Rankings – Does the FFT system favor those who play the most? Is ELO a miracle method? Padel Magazine

There is now a real topic of discussion surrounding the FFT padel ranking : a system based on 12 best results over the last 12 monthswhich partly rewards performance… but also a lot of the volume of play.

The idea of a ELO type rating A model where points are gained by beating stronger opponents and lost by losing to lower-ranked players is being discussed more and more frequently. Is this a credible way to develop French padel?

Referring back to our article of November 15th on the real “false levels” or even the one from last June ou October 2024And in view of the numerous comments we received, we attempted a new exploration of this famous theme of ranking, based on wins and losses.

1. The current system: 12 best results over 12 months

Officially, the FFT padel ranking is:

Individual, computerized, sliding
Published on the first Tuesday of each month
Calculated based on the 12 best results obtained over the last 12 months

The points depend on:

of tournament category (P25 to P2000)
du rank achieved in the table,
du number of pairs entered, via official scales.

In practical terms, to put it simply:

If you don't play much but you get some great results, your ranking can still be decent…
but those who play beaucoup have more opportunities to fill their 12 tournaments with good results, by picking up points in different tournaments, sometimes on more affordable draws and especially with the boom in the number of tournaments.

This is where the increasingly widespread feeling of “false level”, where the FFT ranking does not always reflect the actual level on the field.

There is now a real “false level” in padel: an investigation into a silent problem that can disrupt the system

2. What an ELO system would change

Le ELO system originated in chess, then was adapted to table tennis, online chess, video games, etc.

Its principle:

each player has a cote (a number) that represents its supposed level,
before a match, the system calculates the probability of victory of each one
If you win a match you're supposed to lose, you take beaucoup of points,
If you lose a match that you're supposed to win easily, you lose not bad of points,
If the result is “logical”, the variations are small.

What is important :

every match countsAnd what really matters is the opponent's level and Surprise or not in the result, more so than the tournament category.

Applied to padel within FFT tournaments, an ELO rating would mean:

Beating a player ranked much higher than you would help you climb the rankings quickly.
Riding on weak charts wouldn't bring much benefit.
Losing often against someone stronger than you wouldn't be a disaster.
Your rating would closely follow your actual level at the moment, even if you are "only" doing P25/P100.

Rankings - Does the FFT system favor those who play the most? Is ELO a miracle method?

3. The limitations of the current format (12 best results)

The system of the 12 best results has its qualities It's fairly easy to understand, fits well with the FFT tournament system, and prevents a single bad tournament from ruining everything. But it also has real adverse effects :

3.1. Bonus based on game volume

Even though only the 12 best results are counted, play a lot multiplies the chances:

to encounter weaker paintings,
to take advantage of favorable draws,
to string together quarter-finals, semi-finals, and wins in P250/P500 that eventually fill your “top 12”.

Conversely, a strong player who can only play 4 to 6 tournaments in the year will struggle to exist in the rankings against a “big grinder” who plays 20 or more.

Antoine Nicoli: a record of 171 padel tournaments in one year!

3.2. “Points hunt” effect

The system sometimes encourages a form of “points hunt” :

We'll look for tournaments where the density is lower.
Categories are chosen based on potential points rather than the actual level of the opponents.
Two players of the same level can have very different rankings depending on their calendar.

3.3. A ranking that is not very predictive

For clubs, organizers, and players:

Two pairs with similar rankings can have very different levels of play.
This complicates the creation of consistent tables and makes them difficult for the public to understand.
hence sometimes this feeling of discrepancy between “FFT ranking” and “perceived level on the court”.

4. What an ELO rating could bring to padel

Switching to ELO (or adding an ELO in parallel) would bring several potential benefits.

4.1. Reward performance, not just volume

With an ELO rating:

a player who does some great performances against higher-ranked teams, the rankings climb rapidly.
A player who accumulates titles against weak opponents progresses very little.
the system values the quality of victories more than the number of tournaments.

4.2. A more “real” and finer level

The ELO is designed to be predictive :

If two players have the same rating, they are supposed to share the victories roughly 50/50.
If one has 80 or 100 more points, he will naturally be the favorite.

For padel, this would mean:

clubs need a better understanding of player level.
better balanced paintings,
greater consistency between ranking and perceived level.

4.3. A smoother dynamic

The advantage of a modern ELO is that it can be:

continuously updated or over periods (for example, monthly),
weighted so that recent matches count more than older ones,
adaptable to doubles (we can start from the average of the two rankings, etc).

This is exactly what some standard rating systems already offer. UTR, WTN, or the ELO models used by tennis statistics sites like Tennis Canada.

