Why is tennis still seen as the “white sport”?
Walk past a country club on a summer morning, and you’ll likely catch a glimpse of it: crisp white outfits, manicured courts, and a sport that still carries the faint perfume of old money. For decades, tennis has lived with the nickname the “white sport”—a reference not just to its strict dress codes, but to its roots in wealth, exclusivity, and, for much of its history, racial homogeneity.
So how did a game that began as a courtly pastime in Europe come to carry such a loaded label?
Born in palaces, raised in clubs
Tennis didn’t start as a game for the masses. Its earliest form—jeu de paume—was played by French nobility in the 12th century. By the time it made its way to Britain, rackets had replaced palms, and tennis had become a favorite among the Victorian elite. Lawn tennis was a genteel activity, often played at garden parties and private clubs, where sweat was frowned upon and social status mattered more than your backhand.
When Wimbledon began in 1877, it didn’t just introduce the world’s most famous tournament—it cemented the unwritten rules of tennis aristocracy. Chief among them: white clothing only. The official reason is that white hides sweat stains. The unofficial reason is that white was the color of refinement, of people who didn’t work in fields or factories and could afford to wear impractical clothing.
Even today, Wimbledon sticks to this tradition like a badge of honor. The all-white rule is a quiet nod to a bygone era where tennis was less sport and more social ritual.
The whiteness beyond the clothes
Of course, “white” in tennis hasn’t just referred to clothing. For most of the 20th century, it also described the people who played it—and the ones who were allowed in. In both the U.S. and the UK, tennis clubs operated with unwritten (and sometimes very written) policies that excluded people of color.
In America, segregation in tennis wasn’t officially dismantled until the 1960s. Before Arthur Ashe and Althea Gibson made history on court, they had to fight to even get on it. And while they broke barriers, the sport as a whole remained stubbornly white—both in terms of access and image.
Even now, the perception lingers. Part of it is economics: tennis is expensive. The equipment, the coaching, the travel—it all adds up. And many of the top tennis programs and clubs still cater to the affluent. The pipeline is narrow, and often runs straight through zip codes with gated communities.
The shift, but not the overhaul
It would be unfair to say tennis hasn’t changed. It has. The faces on center court today reflect a broader spectrum of race and nationality than ever before. Serena and Venus Williams redefined what excellence could look like in the sport. Naomi Osaka, Coco Gauff, Frances Tiafoe, Ons Jabeur—they’ve expanded tennis’s cultural reach, and in doing so, have helped peel back the old veneer of exclusivity.
And yet, the old structures still cast long shadows. Wimbledon still clings to its white-only dress code. Elite clubs still function as gatekeepers. And for every public court buzzing with kids learning to serve, there’s a private one where generational wealth pays for private lessons and fast-tracks opportunity.
Can a “white sport” change its colors?
Tennis is in a curious place. It’s more diverse than ever, but still shaped by a history it hasn’t fully reckoned with. Its rituals continue to echo a world where access was limited and appearances mattered most.
Maybe it’s time to ask not just why tennis is called a “white sport,” but whether it still wants to be. The traditions that once defined it are increasingly being challenged by the very players bringing new life to the game. And in that tension—between heritage and progress, between white attire and colorful personalities—tennis might just find its future.
