After beating Sebastian Korda in five sets at the Australian Open, Michael Zheng had to work out how much of the roughly $150,000 he had earned he would actually be allowed to keep. He was 21, studying psychology at Columbia and had been NCAA champion for the previous two seasons. On court, he had knocked out a former world No. 15; off it, he was still bound by college rules governing prize money.
It is a curious story, but one that shows just how much college tennis has changed. A player can now move between the tour and campus while retaining their ATP or WTA ranking. For years, this route was regarded as second-rate. Today, it is an increasingly sensible choice, because it covers precisely the period in a player’s career when tennis costs a great deal and gives very little back.
Universities buy players time. Someone can reach 22 or 23 before making a serious attempt to establish themselves on tour, without having to depend on family money season after season. The system also absorbs the risk of those who will never make it.
ATP and ITF, with their customary delay, have finally grasped this. The highest-ranked college players are given direct entry into Challengers or M15 and M25 events. The PIF-ATP Next Gen Accelerator adds financial support, but only for the very best, rather than for the system as a whole — too late, in other words, and lacking ambition. By the time the professional circuit steps in, the university has already paid for much of the player’s development.
That is why what happens next matters. This entire network depends on the finances of American college sport. Following the House v. NCAA settlement — named after former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, and finally approved by a federal judge on 6 June 2025 — Division I universities that opt into the new model are allowed to share part of their revenue directly with athletes. The settlement brought three class actions against the NCAA and the leading US conferences to a close and fundamentally changed the economics of American college sport, including through retroactive payments to athletes.
In tennis, the roster limit is now ten players per team. Wealthier universities will be able to offer better conditions; elsewhere, tennis risks becoming an easy line in the budget to cut. In short, athletes can now be paid — provided someone can find the money.
In May 2026, the Intercollegiate Tennis Association warned that a single $2.3 million basketball player can cost as much as two entire tennis programmes, “at the expense of two entire teams, 18-20 tennis roster spots”. Fewer teams mean fewer places, and the players most likely to miss out are often precisely those who need another few years to develop fully.
The consequences for the Tour would not be immediate. For a few seasons, players developed under the old system would continue to emerge. Then the gaps would begin to show: players who could not secure a scholarship, or who had been forced to turn professional too soon. We would never even hear about many of them. They would stop playing before becoming visible enough for anyone to notice.
The professional tours and national federations tend to support players once they leave university. They could also contribute earlier, by helping programmes that are struggling to survive.
Tennis has found, in American universities, an ideal development system beyond the traditional federation structure. The only problem is that it does not belong to tennis — and tennis still does not want to pay for it.
Among currently active players who came through US college tennis, some of the most significant names are:
Michael Zheng — Columbia, NCAA singles champion in 2024 and 2025 after finishing runner-up in 2024; four-time All-American, then broke through on the Challenger Tour and reached the Australian Open second round in 2026.
Ben Shelton — Florida, NCAA champion in 2022; later reached the ATP Top 5.
Ethan Quinn — Georgia, NCAA champion in 2023, then turned professional; reached world No. 48 in 2026.
Valentin Vacherot — Texas A&M; reached world No. 16 in 2026.
Arthur Rinderknech — Texas A&M; a five-time All-American, and world No. 24 in 2026.
Cameron Norrie — three years at TCU, where he reached No. 1 in the college rankings; later world No. 8.
Nuno Borges — four years at Mississippi State, NCAA finalist; later world No. 30.
Jacob Fearnley — five years at TCU; reached the Top 50 after leaving college.
Eliot Spizzirri — Texas, twice named college player of the year; broke into the Top 100 in 2025 and reached No. 67 in 2026.
Nishesh Basavareddy — two seasons at Stanford before turning professional at the end of 2024.
Adam Walton — five years at Tennessee; later reached the Top 100.
Marcos Giron — UCLA, NCAA champion in 2014; later world No. 37.
Mackenzie McDonald — UCLA, NCAA singles and doubles champion in 2016; later world No. 37.
Aleksandar Vukic — four years at Illinois, three-time All-American; later reached the Top 50.
Rinky Hijikata — North Carolina, All-American; later reached the Top 100.
I would put Learner Tien and Brandon Nakashima in a separate category: both attended college, but only for much shorter periods. Tien effectively spent a single semester at USC; Nakashima one season at Virginia.
