USAP vs UPA-A Paddle Approval: Are Brands Quietly Choosing Sides?

Something interesting is showing up in the 2026 pickleball paddle approval lists.

USA Pickleball still has the broader approval footprint. That part is not close. But when I look at certain performance-focused paddle brands, especially brands tied to power, foam, spin, and high-end paddle launches, I think there may be a shift underway.

I do not see this as just another paddle legality question. The approval lists may be starting to show where paddle brands think high-performance pickleball is headed next.

My theory is simple:

Some paddle brands may be losing confidence in USAP’s testing direction and choosing to prioritize UPA-A submissions for certain new performance paddles.

That does not mean every brand is leaving USAP. It does not prove a formal boycott. And it does not mean UPA-A has already replaced USA Pickleball for regular amateur players.

But the approval-list pattern is real enough to talk about. Some brands with prior USAP approval history now show 2026 UPA-A activity without matching new 2026 USAP activity in the supplied USAP data I reviewed. When you combine that with manufacturer frustration around spin, surface testing, break-in behavior, and pro-tour visibility, the story gets a lot more interesting.

The Theory: A Quiet Shift May Be Underway

For years, the approval path was easy to understand. A brand submitted paddles to USA Pickleball, players checked the USA Pickleball approved paddle list, and tournament directors had a familiar standard to enforce.

Now UPA-A certification is tied to the professional pickleball world through PPA and MLP. That creates a second lane. It also creates a strategic decision for paddle brands:

• Submit to USAP first and protect broad amateur acceptance.
• Submit to UPA-A first and protect pro-tour visibility.
• Submit to both and absorb the cost, time, samples, testing, and possible redesign work.
• Create different versions for different approval paths.

My read is that some brands may be starting to treat UPA-A as the more attractive first door for certain performance paddles. Not because USAP no longer matters, but because the newest performance paddles are being built for a market that watches PPA, MLP, power ratings, spin numbers, and foam construction.

We covered many of these concerns when UPA-A first emerged. At that time, the issue was governance, fees, conflicts of interest, and whether pro pickleball would pull equipment standards away from the broader amateur game. In 2026, the question is more concrete:

Are paddle brands beginning to vote with their submissions?

What the 2026 Approval Lists Show

I used January 1, 2026 as the cutoff and reviewed the supplied USAP and UPA-A approval data on June 6, 2026. Paddle approval status can change, so this is a snapshot, not a permanent ruling.

On raw volume, USAP still dominates. That matters. It tells me USAP remains the broader paddle approval system for the general market.

But raw volume is not the whole story. The UPA-A list is smaller, but it includes a concentrated group of brands that matter in the modern performance conversation. That is where my theory starts.

The Brands That Make This Worth Watching

The strongest signal comes from brands that had prior USAP approval history before 2026, show 2026 UPA-A activity, and do not show new 2026 USAP activity in the supplied USAP list.

A list cannot read a company’s mind. But it can show behavior.

The names that jump out are JOOLA, Selkirk, CRBN, 11SIX24, Diadem, Li-Ning, RPM, and Warping Point. These are not random bargain-bin paddle names. These are brands players talk about when the conversation turns to foam, pop, spin, and premium paddle technology.

That is why this matters. If UPA-A activity were only coming from obscure brands nobody follows, the story would be weaker. But when performance-focused names appear in the UPA-A lane while matching 2026 USAP activity is not visible in the supplied data, it raises a fair question:

Are some brands choosing UPA-A first because they trust that path more for their newest performance paddles?

11SIX24 Is the Cleanest Watch-List Example

11SIX24 is one of the clearest examples to watch because players know the brand, the paddles are performance-relevant, and the pattern is easy to understand.

The supplied 2026 UPA-A list includes several 11SIX24 Power 2 models, including the Vapor Power 2, Hurache-X Power 2 Pro, Pegasus Power 2, and Ultre Power 2. In the supplied USAP data reviewed for this article, I found prior USAP approval history for 11SIX24 but did not find matching new 2026 USAP approvals for those UPA-A-listed models.

