USA Pickleball Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203557068
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Phone
4799700378
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports Competitions

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,032,273
Expenses
$11,742,191
Assets
$4,167,214
Liabilities
$3,657,451

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MIKE NEALY (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MIKE NEALY (CEO): $349,373 total reported compensation
  • JOSE MORENO - CHIEF OF (MARKETING AND STRATEGY OFFICER): $241,774 total reported compensation
  • CARL SCHMITS (CHIEF TECHNICAL OFFICER (AS OF 7/24)): $179,930 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote the development and growth of pickleball in the united states and its territories.

What it reported doing in 2024

Usap enthusiastically supports, through its membership, sanctioned tournament play for all ages to further competition and increase skills. The number of sanctioned tournaments nationwide, including partnerships with other organizations that support usap membership, was 6 in 2024.as an added benefit for its members, sanctioned events offer general liability and secondary accident insurance for players, staff, volunteers, and referees. In addition to general sanctioned tournaments, usap hosted 5 golden ticket tournaments in 2024. These elite events provide amateur athletes with a direct path to the usap pickleball national championship (held in november 2024), reinforcing the competitive structure and prestige of sanctioned play. The 2024 national championship hosted over 2800 participants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.5%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 72.9%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 18.5%; rating input score 19; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.4%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.9% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.5% of revenue deployed · 72.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $8.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $349K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $570K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.