It has quietly infiltrated clubs, locker room conversations, and tournament schedules: the growing gap between the FFT ranking and the players' actual level.
A phenomenon that is still little studied but which is becoming central in French competitions, from P100 to P2000.

As padel becomes more structured, one question keeps coming up: Does the ranking still reflect the reality on the ground?

A ranking system designed for a growing sport… but one that has been overtaken by its own momentum

Initially, the FFT system was designed for a much more limited volume of players and tournaments.
However, between 2021 and 2025, the number of competitors exploded. The Federation now counts more than 100.000 players have participated in at least one tournament in the last twelve months.

Faced with this boom, some discrepancies are emerging:

  • Highly active players accumulate points without always facing a similar skill level.
  • Others, stronger but less available, are artificially stagnating.
  • players from tennis arrive with a very high natural level
  • Players accustomed to the FIP circuit return with qualities superior to their French ranking

This imbalance creates a “mirror effect” : a ranking that is sometimes flattering, which does not necessarily reflect the real level.

Does the ranking system favor very active players?

This is a very common observation in clubs.
A player who participates in three or four tournaments per month progresses automatically. Even without major victories, the accumulation of points allows them to climb the rankings quickly.

Conversely, a solid player who only plays occasionally remains stuck for a long time.
The system therefore rewards the quantity rather than the density of adversity encountered.

Padel, a sport in the process of structuring itself, highlights the limitations of a purely quantitative model.

The result: increasingly unbalanced tournament brackets

This phenomenon is very visible in P250 and P500.
We regularly observe:

  • heavily underranked pairs who breeze through the early rounds
  • tennis players capable of dominating very quickly
  • international circuit players, not very present in France, but far superior to their FFT rankings
  • Significant differences exist between regions: PACA, IDF, Occitanie vs. less densely populated areas

These imbalances foster a sense of injustice among players and create organizational difficulties for the tournament organizers.

The FFT is aware of this: the regulations are evolving and adapting.

Contrary to what some believe, the FFT has correctly identified this phenomenon and already offers several barriers to reduce the impact of “false levels”.

1. Tennis → padel equivalencies

To prevent a good tennis player from arriving at the P250 level and "beating" everyone, the FFT has implemented level equivalencies.
A former 2/6, 0 or -2/6 player never arrives completely "blank" in the padel rankings.

2. Ranking blocked for former good padel players

Players who have previously achieved high rankings and are returning after a long break can be blocked so as not to start all the way back at the bottom, which would avoid distorting the tables.

3. Taking into account international players

Players involved in the FIP circuit or Premier Padel, even if they don't play much in France, also benefit from an equivalency or an appropriate classification.
This prevents a player with a real world-class level from ending up in P250 facing amateurs.

These adjustments show that The FFT is adapting, aware that padel is evolving rapidly and that the massive volume of competitors necessitates a regular review of the rules.

Why the feeling of “false standards” persists despite everything

Several factors continue to fuel this impression:

  1. The massive arrival of tennis players
    Their basic technique greatly accelerates their athletic progress — faster than their progress in the rankings.
  2. The density varies greatly from one region to another.
    A quarter-final win in a sparsely populated region is worth as much as in an extremely densely populated region.
  3. The cumulative weight of small tournaments
    Doing a lot of P100/P250 levels adds up quickly, even without beating very good players.
  4. Reading the game specific to padel
    A ranking may not reflect a player's tactical maturity.

What are some ways to further improve the readability of the rankings?

Several ideas are circulating:

1. An Elo rating system specific to padel

More responsive and more representative of the actual skill level of the players being faced.

Le Elo system is a ranking model used for a long time in chess, then adopted by many sports (table tennis, badminton, esports…).
Its principle is simple: You don't win fixed points, you win (or lose) points depending on the level of the opponent you face.

In padel, this would result in a ranking much more representative of the actual levelbecause it would no longer depend on the number of tournaments played, but the quality of the players who were beaten.

2. A weighting based on the density of the table

The higher the level of competition, the more valuable the points would be. (This already exists, at least partially.)

3. A limit on the number of "small points" accumulated

To prevent an average but very active player from climbing too quickly, the FFT limits this by the number of tournaments taken into account. (12 tournaments are considered)

4. More precise level thresholds

Similar to tennis, in order to avoid excessively sudden shifts in momentum.

Team Padel Mag

The team Padel Magazine has been trying to offer you the best of padel since 2013, but also surveys and analyses to try to understand the world of padel. From the game to the politics of our sport, Padel Magazine is at your service.

On the same subject

Tags