That does not prove 11SIX24 has publicly rejected USAP. I have not seen a public statement saying that. But it does show why players and other brands are watching. If a popular performance brand can get visibility and sales momentum through UPA-A approval without immediate matching USAP approval, other brands may start asking whether dual certification is worth the cost, delay, and aggravation. And here is where players should pay attention: approval costs eventually land somewhere. They may land in higher paddle prices, fewer model choices, slower launches, or small brands deciding they cannot afford to play both games.

Why Some Brands May Be Frustrated With USAP

The approval-list pattern is only part of the story. The other part is frustration.

I am hearing more grumbling from the manufacturer side about USAP’s testing direction, especially around spin, surface texture, and how paddles behave after break-in. Private conversations can get spicy. Public statements are what count, so I am not treating private chatter as official brand policy.

Still, the complaints are not hard to understand. Modern paddles are not simple flat slabs anymore. Foam construction, thermoforming, raw carbon fiber, Kevlar blends, changing core behavior, and production variation all make testing harder than it used to be.

The real question is not only whether a paddle passes a test when it is brand new. It is whether that paddle still performs within the rules after it breaks in, after it is used by a hard-hitting player, or after production batches vary.

That is where USAP and UPA-A appear to be taking different approaches.

USAP and UPA-A Are Not Testing the Same Way

The Testing Terms Without the Lab Coat

The testing alphabet soup gets annoying fast, so here are the big terms in plain English.

UPA-A directly addresses break-in with its 2026 standards. A paddle that starts at or below 0.385 PEF can rise after lab break-in, but not beyond 0.405 PEF. UPA-A also sets a maximum spin rate of 2100 RPM throughout the paddle’s useful life.

USAP also addresses performance concerns by requiring paddles to remain compliant and by using PBCoR to limit excessive rebound power.

Underneath the acronyms, both groups are wrestling with the same problem: if power, spin, and break-in are left alone, the game starts tilting toward the paddle instead of the player.

USAP Looks Like It Knows the Ground Is Moving

USA Pickleball has announced a 2026 paddle field-testing program at select Golden Ticket events. The initial testing includes coefficient of friction, deflection, and weight/balance properties, with future phases expected to incorporate PBCoR and spin measurements after lab certification is complete.

That does not prove USAP is afraid of UPA-A. It does suggest USAP understands what paddle brands and players are seeing: modern paddles have outgrown the old comfort zone.

If USAP is asking manufacturers for feedback on future spin limits or testing methods, that can be viewed two ways. Collaboration makes sense because brands understand modern paddle construction. But if the governing body asks for feedback without enough technical clarity, frustration is predictable.

That frustration may be one reason some brands are looking harder at UPA-A.

Why a Brand Might Choose UPA-A First

Pro visibility sells paddles. A paddle in the hands of a PPA or MLP player can create demand quickly, especially if the paddle is marketed around power, spin, foam, or new construction.

• The brand’s sponsored pros need the paddle for PPA or MLP events.
• The paddle is designed for advanced or pro-level players.
• The brand believes UPA-A testing better reflects modern paddle behavior.
• The brand wants to avoid USAP delays, uncertainty, or rule changes.
• The paddle’s marketing depends on pro use.
• The brand believes most buyers are recreational players who will never have a paddle checked at a sanctioned tournament.

That last point matters. A huge percentage of paddle buyers never play sanctioned tournaments. If those players care more about performance, colorways, pro influence, and reviews than a USAP stamp, a brand may decide UPA-A approval is enough for certain product lines.

Risky? Absolutely. A player may still get boxed out of certain events. But from a brand’s side of the table, you can see the temptation.

Why USAP Still Matters

This is where the story needs balance. Even if some brands are testing the UPA-A lane, USAP still sells paddles.

Most pickleball players are not pros. They play recreationally, in local events, club tournaments, senior events, and amateur brackets. For those players, USAP approval remains the simplest trust signal.

