PadelCity’s Expansion Target Is Not Its Operating Court Count

PadelCity’s 350-court figure is a target for the end of 2026, not a confirmed count of courts already operating. Compagnie des Alpes (CDA) published the target on 28 July 2026 when announcing its acquisition of a 33.9% stake in the operator. Against CDA’s reported baseline of 117 courts at the end of 2025, the plan implies 233 additional courts and almost a tripling of the network. Source: CDA announcement.

PadelCity’s homepage displayed 250 courts and 30 clubs when checked on 6 October 2026. That is a published operator total, but the page does not supply an inventory date or explain its counting scope. It is not a verified court-by-court operating inventory, and it does not establish that the 350-court target has been delivered. Source: PadelCity.

Choose the figure you need to report; the tool separates a target from a published count.

Four Figures Describe Different Stages Of The Network

The figures belong to one operator’s expansion story, but they do not all measure the same thing at the same time. A historical court count, a dated operating-centre count, an undated homepage total and a future target should remain separate records.

Reference	Published Figure	Evidence Status
End of 2025	117 courts; 17 centres	Historical count reported by CDA
28 July 2026	24 German centres	Operating-centre count; no current court total supplied
Homepage checked 6 October 2026	250 courts; 30 clubs	Operator total; inventory date unspecified
End of 2026	350 courts; around 40 centres	Expansion target

Sources: CDA’s dated announcement and PadelCity’s homepage.

The distinction between courts and centres is essential here. CDA’s July announcement supplied an operating count of 24 centres in Germany, but it did not give a corresponding current court count. That leaves a gap in the record: the announcement’s publication date cannot be attached to the 117-court baseline as though those courts represented the July inventory.

The homepage observation has a different limitation. The check establishes that PadelCity was displaying 250 courts and 30 clubs on that day. It does not establish the date to which those totals refer. Recording the observation date is useful, but replacing an absent inventory date with the observation date would make the evidence appear more precise than it is.

These are network figures, not national court totals, participation estimates or booking-demand measures. Even a confirmed increase in PadelCity’s operating courts would describe this operator’s supply. It would not, by itself, establish how many people play padel or how heavily those courts are used.

The Target Implies 233 More Courts Than The Baseline

The cleanest growth calculation uses CDA’s stated end-2025 baseline and end-2026 target. Both figures are court counts, and both refer to a specified year-end position. The result measures the ambition in the announcement, not completed expansion.

Measure	Calculation	Result
Planned additional courts	350 − 117	233
Target size relative to baseline	350 ÷ 117	~2.99 times
Planned percentage increase	233 ÷ 117 × 100	~199%

“Almost tripling” accurately describes the target. “A 300% increase” does not. A tripling means the final total is three times the starting total, while the increase itself is twice the starting total—a 200% increase. PadelCity’s stated figures fall just below that tripling threshold.

The verb attached to the calculation matters as much as the arithmetic. “The target implies a roughly 199% increase” is supported. “PadelCity has increased its court count by roughly 199%” is not supported by these sources, because it treats the future total as an achieved operating count.

The baseline also needs to remain attached to its reference period. CDA reported 117 courts at the end of 2025; it did not say that 117 was the network’s court count on the announcement date. Describing the plan as growth from the end-2025 baseline avoids that substitution.

There is no need to infer a construction rate from the target. The announcement provides the two year-end figures, but the supplied evidence does not provide a dated court-opening schedule. Spreading the planned addition evenly across the year would create a hypothetical pace, not a reported delivery record.

The Homepage Total Is Not A Verified Progress Measure

The operator’s displayed 250-court total is numerically 100 below the 350-court target. That subtraction is straightforward. Its interpretation is not: without matching dates and counting definitions, the difference does not establish that exactly 100 courts remain to be built or opened.

The homepage does not explain its counting scope. Consequently, the supplied evidence does not establish whether its court total is directly comparable with the scope of CDA’s year-end target. A progress claim needs that comparability, not merely two numbers that can be subtracted.

It is reasonable to report the homepage figure with its qualification: “PadelCity’s homepage displayed 250 courts when checked on 6 October 2026, without an explicit inventory date.” It is not equivalent to saying that a dated operating audit confirmed 250 courts on that day.

The same restraint applies to schedule judgments. The homepage total alone does not prove that the operator is on track, ahead of plan or behind plan. Those descriptions would require a delivery timetable and a count measured against it. Neither is supplied in the draft’s sources.

