Padel, the fast-growing racquet sport, has taken Europe by storm. Its social appeal, compact courts, and dynamic gameplay have made it a favourite in clubs and urban centres alike. But there’s a growing downside: noise. The loud pops of ball strikes — amplified by glass walls and echoed across neighbourhoods — are increasingly drawing complaints from residents. While attention has focused on court location and barriers, the real noise culprit may be closer to the player’s hand: the racket itself.
The traditional padel racket is a solid, perforated composite structure — unlike the stringed tennis racket. Most are made with an EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate) or polyethylene foam core sandwiched between stiff outer layers of fibreglass or carbon fibre. These rigid materials, combined with the racket’s compact shape and drilled holes, produce a sharp, echoing sound when the ball is struck. Unlike tennis, where strings absorb much of the impact vibration, padel rackets transfer that energy outward as audible noise.
So, can the racket be redesigned to significantly reduce its acoustic footprint? The answer is yes — and it’s technically feasible, even with today’s materials science.
First, acoustic damping layers could be integrated into the outer shell. A soft polymer or rubberised coating — thin enough not to affect weight or balance — would absorb a portion of the vibration and reduce the sharpness of the impact sound. This is similar to how noise-dampening grips are used in power tools or hockey sticks. Composite manufacturers already have access to materials with excellent sound-absorbing properties that could be adapted to padel production.
Second, the core of the racket can be redesigned. While EVA foam offers control and responsiveness, newer formulations of low-density foam or gel-filled cores could dramatically reduce vibrational transfer without compromising playability. Engineers could also use multi-layered cores, combining responsiveness with internal acoustic insulation.
Third, structural innovations could help. For instance, eliminating or reducing the number of holes in the racket — or replacing them with acoustic baffles or filled channels — could lessen resonance. These holes are partly responsible for the high-pitched “pop” that echoes from every shot.
In addition, vibration-damping inserts — similar to tennis racket dampeners — could be embedded in the handle or frame. This not only reduces hand fatigue but can significantly muffle the total sound profile of the strike.
None of these adjustments would drastically alter the feel of the game — particularly for amateur or recreational players, who represent the majority of padel participants. With minor refinements and clever engineering, a “quiet padel racket” could emerge as a desirable new category.
Finally, the industry needs motivation. Without pressure from clubs, local authorities, or national federations, manufacturers have little incentive to innovate in this area. But with noise complaints threatening court construction and local acceptance, the time for a quieter racket has arrived.
In a world growing increasingly noise-sensitive, the future of padel may depend not just on where it’s played — but how quietly.
P.S. Why Isn’t This Happening Despite Widespread Complaints?
Despite growing frustration from residents near padel courts, manufacturers have yet to act meaningfully on noise reduction — and the reasons are largely commercial and cultural. The sport’s rapid global expansion has been driven by its energy, pace, and simplicity, with noise regarded as a side effect rather than a design flaw. The racket industry is focused on performance metrics like power, spin, and control — all of which are easier to market than reduced decibel output.
Moreover, there is no regulatory pressure. Neither international padel bodies nor national sports authorities have introduced acoustic standards for equipment. As a result, manufacturers have no incentive to research or invest in quieter alternatives, particularly when current designs remain popular and profitable.
There’s also inertia. Professional and competitive players are accustomed to the feel and sound of traditional rackets, and many may resist any change that alters feedback or perceived responsiveness — even if it benefits the wider community.
Lastly, clubs and developers, eager to build courts and attract members, often downplay noise concerns until complaints become legal or political. By then, it’s reactive firefighting, not forward planning. Without systemic change or external pressure, the racket remains loud — and so does the controversy.
