Reload CEO Blasts UPA-A as ‘Manipulative Authoritarian Organization’

As pickleball's equipment certification landscape evolves, a paddle startup has publicly questioned the United Pickleball Association of America's (UPA-A) approach to regulation. In a scathing blog post, Nick Bićanić, CEO of Reload, has raised concerns about what he characterizes as barriers to innovation and competition in the sport's certification process. This, of course, comes after a history of conflict between the two, following UPA-A's ban of Reload from professional play.

"I can see that the emperor has no clothes and I wanted to explain it to others," Bićanić wrote on the Reload blog. "It's the subterfuge, protectionism, manipulations that I can't abide by. In the end this is bad for competition and bad for the consumer."

Bićanić has questioned UPA-A's governance model and its relationship with manufacturers: "I don't know of a single pickleball paddle manufacturer that actually likes the UPA … the brands are being bullied into being a part of the UPA paddle certification system."

The Fight for Regulatory Power

Pickleball's governing structure remains in flux. The sport has multiple organizations vying for authority over equipment standards and rules. UPA-A emerged as an alternative to USA Pickleball (USAP), the longstanding nonprofit that previously controlled equipment standards.

Industry forums like the RacquetX 2025 conference have become venues where UPA-A and brand leadership discuss certification updates and seek industry alignment. Jason Aspes, President of UPA-A, has made public commitments to transparency and emphasized the organization's planned transition to nonprofit status.

UPA-A's governance includes advisory boards combining professional players and major brands—a structure that some industry observers view as collaborative while critics suggest it may create conflicts of interest.

Read our guide: USAP vs UPA-A | What’s the Difference?

Scope Creep: From Regulating Professional Game to "The Sport"

UPA-A has consistently positioned itself as a regulatory body for professional play only, not recreational pickleball. Its certification requirements apply to MLP and PPA events—leaving recreational and amateur players under USAP's jurisdiction.

However, recent language in UPA-A communications has raised questions about the organization's long-term ambitions. The organization's latest press release describes its mission as ensuring "pickleball remains fair, fun, and competitive for all participants"—notably broader than professional play alone. It also refers to "reinvesting in the growth of the game" without specifying the professional circuit.

This rhetorical shift has not gone unnoticed. If UPA-A intends to remain strictly a professional-level certifier, critics ask, why use language suggesting governance over the sport as a whole?

The concern is compounded by USA Pickleball's widely perceived lack of urgency in modernizing its own equipment standards. USAP's slower pace of innovation and testing protocol updates has created a regulatory vacuum that UPA-A has been eager to fill—at least at the professional level.

While USAP's cautious approach may reflect the complexity of governing millions of recreational players with diverse needs, it also makes the organization an easy target for those seeking faster, more responsive regulation. The risk is that an independent nonprofit body meant to serve the entire sport could be effectively replaced by an organization born from interests of the professional tour.

For now, the two bodies operate in parallel. But the question of who will ultimately govern equipment standards for pickleball—and whether a single, truly independent body can emerge—remains unresolved.

UPA-A Announces Fee Reductions and Nonprofit Transition

In response to industry feedback, UPA-A has announced significant changes to its pricing structure and organizational model:

• 2025 annual base fee: $20,000
• 2026 annual fee: $10,000
• Certification per paddle (standard 8-week process): $3,000
• Expedited certification (4-week): +$2,500
• Super-expedited (2-week): +$7,500
• Retest after failure: $2,000

The organization states these adjustments reflect "feedback from manufacturers who certified in 2025 as well as those who opted not to, demonstrating UPA-A's commitment to listening, learning, and lowering barriers while maintaining the integrity of the game."

UPA-A is also transitioning from an LLC under the United Pickleball umbrella to an independent 501(c)(6) nonprofit trade association. The organization emphasizes that this change underscores its mission to "ensure pickleball remains fair, fun, and competitive for all participants, while reinvesting in the growth of the game."

To support its certification standards, UPA-A has partnered with Pickle Pro Labs, Automated Design Corp., and UMass Lowell researchers. The organization claims to have built what it calls a "global gold standard" in paddle testing, designed to ensure that "athletes are competing against players and not paddles when millions of dollars are on the line."

A Rocky Rollout and Shifting Deadlines

According to Bićanić's account, the path to UPA-A's current pricing structure has been turbulent.

In November 2024, UPA-A first announced its certification pricing and requirements, allegedly setting the total annual cost at approximately $75,000 per company. The organization announced that the Palm Springs event in January 2025 would be the first tournament requiring UPA-A certified paddles for professional play—giving manufacturers roughly seven weeks' notice over the holiday season.

Bićanić describes the announcement as creating immediate industry pushback. "The result was a total mess," he writes. "Paddle companies didn't want to be bullied into this kind of egregious pricing."

