The League That Was Never Really Just a League

The rulebook does not distinguish between a ball struck into open court and one which wins the rally by hitting an opponent. Pickleball’s culture does. Players raise a paddle in apology after contact.

They debate whether the shot was necessary. They rem em ber who has hit whom and respond differently according to the person on the other side of the net. A tactically legitimate play can still cause offence, begin an argument or demand retaliation.

The professional game therefore has an unusual problem. It has accepted the body shot as part of elite competition without agreeing upon the behaviour that surrounds it. The Manners of Another Game Pickleball’s conventions were not created for televised team matches involving professional contracts, prize money and public rivalries.

They developed through a social game. Many players learned pickleball in clubs and community groups where the same people met every week. Partners changed.

Standards varied. Preserving the atmosphere mattered because today’s opponent might be tomorrow’steam mate. In that setting, restraint serves a purpose.

Repeatedly driving the ball at a weaker or less mobile player might be legal, but it could make the game unpleasant for everybody. A quick apology after hitting someone helped separate the tactical act from personal aggression. Winning mattered, although it was rarely the only reason people were there.

Professional pickleball has retained much of that language and etiquette. The conditions around it have changed. A professional is supposed to exploit an opponent’s weak backhand, movement, positioning and decision-making.

Nobody expects an apology after a player is repeatedly drawn into the same losing dink pattern. Targeting the body, however, can still be treated as a breach of sporting manners, even when it exposes a weakness just as effectively. That difference is partly physical.

A ball directed into the body feels personal because the opponent, rather than the court, becomes the destination. It is also cultural. Pickleball wants the intensity of professional sport while preserving the friendliness through which many people first encountered it.

The body-shot argument is one of the places where those ambitions meet. When the Match Changes Devilliers does not present himself as an enthusiastic body hunter. His position depends upon the atmosphere.

“I’m not necessarily pro body bag,” he said. “I feel like there are bags that are more okay than others.” In an ordinary match, with no hostility between the players, he sees little reason to seek one out. If the contest becomes intense and the players begin “chirping” at one another, he believes the terms change.

“Then I feel it’s free game.” That is an understandable player’s code. It is also almost impossible to apply consistently. There is no official moment at which a pleasant match becomes hostile enough to permit harder treatment.

One player may think a body shot has changed the terms. The person who played it may consider it an obvious tactical choice. A retaliatory ball, intended to restore balance, can then be received as the first genuine act of aggression.

The rally carries everything that happened before it, but the players may rem em ber that history differently. This helps explain another incident involving Devilliers and Nico Acevedo during M LP competition in Austin. Acevedo had caught Devilliers with body shots during earlier rallies.

Devilliers later struck Acevedo and celebrated with a forceful “vam os”. Acevedo appeared to accept the contact. His Texas Ranchers partner, Lea Jansen, did not.

Jansen called Devilliers “a joke”, refused the customary paddle tap and continued the confrontation after the match. She later indicated that her reaction involved a separate social-media grievance, making it difficult to treat the body shot as the sole cause of the dispute. It was, however, the moment through which thew ider tension became visible.

The shot could be explained tactically. It could also be read as retaliation. The celebration encouraged the second interpretation because it suggested that hitting Acevedo meant more to Devilliers than merely winning the rally.

Once again, the rules settled the point but could not settle the meaning. The Apology Problem The reflexive apology after a body shot captures pickleball’s uncertainty rather neatly. At professional level, the player may have aimed exactly where the ball landed.

Both sides know it. The raised paddle does not deny the intention. It says that the striker wanted the tactical benefit without giving personal offence.

That is not necessarily hypocrisy. Hard sports often develop gestures that allow competition and respect to coexist. A boxer touches gloves.

A bowler checks on a batter after striking them. A footballer may acknowledge an accidental collision even when the challenge itself was legitimate. Pickleball should not lose that consideration simply because money has entered the sport.

However, an apology cannot make every choice equivalent. A ball driven into an exposed chest during a rapid exchange is different from repeatedly trying to hit somebody when a better route to the point is available. A controlled attack below the shoulders is different from a reckless shot towards the face.

Targeting an elite rival who has already raised the temperature is different from intim idating somebody who cannot defend themselves adequately. Professionalisation should move the boundary of acceptable aggression. It should not remove the boundary altogether.

The more useful distinction is not between hitting the body and avoiding it. It is between attacking an opponent’s defence and attacking the opponent. Devilliers’ shot towards Ignatow ich crossed that distinction by his own description.

It was meant to communicate displeasure. Contact, had it occurred, would have delivered the warning physically. That does not automatically make the response indefensible.

Ignatow ich had, in Devilliers’ view, already turned the match into that kind of contest. It does mean the shot cannot be justified solely as normal tactics. Equal Competition, Unequal Instincts Anna Leigh Waters exposed another weakness in the unwritten code when she body-bagged Devilliers during M LP play.

