefits.

2. Events, Overlays, and “Alternative Venues” Are Not a Solution

The suggestion that major tennis events can be sustained through “adapted formats,” “temporary overlays,” or relocation to other venues such as Glasgow Club Gorbals is not credible.

• National and regional competitions require consistent, regulation indoor court provision.
• Temporary overlays are inferior, disruptive, and costly, and undermine the quality and reputation of events.
• Moving events elsewhere weakens Scotstoun’s status as a national tennis hub, rather than strengthening it.

This approach represents mitigation of a problem created by the proposal itself, not a genuine solution.

3. Governance and Conflict of Interest Concerns

It is deeply concerning that Tennis Scotland is cited in support of a decision that reduces indoor tennis provision, while simultaneously acting as the governing body for padel tennis.

• This represents, at minimum, a clear conflict of interest, and at worst a failure to advocate properly for tennis participants.
• Support for padel growth should not come at the expense of tennis infrastructure, particularly in a country where indoor courts are already scarce.

The role of governing bodies should be to expand capacity, not redistribute it by diminishing one sport to fund another.

4. Financial Motivation Is Being Disguised as Participation Strategy

While improved financial resilience for Glasgow Life is referenced, the proposal appears driven primarily by revenue optimisation, not community need or sporting strategy.

• Padel’s commercial success is not in dispute.
• However, maximising short-term income by removing tennis courts from a publicly funded facility is not an appropriate rationale for infrastructure change.
• Public sports assets should prioritise access, balance, and long-term development, not the highest yield per square metre.

5. Consultation and the August 2025 Poll Are Insufficient

The 7-day app-based poll cited is not a sound basis for a decision of this scale.

• It does not represent:
• Tennis-only users
• Juniors, coaches, schools, or performance players
• Users without app access
• A simple “yes/no” poll does not assess:
• Impact on tennis capacity
• Loss of court hours
• National strategic implications

The fact that a petition opposing the proposal has now exceeded 740 signatures demonstrates that significant opposition exists and has not been adequately addressed.

6. Padel and Tennis Can Co-Exist — Without Reducing Tennis Courts

We are not opposed to padel.

We are opposed to:

• Losing indoor tennis courts
• Weakening Scotland’s already limited indoor tennis infrastructure
• Allowing financial drivers to override sporting strategy

Padel should be introduced through:

• New build
• Outdoor padel courts
• Alternative sites
• Expansion, not substitution

This is the only way tennis and padel can genuinely be complementary, rather than competitive for space.

Conclusion

Scotstoun is a nationally important tennis facility. Reducing its indoor tennis capacity sets a damaging precedent, undermines long-term player development, and sends the wrong message about Scotland’s commitment to tennis.

We urge Glasgow Life to pause the current proposal and work collaboratively with stakeholders to explore solutions that add padel provision without diminishing tennis.

Anything less represents a short-term commercial decision with long-term sporting consequences.