FFT rankings: volume of tournaments, merit and fairness… what really needs to change?

5. And what about the FFT in all this: has it ever used the ELO?

On the tennisThe FFT ranking has historically remained a system in a pyramid by tiers, based on:

un points system per victory depending on the opponent's ranking,
a calculation on the last 12 rolling months, since the reform of October 2022 (all matches are taken into account, without annual reset).

This system inspired by the idea of the value of opposites (Beating harder yields more) but this is not a pure ELO :

Points are not calculated via a probability of victory as in ELO.
Promotions/relegations are based on fixed scales and point thresholds.

The FFT, however, was involved in the project via the ITF. World Tennis Number (WTN)a global ranking based on a type of system Glicko-2 (Glicko-2 is a modern and more accurate version of the ELO system), itself derived from ELO.

The FFT has long been interested in "relative value" ranking systems and has been involved in WTN-type projects, based on models similar to ELO, but without ever officially replacing the French ranking with a full Elo rating.

6. The weaknesses of applying an ELO system as is to FFT padel

An ELO wouldn't solve everything. It also poses concrete problems:

6.1. Complexity for the general public

The logic of “you gain X points, you lose Y points according to a mathematical formula” is less intuitive that “a P100 = 100 points to the winner, etc.”.
The concept of rating (it's a rating that gives your level and not a ranking), probability of victory, etc.
For a recreational player, it can quickly become opaque.

FFT ranking: Should a performance component be integrated into a volume-based system?

6.2. Integration with FFT tournaments

The entire FFT calendar (P25, P100, P250, P500, P1000, P2000…) is now based on:

of the fixed point allocations by rank,
ranking thresholds for access to certain tables,
rules of assimilation (FIP, tennis, etc.) are already very dense.

Switching to an ELO would require reviewing:

the rules for seeding,
the conditions of access to certain categories,
consistency with professional assimilations.

6.3. Cleanliness of the results database

An ELO requires:

that each match be recorded correctly,
that there be no “disguised friendly” matches,
data specific to the national level.

It's doable, but it requires a accuracy of data entry of all the results and a robust software architecture.

7. Realistic options for French padel

Rather than a big night for the standings, several "intermediate" paths are possible:

Option 1 – Keep the current rating + add an ELO rating in parallel

Le FFT padel rankings would remain the reference for: tables, seedings, record.
There’s nothing quite like a ELO rating padel FFT would be displayed in addition, for those who want a more precise measurement of the actual level.
Clubs could use it to organize more balanced matches, internal leagues, etc.

Option 2 – Hybridize: 50% FFT points, 50% ELO

The final ranking would be a combination:
- "Tournament points" section (12 best results),
- section “ELO rating”.
This would limit the volume bonus while maintaining the logic of FFT tournaments.

Option 3 – Reform the system of the 12 best results without going as far as ELO

Even without ELO, some biases can be corrected:

cap the number of points awarded in the same category,
weight the results according to the average strength of the opponents.
better integrate matches against players assimilated by FIP or coming from other countries.

Conclusion: an attractive ELO on paper, a more nuanced reality on the ground

The idea of an ELO rating system seems, on paper, fairer: every match counts, every victory has real value, every poor performance has an impact. However, when applied to French padel, things are more complex.

Firstly, because, as mentioned above, the FFT has opted for a simple, clear model adapted to current practices: fixed categories, a transparent ranking system, and a few safeguards to prevent players from climbing the rankings too quickly by taking advantage of accessible draws. This system isn't perfect, but it remains coherent overall: it rewards consistency, recognizes those who play frequently, and generally reflects a player's level over the course of a season.

One could almost say: That's great for the one who plays a lot.If he receives a ranking slightly above his actual level, he's not stealing anything. He's simply taking advantage of how the system works. However, there's a downside: with a high ranking but a lower skill level, finding a partner of the same rank becomes more difficult. And in padel, that matters—a ranking is a shared responsibility.

Perhaps the only drawback is the absence of a minimum of "performances" and "contraries" in the calculation: a small bonus for a feat, a symbolic adjustment for a setback. Nothing that would drastically alter the current system, but enough to add a bit of dynamism and reinforce the sporting logic.

Despite these limitations, the FFT system works. Proof of this lies in the explosion in the number of registered players, tournaments, and participants, demonstrating that it remains clear, operational, and accepted by the entire ecosystem. The ELO rating system remains an interesting option, but for now, the current ranking system strikes a balance between simplicity, accessibility, and sporting consistency.

The debate remains open.

Franck Binisti

Franck Binisti discovered padel at the Club des Pyramides in 2009 in the Paris region. Since then, padel has been part of his life. You often see him touring France to cover major French padel events.