# Competitors

court-booking · discovery
discovery

# Competitive Analysis: Court Booking Solution

Date: 2026-02-10
Product: Court Booking Solution
Market: Philippines + SEA context

## Competitive Landscape Overview

The court booking market is highly fragmented with no dominant player in the Philippines. Competition comes from three tiers:

1. Direct competitors — Digital booking platforms (global + local)
2. Indirect competitors — Manual booking methods (Messenger, phone, walk-in)
3. Adjacent competitors — Broader sports/fitness booking platforms

Key Insight: The biggest competitor is NOT another platform — it's the status quo (Messenger + phone). Any solution must be 10x better than free, familiar tools.

## Direct Competitors (Digital Platforms)

### Global Players (Potential PH Entry)

#### 1. Playfinder (UK-based)

Website: playfinder.com
Founded: 2015
Markets: UK, Europe
Status in PH: Not present

What They Do:

- Court booking for tennis, padel, squash, badminton
- Real-time availability + instant booking
- Mobile app (iOS/Android)
- Venue management dashboard

Pricing:

- Commission: 3-5% per booking
- SaaS: £50-200/month for venues

Strengths:

- Mature product (9+ years)
- Strong brand in UK/EU
- Integrated payments
- Good UX

Weaknesses:

- No SEA presence (localization gap)
- Premium positioning (may not fit PH price sensitivity)
- No community/social features
- Focuses on tennis/padel > badminton

Threat Level: Medium (could expand to SEA with funding)

#### 2. CourtReserve (USA)

Website: courtreserve.com
Founded: 2014
Markets: USA, Canada
Status in PH: Not present

What They Do:

- All-in-one club management + booking
- Membership management, billing, events
- White-label mobile apps
- Focus on tennis clubs

Pricing:

- $150-500/month per venue (SaaS)
- Transaction fees: 2.9% + $0.30 (Stripe pass-through)

Strengths:

- Comprehensive feature set
- Enterprise-grade
- Strong North American traction

Weaknesses:

- Overkill for small PH venues
- High price point ($150/mo = ₱8,400)
- US payment methods (no GCash/PayMaya integration)
- Tennis-focused (badminton secondary)

Threat Level: Low (too expensive, not localized)

#### 3. Bookee (USA/Global)

Website: bookee.io
Founded: 2017
Markets: 15+ countries
Status in PH: Not present (some gyms use it)

What They Do:

- Multi-sport booking (gyms, courts, studios)
- Class scheduling + facility booking
- Member app + venue dashboard
- Integrated payments

Pricing:

- $99-299/month per venue
- Free for <50 bookings/month

Strengths:

- Global presence (easier PH expansion)
- Freemium model (low barrier to entry)
- Modern UX

Weaknesses:

- Generalist (not court-specific)
- Limited social/community features
- Payment integrations weak in SEA

Threat Level: Medium-High (most likely global entrant)

### Local/Regional Players

#### 4. MyCourtPH (Hypothetical)

Status: No known platform exists
Research Note: Searched for PH-specific court booking platforms — none found with significant presence.

Market Gap: This is the opportunity. No local platform has captured the market yet.

#### 5. CourtHero (SG-based, hypothetical entry)

Status: Singapore has a few booking platforms (e.g., ActiveSG for public facilities)
Threat: If a well-funded SG startup enters PH market

Threat Level: Medium (SEA startups often expand regionally)

## Indirect Competitors (Status Quo)

These are the real competitors — what venues and players currently use:

### 6. Facebook Messenger

Market Share: ~90% of current bookings (estimate)

How It Works:

- Venues create Facebook Page
- Players DM to check availability
- Manual back-and-forth to confirm time
- Payment: GCash screenshot or cash on arrival

Strengths:

- Free
- Everyone already uses it
- Familiar and trusted
- Easy for venues (no new tool to learn)

Weaknesses:

- No real-time availability (must ask)
- Inefficient (3-10 messages per booking)
- No payment integration
- No calendar sync
- High no-show rate (no deposits)
- Unscalable for busy venues (inbox overload)

Our Differentiation:

- 60 seconds vs. 15 minutes (24x faster)
- Instant confirmation (no waiting)
- Automated reminders (reduce no-shows)
- Payment in-app (no screenshot hassle)

### 7. Phone Calls

Market Share: ~30% (overlaps with Messenger)

How It Works:

- Players call venue directly
- Verbal booking, manual log by staff

Strengths:

- Immediate human interaction
- Trusted by older demographics

Weaknesses:

- Only during business hours
- No visibility (must call to check)
- Miscommunication common
- High staff burden

Our Differentiation:

- 24/7 booking (no business hours limit)
- Self-service (free staff for operations)

### 8. Google Forms

Market Share: ~10%

How It Works:

- Venue creates Google Form
- Players submit booking request
- Venue confirms via email/text

Strengths:

- Free
- Better than pure Messenger (structured data)

Weaknesses:

- Not real-time (form is static)
- Manual confirmation still required
- No payment integration
- Poor UX on mobile

Our Differentiation:

- Real-time availability
- Instant confirmation (no waiting)

### 9. Walk-ins

Market Share: ~20%

How It Works:

- Players show up, hope for availability

Strengths:

- Zero friction (just show up)
- Good for spontaneous play

Weaknesses:

- High chance of no availability
- Wastes player time (travel for nothing)
- Venues can't predict demand

Our Differentiation:

- "Digital queue" feature (reserve next available slot)
- Spontaneity + certainty

## Adjacent Competitors

### 10. ClassPass (Fitness aggregator)

Website: classpass.com
Status: Present in Manila (limited to gyms/studios)

What They Do:

- Subscription model (credits for classes)
- Partner venues (gyms, yoga, etc.)
- Booking via app

Relevance:

- Could expand to courts (has happened in some markets)
- Consumer-side only (no venue management)

Differentiation:

- We offer venue-side SaaS (two-sided marketplace)
- Court-specific features (opponent matching)
- Transactional (not subscription-first)

Threat Level: Low (different business model)

### 11. Gymshark, Mindbody (Studio/gym booking)

Status: Mindbody used by some PH gyms

Relevance:

- Generic facility booking
- Could be adapted for courts

Differentiation:

- Court-specific features (community, skill matching)
- Better UX for per-slot booking (not class-based)

Threat Level: Low (not focused on courts)

## Competitive Matrix

Competitor | Type | PH Presence | Price | UX | Court Focus | Community | Threat
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Playfinder | Global | None | Med | High | Yes | No | Med
CourtReserve | Global | None | High | Med | Tennis | No | Low
Bookee | Global | None | Low | High | Multi | No | Med-High
Messenger | Status Quo | 90%+ | Free | Low | N/A | Partial | HIGH
Phone Calls | Status Quo | 30% | Free | Low | N/A | No | Med
Google Forms | Status Quo | 10% | Free | Low | N/A | No | Low
ClassPass | Adjacent | Limited | High | High | No | Partial | Low

## Competitive Advantages (Our Differentiation)

### 1. Localization

- Built for PH market (GCash, PayMaya, Tagalog support)
- Pricing fits local willingness to pay
- Understand Messenger-first culture (migration strategy)

### 2. Community Features

- Find-a-player marketplace (no competitor has this)
- Skill matching (beginner vs. advanced)
- Digital queue for walk-ins
- Social proof (reviews, player ratings)

### 3. Two-Sided Focus

- Not just player-facing (most focus here)
- Robust venue management (rival or beat CourtReserve)
- Aligned incentives (commission model = we win when they win)

### 4. Vertical Specialization

- Court booking ONLY (not generalist)
- Badminton/pickleball-first (biggest PH market)
- Court-specific features (opponent matching, skill tiers, equipment rentals)

### 5. Speed to Market

- Local team = faster iteration
- Can visit venues in person (relationship building)
- Respond to local trends (pickleball boom)

### 6. Pricing

- Freemium for small venues (low barrier to entry)
- Commission model (no upfront cost)
- More affordable than global SaaS ($100-500/mo is ₱5-28k)

## Strategic Positioning

Tagline ideas:

- "Book your court in 60 seconds" (vs. 15 minutes with Messenger)
- "The cinema app for sports courts"
- "Play more, plan less"

Positioning:

- vs. Messenger: "We're not replacing Messenger — we're saving you 15 minutes every booking"
- vs. Global platforms: "Built for Filipino players and venues"
- vs. Walk-ins: "Know before you go"

## Competitive Moats (Long-term Defensibility)

1. Network effects — More venues → more players → more venues
2. Data moat — Player preferences, venue utilization → better matching/pricing
3. Community lock-in — Friend groups, regular opponents (hard to switch)
4. Venue switching costs — Once calendar is on our platform, migration pain high
5. Local brand — "The court booking app in PH" (category ownership)

## Vulnerabilities

1. Global player with funding — Bookee or Playfinder could launch PH with $1M+ budget
2. Venue direct booking — Large chains might build own apps (bypass platform)
3. Facebook evolves — If Meta adds booking features to Pages (unlikely but possible)
4. Low switching costs (players) — Easy to use multiple apps (must win on UX)

Mitigation:

- Move fast, lock in anchor venues
- Build community features (social lock-in)
- Free tier for venues (lower risk of churn)

## Key Takeaways

✅ No dominant local player — Market is wide open
✅ Messenger is the enemy — Must be 10x better than free
✅ Global competitors slow to localize — First-mover advantage window exists
✅ Community features = differentiation — No one else building this
✅ Two-sided marketplace = moat — Harder to replicate than single-sided

Recommended Strategy: Launch lean MVP, focus on NCR, win on community features, build moat before global players notice.