• Amateur players recognize the USAP approved paddle list.
• Many tournaments still use USAP rules.
• Retail buyers may avoid paddles that are not USAP approved.
• Tournament directors understand USAP approval better.
• USAP approval gives a paddle broader all-purpose credibility.

That is why many brands are still submitting to both lists.

Brands Still Submitting to Both Lists

The industry is not moving as one block. Several brands show 2026 activity on both the USAP and UPA-A lists in the data I reviewed.

This is why I do not see the future as one list instantly killing the other. The more likely future is messier: some paddles are USAP-first, some are UPA-A-first, and some premium models carry both stamps.

Honolulu is a good example of why model-level review matters. At the brand level, Honolulu shows activity on both lists in the supplied 2026 data, so I would not describe Honolulu as UPA-A-only. But if its newest paddle submissions are showing up on UPA-A without matching USAP entries in the reviewed data, that still supports the same larger pattern: a brand can keep one foot in USAP while sending certain newer performance launches through UPA-A first.

Approval Costs Make the Decision Harder

Approval is not free, and smaller brands feel that in the bones.

UPA-A also says that if a brand has professionals playing on the PPA Tour or Major League Pickleball, having a branded paddle in play requires a Marketing and Broadcast License from PPA & MLP. The annual fee is listed as $50,000, unless the brand is already a PPA or MLP sponsor with a minimum sponsorship of $100,000.

For USAP, the public submission FAQ confirms that paddle submissions currently require nine paddles shipped to six separate locations. Normal testing time is generally listed as 4 to 6 weeks, with expedited testing listed as 3 to 8 business days. The FAQ references a fee schedule, but a current public dollar amount should be verified directly from USAP before quoting exact USAP submission fees.

If a brand pays a $10,000 annual UPA-A brand fee plus $3,000 to certify one paddle model, that is $13,000 before expedited fees, failed resubmissions, samples, design changes, manufacturing costs, freight, marketing, retailer margins, or sponsorship costs.

Same fee. Completely different sting. Big brands can spread certification costs over more units. Smaller brands may have to submit fewer models, choose one approval path, delay approvals, raise prices, or focus only on premium paddles where the margin can support the cost.

This is one of the concerns we raised when UPA-A first appeared: higher approval and participation costs may affect small brands differently than large brands. That concern is no longer theoretical.

What This Means for Players

This may be an industry story, but players are the ones who can get caught in the middle.

If a paddle is UPA-A approved but not USAP approved, that does not mean it is illegal everywhere. It means the paddle may be accepted in UPA-governed environments but should not be assumed legal for USAP-sanctioned tournaments. The event rules decide the answer, not the marketing copy.

Do Not Assume the Name Means It Is the Same Paddle

If USAP and UPA-A measure paddle performance differently, brands may eventually design different versions for different approval paths.

• One version optimized for USAP approval
• One version optimized for UPA-A certification
• A pro-facing version aimed at PPA/MLP visibility
• An amateur-facing version aimed at broad USAP acceptance
• A blackout version for UPA-A pro use if licensing rules require it
• Slightly different model numbers, thicknesses, surfaces, or construction details

A paddle name like “Pro,” “Power,” “Foam,” or “Tour” may not be enough. Exact model number, thickness, certification stamp, and approval list matter. This is especially important if a brand releases similar names across multiple generations.

That is also why players should pay attention to banned pickleball paddles, delisted paddles, and approval changes before entering tournaments. The JOOLA Gen 3 paddle controversy already showed how quickly approval status can become a player-facing problem.

How I Would Check a Paddle Before a Tournament

• Check the exact brand name.
• Check the exact model name.
• Check the model number if one is listed.
• Check the thickness.
• Check the date added.
• Check whether the paddle is still actively approved.
• Check which approval list your event accepts.

Close is not good enough if the tournament director is checking paddles.

What This Means for Paddle Reviews

A serious paddle review in 2026 should still talk about power, spin, resets, feel, and price. But approval status now belongs in the review right next to performance.

