Usta Player Development Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271368195
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Purchase, NY, USA
Phone
9146967000
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports Competitions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,432,957
Expenses
$14,677,655
Assets
$409,216
Liabilities
$15,212,287

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN HAINLINE (CHAIRMAN & PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN VAHALY (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KATHLEEN FRANCIS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA F CANFIELD (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL MCNULTY III (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LEWIS SHERR (CEO & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEWIS SHERR (CEO & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $1,603,418 total reported compensation
  • MARTIN BLACKMAN (GENERAL MANAGER): $749,574 total reported compensation
  • ERIK OLA MALMQVIST (DIRECTOR, COACHING): $483,223 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of usta player development is to educate and train young people in the sport of tennis through a clearly defined structure and competitive pathway, as well as through the implementation of a comprehensive coaching philosophy.

What it reported doing in 2024

The goal of player development is to implement a systematic, holistic and player-centric approach in developing world-class american players and coaches in partnership with private sector. Player development strives to be the best in the world, developing and deploying educational, training and coaching resources to serve team USA. The player development program is based at the usta national campus in orlando, fl, and also utilizes the usta training center - west in carson, ca. Player development has hired national coaches who have contact with the top (tier 1) 20 to 30 players in each age group and an in-depth knowledge of another 20 to 30 (tier 2) players. These coaches provide information and advice and attend tournaments to support these players. The coaches are safesport trained, background checked and certified and pursue continuous high performance coaching education; developing and improving as coaches to in order to maximize the potential of the players, with whom they work. The financial support provided through our grant program is integral to the success of this program. In 2024, player development grants were distributed to 132 players which encompass able bodied and wheelchair athletes. In coordination with the coaching, support and services from our national coaches and team, the players use these grants for training & travel. The funds can be used in a variety of ways for tennis development (e.g., academies/coaching). In addition, focus is placed on supporting young touring pros as well as developing exposure of young american players at the international junior and professional levels. For players who participate in this program, every effort is made to provide them with resources and support to foster their continued success. American tennis players, at both the professional and junior levels, made great strides in 2024. By the end of the year, 8 men and 10 women were ranked in the top 100 atp/wta. In the junior space we had 17 boys and 18 girls that were ranked inside the top 100 itf rankings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.1%; rating input score 97; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.7%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 37.17; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82% of revenue deployed · 80.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.6M · 22 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $313K 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: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.