Pickleball Payola
(payola = undercover or indirect payment for a commercial favor) – or why being transparent is good for the sport
Can we still trust any paddle recommendations online?
We all love pickleball.
And one way or another (as brands, manufacturers, reviewers, distributors, retailers, facility owners or players) we have built a thriving ecosystem which as per SFIA’s latest 2026 stats – is continuing its relentless climb.
That will never not be awesome.
And the economic beating heart of this ecosystem is nothing less than the pickleball paddle.
Players can’t stop buying them, brands love to sell them, governing bodies regulate them, pros get sponsored by them, knock-offs copy them.
While some of us are fortunate enough to live next to stores that have the latest pickleball paddles available to try many of us have to rely on what we see at open-play, what ambassadors are showcasing – or what paddle reviewers are talking about online.
Paddle Reviewers
The amount of work the paddle reviewers have put in to increase their production value, constantly pump out content, gather and display massive paddle comparison datasets over the last few years is commendable.
While the majority of them started this as a hobby (“Hi guys – here’s what I think about the Onix Z5!!!!”) with no certainty it would ever lead to a life-altering high paying gig – these days – it’s paddle reviewers that are the often the first to comment on events as far removed from paddle reviews as bad line calls in international tournaments and industry altering patent-infringement lawsuits.
That’s the way it works when you have a following on Instagram/Youtube - and when there is no official voice of authority.
But with that following and with the explosive growth of pickleball has come an explosive growth of revenue.
And that’s the crux of this article:
Has the entire ecosystem of REVIEW -> TRUST -> AUDIENCE – evolved into REVIEW -> CONVERSION -> COMMISSION? And if it has - what does that mean?
Let’s dig into that a bit.
When I walk into an Apple store – I don’t expect Apple to sell me Samsung products – and I certainly don’t expect the salesman to focus on the bad battery life of an iPhone or the overpriced accessories – I expect to be SOLD to. And the transactive nature of the interaction is something I submit to willingly. I’m never FORCED to buy anything – and I can make my own mind up based on my own personal desire, addiction, bank balance, product features, research etc.
That’s exactly the same when I’m browsing the SixZero website – or walking into a retail store like the Santa Monica pickleball center.
They’re selling. I’m buying
So what's the big deal?
The big deal is TRUST.
When I read/watch industry commentary on products (be they well known reviewers like Chris Olson or John Kew or Braydon Unsicker) there’s an unspoken aspect of TRUST that exists.
But it’s precisely this TRUST that is quite fragile – and as such legally protected.
Nerdy legal aside:
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides
FTC 16 CFR §255.5 says the following - “When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement… such connection must be fully disclosed.”
In short - If you recommend
something and you make money when people buy it, you must tell people that you make money.
What do they actually say?
It’s important to note that the reviewers do usually say some version of
“Hey use my PBNUTZ code to get 10% off the purchase and help the channel.”
Help.
The.
Channel.
I am not a lawyer but my understanding of the law is that when a reviewer publishes his/her discount code and uses some kind of disclosure like this – as long as they declare some kind of financial interest – they do NOT legally need to state any kind of amounts – it is sufficient merely to say there is some kind of interest.
This might tick a legal box. But ethically it gets very messy very quickly.
Let me explain what I mean:
Brand 1: $200 paddle offering PBNUTZ reviewer a 45% affiliate fee
Brand 2: $200 paddle offering PBNUTZ reviewer a 10% affiliate fee
Both paddles are reviewed in the same program and in both cases the Reviewer says
“Use my discount code PBNUTZ for 10% off”
So in both cases the customer gets 10% off.
And that happens. But behind the scenes one more thing is taking place.
Brand 1 – PBNUTZ makes $18
Brand 2 – PBNUTZ makes $81 - that is a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE
These amounts are never disclosed. So viewers have no idea that the channel is making much more money off of one of these products than another. Remember that the very act of making money is NOT a problem. It never was.
The problem is…TRUST.
The fans TRUST that their favorite reviewer will give them three things:
- Unbiased opinions on equipment
- Special deals
- VIP treatment – First looks, Pre-release information, Special Editions
But the unspoken truth here is these reviewers are not neutral evaluators anymore.
Affiliate systems turn product reviewers into salespeople.
Do we really believe that a 450% difference in profit will not be motivation to promote one paddle over another?
It’s human nature for bias to creep in – even without any malicious intent.
Of course PBNUTZ will tell anyone who is listening that they are beyond reproach – that they would never ever jeopardise the trust of their fans and viewers and they of course do not accept payment for reviews etc – and no matter what the kickbacks are they don’t take that into consideration.
Yeah sure.
But if that’s really true - then why not officially state what the amount of the kickback is?
Could it be because this would change how audiences interpret their recommendations?
Perhaps readers will take the view that who cares – reviewers worked hard to gain an audience – now they’re monetizing it – more power to
them.
Except we’re back to TRUST.
Slow and hard to gain. But VERY fast to lose.
The relationship between the reviewers and their fans is built on trust. The best ones have built their personal and professional brands on the premise that they cannot be bought – that their opinion is unbiased.
If they allow doubt to creep into that – that threatens the foundation that their business is built on.
And making 45% kickback on one brand vs 10% on another without disclosing which is which - ooof – that’s a hard pill to swallow.
In my view whether you are a brand, a reviewer or just a pickleball consumer - sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Regardless of the bare minimum the law might require us to do – if we truly want to build TRUST between pieces of the ecosystem and consumers – all sources that have built their customer relationships on trust should clearly indicate amounts of commissions paid whenever discount codes are mentioned.
Wait a second – I can almost hear PBNUTZ saying - “Hey I’d love to reveal what the kickbacks are but the brand says it’s proprietary information!” – This might be true but it makes it even worse – because it means the brand is using a non-disclosure contract to hide a fee that that they don’t want revealed – likely because IF REVEALED it would make it SEEM like payola.
All sides of the equation should insist on transparency – brands, reviewers and bloggers/podcasters.
And let the consumers make their mind up.
Final Thoughts
Pickleball is still a young sport. The norms we establish now—around trust, disclosure, and transparency—will shape how the entire ecosystem evolves. And those norms are necessary to protect the credibility that a significant part of the pickleball paddle market depends on.
This isn’t about calling out individuals or stopping people from making money. It’s about aligning incentives with expectations.
Because when something looks like independent advice but functions like paid promotion, the gap between perception and reality grows.
And in that gap, trust erodes.
Transparency is how you close it.