He regularly attacked male opponents but said he had never deliberately done the same to aw om an. Waters’ shot left him uncertain because his usual instinct to retaliate collided with his belief that she should be treated differently. “I didn’t know how to react,” he admitted.

Devilliers became passive and retreated towards the baseline while considering what he was supposed to do. Had a man hit him, he believed he would have answered. With Waters, he did not want to.

He later called it the best body bag he had ever received. The moment raises a question professional mixed doubles has not resolved. Does equal competition require players to make the same shots against men and w om en, or can safety and differences in physical power justify different boundaries?

There is no completely satisfying answer. A male player launching a full-power ball high at a female opponent may create a legitimate safety concern. The same concern should exist when any stronger player recklessly targets the head or face of somebody with less pace or reaction time.

Yet refusing to attack aw om an’s body under any circumstances creates another problem. It treats a professional opponent as somebody who must be protected from the competitive demands of the match. Waters did not ask Devilliers for that protection.

She chose the available target and played the point. His hesitation showed that the convention belonged to him. Professional mixed doubles asks w om en to withstand pace, cover the court and accept sustained tactical pressure.

It cannot offer equality only until a particular shot feels socially uncomfortable. At the same time, equality does not excuse a player from exercising control. The standard has to be based upon tactical purpose, proportion and safety, rather than gender alone.

What Professional Pickleball Owes Its Past The simple answer is to declare that professionals are paid to compete and anything legal should therefore be accepted. There is some force to that argument. A player cannot demand the advantages of professional status and then expect opponents to ignore an effective target.

As paddle technology, hand speed and tactical aggression advance, the body will remain part of the available court. Professionals will need to defend it. But sport is never governed by its written rules alone.

Footballers object to opponents continuing to attack when a player is injured. Cricket has long debated actions which are legal but considered contrary to the spirit of the game. Baseball possesses its own disputed codes concerning retaliation and respect.

Professional pickleball will develop conventions of its own. The mistake would be to assume that the recreational code can simply be preserved unchanged, or that becoming professional requires abandoning it entirely. The social game offers something worth keeping.

An opponent remains a person, even when their body presents the best target. Control matters. Safety matters.

The acknowledgement after contact matters. What changes at professional level is the expectation of protection. A professional player should not expect an opponent to surrender a legitimate tactical advantage merely because the ball may hit them.

Courtesy can govern the manner in which the shot is played and received. It cannot make the target unavailable. That produces a clearer code than the one players are currently negotiating rally by rally: Attack the body when it offers a genuine competitive advantage.

Keep the ball away from the head and use control where disparities in power create an obvious risk. Do not pretend a retaliatory shot is merely tactical. Do not turn accidental or necessary contact into humiliation through celebration.

Do not demand an apology for being beaten by a legal, proportionate shot. Most importantly, judge the play by its purpose and danger, not simply by whether the opponent is male or female. The Message Behind the Ball Jay Devilliers’ stories do not supply a universal answer.

They show why one is needed. Against Ignatow ich, he tried to enforce his own boundary after deciding that repeated targeting had become excessive. Against Acevedo, a legal shot became part of a wider personal confrontation.

Against Waters, the code he applied to male opponents suddenly seemed unusable. In each case, the body shot exposed something already present in the match: hostility, grievance, uncertainty or unequal expectations. That is why the debate will not disappear by declaring the shot legal.

Professional pickleball is separating itself from the social game in speed, money and consequence. Its culture is taking longer to catch up. Players are still borrowing the manners of recreational courts while testing how much aggression elite competition should permit.

The answer is not to remove civility from the sport. It is to stop confusing civility with immunity. A professional opponent’s body is a legitimate tactical target.

Their safety and dignity remain a player’s responsibility. The difference lies in what the shot is trying to accomplish. One ball attacks the defence.

The other, as Devilliers freely acknowledged, is sent to make the person understand. That is when the point ends and the argument begins. Primary source: Jay Devilliers speaking on the Pickleballers Podcast.

Additional reporting: Pickleball.com and NML Pickleball. Pickleball Wants to Ban the Bucket Hat. What Is It Afraid Of?

Connor Pardoe’s proposal to remove bucket hats from professional pickleball became an argument about television, credibility and who gets to decide what the sport should look like. Joey Wild wore a bucket hat while representing the California Black Bears. It did not affect the ball, obstruct an opponent or offer any competitive advantage.

Yet when an image of Wild resurfaced, Connor Pardoe knew what had to be done. “Pickleball should ban bucket hats,” the UPA chief executive wrote on X. The judgement was short enough to sound playful.

The reaction suggested that it had touched something real. PickleballTV broadcaster and coach Matt Manasse supported Pardoe. “Joey is dope, but a bucket hat can’t be used in pro sports,” he wrote.

