Paris, 15 July 2026: The world’s most exclusive tennis club sits atop a distinguished Art Deco building a stone’s throw – or miscued volley – from the Eiffel Tower. Tennis de la Cavalerie has only one court, covered by a vaulted wooden ceiling shaped like a honeycomb, and is a throwback to the 1920s. Vintage racquets adorn the walls and players can sip negronis between sets. Très chic. I would pop down to hone my forehand (I’m currently in Paris for a family break) but access is near impossible. La Cavalerie has just 150 members.
Hong Kong, of course, has numerous private clubs, ancient and modern. The newer ones claim to be more inclusive, relaxed and (relatively) affordable. They offer a sanctuary from our steamy summers and crowded streets, with services that include fine dining, select wines, meeting rooms, gyms, bars, libraries and the like. Think fewer crusty old bankers and more young, upwardly mobile, creative professionals.
The big beasts, though, are those clubs with sporting facilities. These storied institutions – some dating back to the 19th century – benefit from long-standing concessionary land premiums granted by the government. Paying a relative pittance under the Private Recreational Lease regime, their golf courses, football pitches, cricket fields and tennis courts et al take up acres of valuable land in a city notorious for eyewatering real estate prices. Membership fees can be prohibitive.
An integral part of Hong Kong society or bastions of elitism? The debate rages. Private sports clubs insist they get an unfair rap, pointing out they admit the public under the terms of their current leases. In some instances they run training programmes, assist the disadvantaged and promote charitable causes. I should declare an interest here as a member and past honorary secretary of Hong Kong Football Club. We take our obligations most seriously, with concerted community outreach efforts that are as impactful as they are extensive. Not all clubs are so proactive.
Some of our city’s biggest international and domestic sporting events – think golf, football, cricket and hockey as examples – are staged at private sports clubs. Thus, the argument goes, they already support the government in promoting sport in Hong Kong (a hot topic these days, given our recent Olympic success). Further, they help make our city a desirable destination for executive talent, provide employment opportunities and – in some cases – preserve historic sites and buildings.
Dissenters want them shown the red card: such establishments are a colonial legacy, they insist, serving a privileged few rather than benefitting the general public; the authorities should not use precious land resources to subsidise the private entertainment of a small number of citizens; their facilities are underused and, in any event, overlap with those provided by the authorities. And so on.
Now, though, arrives a day of reckoning. Some 15 private sports clubs have been formally notified they must either pay one-third of their land premium – ranging from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars – or fully open their doors when their leases expire at the end of this year. The move comes after a 2018 public consultation and subsequent policy review detailing next steps. Hence, the clubs have received plenty of notice.
They have a choice: open up 30% of their sports capacity to outsiders, co‑host at least 240 hours of public activities each month (up from the 50 hours mandated under earlier renewals) and pay the premium (at least 10% upfront and the rest over 10 years with interest); or convert to a community recreation lease, which would end their private status, restore a symbolic ground rent and require full public access with low‑cost pricing. All appear to be opting for the former. Lawmaker Adrian Ho calls it a “fair arrangement”, one that will also generate substantial revenue for the administration. Senior government adviser Ronny Tong also welcomes the “reasonable” new regime and predicts none of the flush 15 will fold.
Certainly not the hallowed Hong Kong Golf Club, founded in 1889 and occupying 425 acres of prime real estate in the New Territories. It has deeper pockets than most and, in any event, is concerned with more pressing matters, namely a long-running legal battle to stop the government reclaiming a parcel of land to build flats. Amid this litigation, the club pledges to “proactively engage” with the Culture, Sports and Tourism Bureau over its lease renewal. Of course it will.
A penny for Ronald Sum’s thoughts. A high-profile and vastly experienced lawyer, Ronald takes a particular interest in sports law and has done much to promote this fast-evolving practice area. He reviews his diverse and entertaining career as my latest guest on Law & More. Please listen.
In closing, I should mention France is waking up with a sore head after yesterday’s Bastille Day celebrations (somewhat marred by the agony of a World Cup semi-final defeat by Spain). The biggest day in the nation’s calendar, 14 July marks the anniversary of the Storming of the Bastille during the French Revolution, when a seething mob besieged the medieval prison seen as a symbol of the monarchy’s abuse of power. Insurgents scaled the walls, cut drawbridge chains and overpowered guards in a grim battle that claimed more than 100 lives.
In all, a rather more dramatic way of compelling an institution – albeit one not so salubrious – to open its doors to the public.
Until next time, everybody!
Colin Cohen
Senior Partner
Boase Cohen & Collins
