117 U.S. Padel Venues Also Offered Pickleball in Q2

117 U.S. padel facilities also offered pickleball in Q2 2026, up from 66 in the report’s 2025 comparison, according to published coverage of Misitrano Consulting’s US Padel Report 2026. That is roughly four in ten of the 296 active padel facilities counted—not four in ten padel courts, and not a worldwide figure. Sports News Blitz identifies Q2 2026 as the observation point; Citybiz reports the same mixed-facility totals.

Choose published shares or shares calculated from the counts; compare the change below.

The Mixed-Sport Count Grew Faster Than Its Share

Both publications give the following figures from Misitrano’s report. The count describes facilities in the reported U.S. padel inventory that also offered pickleball, while the share expresses those facilities as a proportion of the whole padel-facility inventory.

U.S. Facility Measure	2025 Comparison	Q2 2026
Active padel facilities	180	296
Padel facilities also offering pickleball	66	117
Mixed-sport share, as published	36.7%	39.4%

Sources: Citybiz and Sports News Blitz, linked above. Both are reporting the same industry study rather than separate censuses.

The mixed-sport count increased by 51 facilities, or 77.3%. The calculation is (117 − 66) ÷ 66 × 100. This is the growth rate of the reported number of venues offering both sports, not the growth rate of pickleball participation, pickleball court supply or bookings at those venues.

The overall padel-facility base also expanded substantially, from 180 to 296. That larger denominator matters: a sharp rise in mixed-sport venues does not necessarily produce a similarly sharp rise in their share of all padel venues.

Using the published percentages, the mixed-sport share rose by 2.7 percentage points, from 36.7% to 39.4%. The useful reading is therefore two-part. Offering both sports became somewhat more common within the padel inventory, while the number of places doing so grew much faster.

These measures answer different questions. The count is relevant when describing the size of the mixed-sport facility footprint. The share is relevant when describing how prevalent pickleball provision is among padel facilities. Neither can replace the other without changing the meaning of the claim.

For the wider denominator, see our breakdown of how many padel facilities are in America.

The Published Share Has A Small Arithmetic Discrepancy

The raw Q2 2026 counts do not quite reproduce the published percentage. 117 ÷ 296 × 100 = 39.5% when rounded to one decimal place, rather than the published 39.4%. The earlier ratio, 66 ÷ 180, does round to the published 36.7%.

The available coverage does not explain that difference. It would be speculative to attribute it to a different denominator, a revision to the inventory or a reporting error. The responsible approach is to retain the published figure as published and identify the separate result obtained from the displayed counts.

Using the raw counts gives a share increase of about 2.9 percentage points before rounding. That calculation subtracts the earlier unrounded ratio from the later unrounded ratio, then rounds the difference. It does not subtract the two already-rounded percentages shown in a table.

The distinction matters when reproducing the data. A table labeled “published shares” should retain 36.7% and 39.4%, with a 2.7-percentage-point change. A calculation based on the facility totals should explain that its later share rounds to 39.5% and its change to about 2.9 percentage points.

The embed separates those two treatments rather than silently correcting the source. Switching the share basis does not alter the reported facility counts or the 77.3% increase in mixed-sport venues.

Either treatment supports the same broad interpretation: the absolute mixed-sport footprint expanded strongly, while its prevalence within the growing padel inventory increased more modestly. The discrepancy is small enough not to reverse that reading, but it should remain visible wherever numerical precision is part of the claim.

“Offering Pickleball” Measures Venue Overlap, Not Court Supply

This is a facility-level overlap measure. Its denominator is active padel facilities in the reported U.S. inventory; its numerator is the subset reported as also offering pickleball. It is not a count of individual courts and not an inventory of all U.S. pickleball facilities.

A mixed-sport venue contributes to the overlap count because it offers both sports. The published totals do not state how many pickleball courts it has, whether those courts are dedicated or shared-use, or how much court time is available for either activity.

Consequently, “roughly four in ten padel facilities also offer pickleball” is supported by the reported figures. “Roughly four in ten padel courts are shared with pickleball” is not. The latter would require evidence about court layouts and use, which this facility count does not provide.

Nor does the count establish comparable provision across venues. A facility-level measure records the presence of an offering, not its scale. Without court totals or schedules, readers cannot infer that every counted venue offers the same amount of pickleball access.

The public coverage also does not establish the precise eligibility rules for “offering pickleball.” That leaves an unresolved classification question: what evidence was sufficient for a venue to enter the mixed-sport category? The count can be quoted, but its wording should not be expanded into claims about permanent courts, daily availability or bookable capacity.