“I’ll die on that hill.” Thomas Wilson agreed that it was “not a great look for TV”. Picklepod co-host Nico Valencia argued that people would struggle to take pickleball seriously while players dressed that way. Others wondered what the hat had done wrong.

Zane Navratil asked how it differed meaningfully from any other headwear. Danni-Elle Townsend offered the practical defence. “I’m pro not getting sun cancer on the back of my neck,” she said.

The Dallas Flash supplied the most sensible response. “As a sport, we can’t put this much energy into bucket hats.” They were right, although the debate was never entirely about the hat. It was about a young professional sport trying to decide how it should appear to those who remain unconvinced by it.

It revealed how readily pickleball confuses looking like an established sport with becoming one. The Viewer Pickleball Is Trying to Impress The case against the bucket hat rested heavily upon television. A new viewer, encountering professional pickleball for the first time, might see the broad brim and decide that the game was recreational, unserious or faintly ridiculous.

If the sport wanted to stand alongside more established competitions, the argument went, its players needed to look like professional athletes. This im agined first-time viewer carries considerable influence. He is curious but sceptical.

He may be watching a national broadcast and is willing to give pickleball a chance, although liable to leave if anything confirms his suspicion that this remains a backyard game. Professional pickleball has spent years trying to satisfy him. Major League Pickleball has franchises, drafts, trades, owners, team identities and city names.

The PPA Tour presents rankings, majors and a travelling elite. Its broadcasts increasingly use the familiar language and visual cues of established American sport. All of that is understandable.

A professional competition should appear organised. Teams should be identifiable. Sponsors and broadcasters have reasonable presentation requirements.

The problembegins when the presum ed tastes of an outsider are allowed to define what the sport can become. There is no evidence that a bucket hat has caused anybody to reject professional pickleball. Nor is it obvious why a baseball cap communicates elite performance while a broader brim communicates amateurism.

Both are pieces of headwear used by athletes competing outdoors. The difference is aesthetic. Some viewers may dislike Wild’shat.

Others may rem em ber him because of it. Professional sport earns credibility through the quality and consequence of its competition. The athletes must be exceptional, the results must matter and the audience must understand what is at stake.

A hat cannot supply those things. It cannot remove them either. What Is a Professional Supposed to Look Like?

The suggestion that bucket hats have no place in professional sport does not survive much examination. Cricketers have worn broad-brim m ed sun hats for generations. Golfers have competed in them.

Tennis has accom modated bandanas, backwards caps, sleeveless shirts and countless outfits initially treated as unworthy of the game. Sport often rem em bers the athletes who looked different. That does not mean professional pickleball should abandon standards.

M LP teams need clear colours and uniforms. Sponsors require agreed visibility. Clothing that obstructs sight, creates a safety risk or carries offensive material can reasonably be restricted.

Wild’shat created none of those problems. He was wearing it as a California Black Bears player and had not rejected the team identity. The hat merely interrupted somebody else’s idea of how a professional player should appear on camera.

That idea seems remarkably narrow. The approved professional pickleball player wears a branded performance shirt, shorts, court shoes and perhaps a conventional cap. The outfit is neat, appropriate and difficult to rem em ber.

It resembles the uniform of athletes in dozens of other sports. Pickleball says that it wants personalities. Its organisations promote rivalries, celebrations, interview sand players who can attract an audience beyond the result.

Yet when somebody looks unlike everybody else, the instinct among some influential figures is to remove the distinction. Personality appears welcom e until it alters the picture. A Sport That Needs Recognisable Players Professional pickleball has not yet made most of its leading players recognisable beyond the sport’s existing audience.

The calendar is crowded. Partnerships change. M LP line-ups can be reshaped by drafts, trades and free agency.

Viewers are asked to absorb a large number of matches and names in a short period. Under those conditions, individual traits carry value. A distinctive hat, hairstyle or celebration gives the audience something immediate.

It helps turn an athlete into a recognisable figure rather than another name moving through the draw. That should not encourage players to manufacture costumes or perform personalities they do not possess. Forced eccentricity is no more convincing than enforced uniformity.

It does mean that Joey Wild in a bucket hat is easier to identify than Joey Wild without one. That ought to interest a competition trying to build characters around its players. Instead, Pardoe sawan image that did not resemble his idea of professional sport and proposed removing it.

He is entitled to dislike the hat. As chief executive of the organisation controlling the PPA Tour and M LP, however, his opinion carries the possibility of becoming more than personal taste. That raises the important question.

What would justify an actual ban? Safety would. Sponsor conflicts might.

Legitimate uniform requirements could. Looking insufficiently serious on television is a much weaker basis. If that becomes enough, the boundary is governed by the taste of whoever possesses the authority to define respectability.

The hat may go first, but the principle would extend to hairstyles, sleeves, glasses, jew ellery and any other expression that somebody considers visually unsuitable. Professional pickleball has no historic uniform to protect. Its image is being invented now.