According to his telling, UPA-A then adjusted its approach, allowing manufacturers to pay $2,000 upfront with the remainder due at a later date—initially set for May 2025, then pushed to July, and subsequently to September 2025. Bićanić suggests many manufacturers paid the initial fee to maintain market access while hoping for resolution.

"Many big brands didn't want to rock the boat too much - and they figured - what's 2k anyway - let's just pay it - this will figure itself out," he writes. "And here we are…a few months later - it hasn't figured itself out. The confusion is still in full effect."

The UPA-A approved paddle list does show several notable brands absent from certification, though the specific reasons for each manufacturer's decision are not publicly known.

Questions About Testing Partnership

Bićanić also raises concerns about UPA-A's recently announced partnership with GNG Enterprises to implement on-site "Go-No-Go" deflection testing at tournaments. He claims that GNG Enterprises has no prior track record in paddle testing or sports equipment certification, and alleges the company is connected to Pickle Pro Labs through personal relationships. Specifically, he states it "belongs to the reality show star girlfriend of the founder of…PPL."

UPA-A has not publicly disclosed the ownership structure of GNG Enterprises or provided detailed technical documentation on its deflection testing methodology. The organization has not addressed questions about relationships between its testing partners.

Bićanić argues these connections represent a conflict of interest that undermines the independence manufacturers expect from equipment regulation.

Are UPA-A’s Rules Stifling Innovation?

The regulatory debate has tangible implications for paddle manufacturers. Reload's primary product—a paddle with a replaceable grit sheet—falls outside UPA-A's current certification standards, which prohibit removable parts with limited exceptions for grips, edge guards, and weighted tape.

According to Reload's blog post, the company was advised by testing lab Pickle Pro Labs (PPL) to redesign its paddle with a non-removable surface to meet certification requirements. Bićanić characterizes this as eliminating the product's core innovation.

UPA-A has not publicly detailed the rationale for its removable parts prohibition or why certain components receive exceptions while others do not. In September 2025, the organization ruled that Selkirk's Project Boomstik Elongated 16mm could only be used in professional play without its MOI clamps, citing the same removable parts rule.

The lack of public explanation for these determinations has fueled questions among some manufacturers about the consistency and transparency of enforcement.

Testing, Governance, and Control

Beyond pricing, manufacturers have raised questions about the structure of UPA-A's certification model. The system consolidates testing through designated labs and gives UPA-A authority to certify, decertify, and challenge paddles after they reach market.

UPA-A defends its approach by pointing to "destructive testing" designed to simulate break-in and wear, with the goal of identifying paddles whose performance characteristics change beyond acceptable limits over time.

Critics, including Reload, argue that without multiple independent testing facilities, fully transparent protocols, or a formal appeals process, the certification system lacks sufficient checks and balances. "It's not about fairness," Reload's blog states. "It's about control."

UPA-A's position is that rigorous testing standards are necessary to maintain competitive integrity at the professional level, where prize money has grown substantially in recent years.

What this could mean for the future pickleball

The certification debate has drawn attention from manufacturers, players, and industry observers, with different stakeholders emphasizing different concerns:

Economic impact

UPA-A's fee structure—even after the 2026 reduction—represents a significant investment for paddle manufacturers. A $10,000 annual fee plus $3,000 per paddle certification could total $50,000+ annually for a brand certifying multiple models. Large manufacturers may absorb these costs more easily than startups. Whether and how these costs affect retail pricing remains a question of business strategy that varies by company.

Market access

Certification requirements create a pathway to professional play but also set a threshold for entry. UPA-A argues this ensures competitive integrity; critics contend it may consolidate market power among established brands that can more readily meet certification costs and timelines.

Design parameters

UPA-A's testing protocols and equipment rules define what innovations can reach professional courts. The organization maintains these boundaries to protect fair play and prevent equipment-driven competitive advantages. Some manufacturers view vague restrictions—particularly around removable parts—as limiting legitimate innovation.

Regulatory legitimacy

As a sport without a single universally recognized governing body, pickleball faces questions about how equipment standards should be set and by whom. UPA-A's professional-level certification coexists with USAP's recreational standards, creating a bifurcated system. Whether this dual structure serves the sport's long-term interests, or whether consolidation under a truly independent body would be preferable, remains debated.

Player perspective

For recreational players, these regulatory battles may seem distant. For professionals competing for prize money, equipment consistency and clear rules are paramount. The challenge is building a system that serves both populations while maintaining trust in the regulatory process itself.

An Evolving Framework

Unlike sports with century-old governing structures, pickleball's regulatory framework is still being established. UPA-A's fee reductions and nonprofit transition represent significant organizational changes, though questions remain about decision-making processes, appeals mechanisms, and rule development.

Reload's public criticism reflects broader tensions in the industry over who should set equipment standards, how those standards should be developed, and what balance should be struck between clarity and innovation.

Whether UPA-A's recent changes will address manufacturers' concerns—or whether the sport will see continued fragmentation in its regulatory structure—remains an open question as pickleball continues its rapid growth.

‍