For a growth dataset, the homepage observation should therefore sit alongside the historical count and the target, rather than replacing either. Its value is that it records another published network figure. Its limitation is that the underlying inventory period and counting method remain unspecified.

The 350-Court Target Is Not A Germany-Only Total

CDA described PadelCity’s network as primarily German, with expansion into Austria and Poland. The target is therefore an operator-network ambition, not a stated target of 350 courts in Germany alone.

That distinction prevents a geographic overclaim. The announcement’s 24 operating centres were explicitly in Germany, but that does not make every other number in the announcement Germany-only. The country scope of the operating-centre count cannot automatically be transferred to the future court target.

The supplied evidence does not give a country-by-country allocation of the 350 courts. It therefore cannot establish how many of the target courts would be in Germany, Austria or Poland. Nor can it support a national growth contribution calculated by assigning the entire target to Germany.

A precise description is “PadelCity’s network target of 350 courts by the end of 2026.” If geography is included, “primarily German, with expansion into Austria and Poland” preserves CDA’s stated scope without inventing a distribution.

“Around 40 Centres” Should Stay Approximate

CDA’s summary gives a year-end ambition of around 40 centres. Its detailed text describes 24 operating German centres and a further 20 planned openings. Those statements should not be collapsed into a single exact centre target. Source: CDA.

The court target is clearer: the announcement consistently gives 350 courts. The centre language combines an approximate summary with a more detailed description of existing operations and planned openings. The supplied text does not reconcile those descriptions into an exact year-end centre inventory.

That is not a reason to discard the announcement. It is a reason to preserve its precision level. Report “around 40 centres,” rather than silently turning the wording into exactly 40. Likewise, adding the operating and planned centre figures does not resolve their relationship to the approximate summary.

The homepage’s 30-club total adds another published figure, but it does not settle the centre-target wording. The supplied evidence does not explain whether the homepage’s “clubs” and CDA’s “centres” use identical counting conventions. Treating them as interchangeable would add an assumption to the record.

Court counts are therefore the stronger benchmark for this specific expansion claim. Centre and club totals provide context, but they should retain their original labels and qualifications rather than being used to manufacture a more exact target.

The €20 Million Transaction Is Not A Court-Building Budget

CDA’s transaction comprised €8 million to purchase existing shares and €12 million through a capital increase, giving it 33.9% of PadelCity’s capital and voting rights. CDA said the new capital would support development over the following 18 months. That financing horizon extends beyond the end-2026 court target. Source: transaction terms.

Transaction Component	Amount	Stated Purpose
Existing-share purchase	€8 million	Acquisition of existing shares
Capital increase	€12 million	New capital supporting development
Combined transaction	€20 million	Both components together

The distinction matters when discussing what financed the expansion. The €20 million headline combines a purchase of existing shares with new capital. It should not be described as €20 million supplied solely for construction of new courts.

The €12 million capital increase is the relevant new-capital component, but it is still not a disclosed court-construction budget. CDA links it to development over 18 months, a broader horizon than the end-2026 benchmark. The supplied evidence does not allocate that amount specifically to the planned 233-court increase.

Neither €20 million nor €12 million divided by 233 produces a defensible construction cost per court. The first numerator includes shareholder purchases; the second covers a broader development period and plan. The denominator is a target increase, not a documented set of construction projects with matched expenditure.

The draft provides no verified build-cost figure. Leaving that figure unknown is more accurate than presenting a transaction-derived ratio as the cost of adding a court.

Repeated Coverage Does Not Confirm That Courts Have Opened

Padel Magazine’s coverage repeats the 350-court ambition and the funding split. That supports the reading of CDA’s announcement, but it is not separate evidence that the target courts have opened.

A target can appear in multiple publications while still tracing back to the same announcement. Repetition does not change its status from planned inventory to operating inventory. For this claim, CDA’s dated announcement remains the primary source for the ambition and transaction terms.

Confirmation of delivery requires a dated year-end operating inventory with a clear network scope. It would need to establish what is counted and distinguish operating courts from the expansion target. Another statement repeating “350 by the end of 2026” would not close that evidence gap.

The defensible record is 117 courts reported for end-2025, 250 courts displayed on the homepage when checked in October, and a target of 350 by end-2026. Keep those three statuses intact: historical count, undated operator total and future target. They describe substantial expansion ambitions without claiming an outcome the supplied evidence has not confirmed.