The Practical Case Townsend’s response also prevents the argument from rem aining purely aesthetic. Professional pickleball is regularly played outdoors, often in fierce heat and sunlight. Players can spend hours at a venue across matches, warm -ups and practice sessions.

A broad brim protects areas which a baseball cap leaves exposed. Townsend made the sun-protection case rather than Wild, and there is no reason to assume that health concerns dictated his original choice. Thew ider point remains valid.

A piece of functional clothing should not be rejected solely because somebody thinks it looks wrong. If the present designs appear aw kw ard, team sand apparel companies can produce better ones. A bucket hat in franchise colours, made from lightw eight performance material and associated with a particular player, could become useful merchandise.

A confident young sport should be willing to explore that possibility. Pardoe’s post did not introduce a policy, and it would be unfair to treat one comment as proof of a coordinated effort by the UPA to impose visual conformity. It did, however, reveal the instincts of the most influential executive in professional pickleball.

His first response to something unconventional was to call for its removal. That instinct deserves scrutiny. Borrowed Respectability Pickleball often behaves as though acceptance will arrive once it has removed everything that reminds outsiders of its recreational origins.

The name causes embarrassment. The social nature of the game can appear too lightweight. The clothes som etim es look too casual.

Professionalisation is therefore presented as a process of becoming sharper, harder and more familiar. This misunderstands how sporting credibility develops. Cricket is not taken seriously because everybody approves of its sweaters and sun hats.

Baseball did not become important because its caps looked professional. Those items acquired meaning because of the competition, history and people associated with them. Pickleball cannot dress its way past that process.

It will be taken seriously when the standard of play demands attention, when teams mean something to their supporters, when major events develop history and when audiences have athletes they care about. Strong presentation can support those things. It cannot replace them.

Trying too hard to resemble existing sports may even deny pickleball the chance to develop a visual culture of its own. The established games are full of clothing that would appear strange outside their particular settings. Test cricketers play for hours in white beneath broad sun hats.

Baseball managers wear playing uniforms while directing the team. Golf has turned individual clothing choices into part of a player’s identity. Those customs were not designed to reassure an imaginary first-time viewer.

They became familiar because the sports gave them time to acquire meaning. Pickleball should allow the same process to occur. The bucket hat may not become part of its lasting identity.

Wild may never wear one again. Another player may choose a different version and make it inseparable from their public image. Culture cannot be ordered in advance.

It can be prevented from forming. Let the Hat Play There is nothing wrong with caring about how professional pickleball looks. Broadcast presentation matters.

M LP needs clear team identities. Players, officials and sponsors all benefit from a competition that appears coherent. Coherence does not require every player to look the same.

Joey Wild’s bucket hat caused no known competitive problem. It made him recognisable and provoked a conversation that travelled much further than an ordinary piece of performance clothing ever would. For a sport seeking attention, that is not necessarily a presentation failure.

If pickleball’s credibility can be dam aged by a brim, it was never very secure. Set rules for safety, sponsors and genuine team requirements. Beyond those limits, players should have some ownership of the culture developing around them.

Some will look polished and conventional. Some will find a style that belongs only to them. One may wear a bucket hat.

A young sport should be curious about what that could become, rather than frightened that somebody watching television might laugh. Sources: Connor Pardoe’s original post and Victoria Radnothy’s account of the debate for Pickleball.com. From ATPs to ATMs: How Pickleball Is Creating Opportunities in Wales Pickleball’s growth is creating more than new players.

In Wales, it is beginning to generate its own economy. Scott Mayo speaks to Matthew Hazlehurst about turning a sporting passion into a full-time career. By Scott Mayo Five years ago, many of you reading this may never even have heard of pickleball.

Today, wherever you look, you will hear it described as the fastest-growing sport in the world. It has even made its way into our homes with the recent release of The Dink. Most of the conversation understandably focuses on participation, with more players picking up a paddle every year.

But something else is happening alongside that growth. Pickleball is creating entrepreneurial opportunities. As participation increases, so does the need for coaching, tournaments, leagues, venues, equipment, events and content.

The sport is beginning to generate its own economy, including here in Wales. One person who has experienced this journey first-hand is Matthew Hazlehurst, who some may rem em ber as the Nasty Nelson specialist from the 2025 European Championships. While many might assume his move into full-time pickleball was a carefully planned business decision, Matt sees it rather differently.

“I’d definitely have to say coaching,” he explains when asked about the first entrepreneurial opportunity he spotted.

Chris Beaumont

Founder and Editor-in-Chief

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Chris Beaumont is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of World Pickleball Magazine. Chris follows the global game closely, reporting on the latest news, developments, stories and tournaments from all five continents. He also hosts the World Pickleball Podcast, interviewing people at…

View All Articles →