• Is it USAP approved?
• Is it UPA-A certified?
• Is the exact reviewed model the same as the approved model?
• Is it legal for the events most readers care about?
• Is it a pro-facing paddle, amateur-safe paddle, or both?
• Is there a blackout version, alternate version, or special model number?

You can browse our pickleball paddle reviews for more paddle-specific breakdowns.

Three Ways This Could Shake Out

Path One: USAP Still Owns the Amateur World

This is the safest short-term assumption. USAP still has the broader 2026 approval footprint in the supplied data and remains familiar to players, clubs, sanctioned tournament directors, and amateur competitors.

Path Two: UPA-A Becomes the Performance Badge

This is where my theory has the most bite. If PPA and MLP continue shaping what serious players want to buy, and if performance brands keep prioritizing UPA-A for new technology, UPA-A may become the approval badge advanced players care about most.

Path Three: Premium Paddles Start Carrying Both Stamps

This may be the most realistic medium-term outcome. USAP gives broad amateur confidence. UPA-A gives pro-tour credibility. Premium paddles may advertise dual approval, while smaller brands and experimental lines choose one path based on cost, audience, and performance goals.

The Bat Stamp Warning: Baseball and Softball Already Lived This

If pickleball wants a preview of what a split approval market can look like, baseball and softball bats are a useful warning.

In softball, ASA, now USA Softball, was the established governing body. It dates back to 1933 and became the National Governing Body of Softball in the United States in 1978. USSSA came later, beginning in 1968 as the United States Slow-pitch Softball Association. Over time, the equipment market did not settle into one clean winner. It split by playing environment.

In baseball, the picture is slightly different, but the lesson is the same. USSSA bats became strongly tied to tournament and travel-ball environments, while the USA Baseball USABat standard, implemented in 2018, created a more wood-like performance standard for many youth leagues. Today, players and parents do not simply ask, “Is this a good bat?” They ask, “Is this the right stamp for the league or tournament we are playing?”

That is the concern with the current paddle approval split. USAP may remain the broad amateur trust signal. UPA-A may become the pro-performance signal. Both can survive. But if both survive in separate lanes, players, retailers, reviewers, and tournament directors all have to navigate a more complicated equipment market.

I hope pickleball avoids a permanent equipment fracture. One clear standard, or at least better alignment between standards, would be better for regular players. But if the market does split, the lesson from bats is simple: nobody has to completely win for players to end up needing different equipment for different events.

Coach Sid’s Take

I do not think this is just confusion over two lists. The bat market shows what can happen when equipment standards split by circuit. Pickleball may still avoid that kind of permanent fracture, but the early signs are worth taking seriously.

USAP still owns the comfort zone for most amateur players. But UPA-A is becoming the stamp tied to the pro-performance world. If a few respected paddle brands decide their newest models are better served by UPA-A testing, UPA-A visibility, and UPA-A event access, that can shift the market even before regular players realize the ground moved.

As a coach and paddle reviewer, I still care about the practical player question: can you use the paddle in the event you signed up for? But as someone who watches paddle trends closely, I also think the brand-side movement matters. The brands may decide where this goes before players do.

Common Questions About USAP and UPA-A Paddle Approval

Final Take

The 2026 approval data does not prove that paddle brands are abandoning USAP. But it does show enough of a pattern to support the theory that some performance-focused brands may be looking harder at UPA-A for certain new paddles.

That possible shift appears to be driven by several forces at once: frustration with testing direction, differences in how power and spin are measured, pro-tour visibility, approval costs, and the reality that many paddle buyers never enter sanctioned tournaments.

For players, the safest move is still simple: check the exact paddle against the exact event rules.

For brands, the decision is becoming more strategic: USAP, UPA-A, both, or different versions for different rulebooks.

USAP still owns the broad amateur trust signal. UPA-A is becoming the pro-performance signal. If the brands start choosing UPA-A first, the paddle market may shift faster than the average player expects.