For someone choosing where to play, the national figure is context rather than a venue recommendation. It shows that co-location was reported across a substantial part of the padel inventory. It does not identify which nearby clubs offer the required court type, session or booking arrangement.

The Increase Does Not Identify Clubs That Added Pickleball

The net increase of 51 does not mean 51 existing padel clubs added pickleball between the two observations. Comparing inventory totals reveals a change in the number counted, not the histories of the individual facilities behind that change.

Possible contributors include additions at existing venues, newly opened mixed-sport facilities, closures and changes in classification. The published totals do not separate those components. Assigning the entire increase to conversions or additions at established clubs would go beyond the evidence.

To establish that an existing club added pickleball, a researcher would need to match that venue across the observations and verify a change in its offering. To establish how much of the national increase came from new mixed-sport openings, the researcher would need opening histories alongside the sport classifications.

The distinction changes how the growth story should be written. “The reported number of padel facilities also offering pickleball rose by 51” describes the observed inventory change. “51 padel clubs added pickleball” describes a specific sequence of business decisions that the aggregate data do not demonstrate.

The same limitation applies to explanations for the rise. The count alone cannot establish whether operators sought broader membership, responded to local demand or changed their use of space. Those may be questions for club interviews, but they are not findings contained in the facility totals.

Co-Location Does Not Establish Player Crossover Or Profitability

Offering padel and pickleball at the same venue establishes co-location within the report’s classification. It does not establish that the same people play both sports, that pickleball players are taking up padel, or that one sport brings customers to the other.

Player crossover would require participant-level evidence. Booking patterns could help show whether members use both offerings, but the reported facility count contains no such information. A venue can offer both sports without the aggregate inventory revealing anything about overlap among its users.

Profitability is a separate question again. The number of mixed-sport facilities does not reveal revenue, operating costs, occupancy or returns on court investment. It therefore cannot establish that mixed-sport clubs perform better financially than padel-only clubs.

Nor can the figure show that pickleball is replacing padel, or the reverse. A replacement claim requires evidence of what changed at particular sites, such as court provision or scheduled use. The observed increase in facilities offering both sports is not itself evidence that either sport lost space.

For an operator considering a mixed-sport model, the count documents that such venues are present in the U.S. padel market. It is not a business-case estimate. Demand, capacity and financial evidence would have to come from sources other than this overlap measure.

Treat 117 As A Reported Q2 Snapshot

Treat 117 as a reported industry count for Q2 2026, not a live October inventory or an independently audited national total. The observation period belongs with the number whenever it is used to describe the market.

Misitrano’s public report page offers access through a form but does not display the numerical tables or detailed counting rules. The figures presented here are therefore attributed to published coverage of the report rather than to a publicly inspectable underlying facility table.

Sports News Blitz describes research involving scraping and interviews with clubs and operators. That provides some information about how the research was assembled, but its public account does not establish the exact inclusion rules for active facilities or for the pickleball offering.

Agreement between Citybiz and Sports News Blitz is useful for confirming that the same totals were publicly reported. It is not independent validation of every venue in the inventory: both publications attribute their figures to the same study.

The 2025 column should also retain its limited label. Sports News Blitz describes the increase as year-on-year, but the figures reproduced here do not supply a more precise observation date for the earlier inventory. Labeling that column “2025 comparison” avoids adding a quarter that the available account does not establish.

The geographic scope needs the same discipline. These are U.S. padel-facility figures. They do not establish the mixed-sport share worldwide, in any individual state, or among all facilities offering pickleball. Each of those questions needs its own inventory and denominator.

A Defensible Citation Keeps The Count And Its Limits Together

For a market summary, the supported statement is: published coverage of Misitrano Consulting’s US Padel Report 2026 counted 117 U.S. padel facilities also offering pickleball in Q2 2026, compared with 66 in its 2025 comparison.

If prevalence matters, add that these venues represented roughly four in ten of the 296 active padel facilities reported. For a precise percentage, specify whether the figure is the published 39.4% or the 39.5% calculated from the displayed counts.

If growth matters, use 77.3% for the increase in the mixed-sport facility count. Use percentage points—not percent—to describe the change in its share of all padel facilities, and identify the share basis used.

Keep venue availability separate from national market measurement. The report supports a count of facilities classified as offering both sports at its observation point. It does not supply a current booking directory, a pickleball court total or evidence of player crossover. Those boundaries preserve the useful finding without turning a reported overlap count into a broader claim.