CiCi Bellis, the 15 year old budding tennis star of the WTA, has once again made the most of her wild card entrance into a main draw WTA tourney by advancing to the third round of the Miami Open this past weekend. The Miami Open is one of the biggest non-slam tournaments on the calendar with huge crowds, good TV audiences, and a great celebratory atmosphere.

By reaching the third round, Bellis once again demonstrated both the technical skill and fire power of a future WTA standout, as well as the fire and spark that many see as the x-factor in determining whether she will be America’s next big female superstar.

American tennis fans, and many other in the world, are craving to see more of her big forehand, variety of shots, and trademark fist pumps on our televisions, having had their appetites teased with an outstanding return at the 2014 US Open, and now with these even more mature and nuanced performances at Miami. Serena once again proved she was still “queen bee”, but in all of her matches (including a blitzing of her US Open conqueror and 32nd ranked in the world Zarina Diyas), Bellis demonstrated a game full of promise and ability to one day challenge the top players of the game.

However, Ms. Bellis is capable of challenging those great players now. “One day” is here. With power on both sides, and a mature on-court demeanor full of confidence and grit she has shown through her very limited main tour opportunities that her game fits in well with the top women on tour.

Bellis has played in two main draw events (the 2014 US Open, and this past weekend’s Miami tourney). She has a record of 3-2 and has wins over Australian Open Finalist Dominika Cibulkova, and the aforementioned Diyas (a budding star in her own right). However, Bellis will not get the opportunity to continue to develop her skills against these top players on a regular basis due to the WTA’s Age Eligibility Rule (AER), which limits fifteen-year-olds to only ten professional tournaments until the age of 16. Even more restricting is the limit to only three wild cards to receive entry into the main draws of these tournaments.

Various age restrictions have been in place since the 1960’s. The current variation of the rule was adopted in 1994 and has been updated and tweaked several times over the past 20 years. Any coach of any sport will tell you that good competition breeds better competitors and athletes. Young players like Bellis and others are missing out on this chance. Junior tournaments are great, but it has been proven that junior tournament success is not a complete indicator of future professional success. Google past junior Grand Slam champions and for every household name you will find three that the average sports fan, even the astute tennis fan, may have never heard of (Salemi, Widjaja, Kapros). Ability and promise on the pro tour is developed and found through competition on the pro tour. Ms. Bellis and her other talented cohorts are missing this chance.

I know that many argue these rules have helped the game and the athletes in it. They will say that this rule allows kids to be kids, and it keeps the crazy “tennis dad” from pushing his sons and daughters into years of therapy and off-court controversies, that it allows for older players to establish longer careers. Maybe so. To me it is taking parenting out of the control of parents.

For every extreme tennis parent (an Agassi, a Dokic, a Tomic) there are numerous other tennis parents who are supportive, well mannered, practical. They put their children’s needs first and understand their children need to develop on all levels. They are not tethering their children to the tennis court. Also, these elite junior tennis players may be kids, but their constant traveling and practicing is unlike most kids’ experiences. Regardless of whether you withhold them from tournament access, their days will still be dominated by the business and profession of tennis.

The game has changed. Gone are the days when a teen could just waltz onto tour and reach a Grand Slam semi=final in their first appearance like Chris Evert or win the Australian Open like Hingis in ’97. The game is more physical. The women on tour are taller, stronger, better trained, and have variety in their game. Teens with the ability and skill to compete like Bellis will do just that; they will compete, but are very unlikely to dominate the tour. This very change in the nature of the game is making this rule more and more irrelevant. Only the incredibly gifted teen prodigy could walk on tour and do the things that the likes of Evert, Austin, Jaeger, Hingis, and the Williamses did, and why should a special talent like that be stopped?

Ultimately, I am biased. I am a parent and I am a teacher. I regulate and make decisions about my own children every day. I think I know what is best for them. I am sure parents of tennis prodigies most often feel the same way. The American educational system, like the professional game of tennis, has changed. Now all the latest research points to helping kids find their career path early and putting them into special programs to finish school early, earn college credit and professional certificates before high school graduation.

Our job is to get kids ready for college or career—whatever their next step in life may be. Players like Bellis (Naomi Osaka, Ana Konjuh to name just a couple of talented teens) know what they want their life path to be; they should have open access to it. There are good aspects of AER, including media training for young athlete, mentor assignments, and financial training. These are great for young players like Bellis because they know what career they are headed towards.

The WTA should lift the tournament restrictions; to deny players the right to strive for that goal in the way they choose seems unfair and unnecessary when these athletes have parents, coaches, and support personnel who can help them choose their path better than a broad blanketing rule.

The Bellis family may be perfectly happy to play the number of tournaments they are allowed to, but under current WTA rules, they, and other players and families, have no say in determining simple things like how often she can be a professional—even though the WTA gladly uses her name and matches to garner better TV ratings, etc. These kind of regulations are always made in good spirit, but as usual they punish the masses for the sins of the few—the WTA should trust parents to be parents and aspiring professional athletes to be professional.