One of the major talking points this week across both tours in tennis has been the open criticism of the four Grand Slams, most notably the French Open, by the top players in the world, including both the ATP’s world #1, Jannik Sinner, and the WTA’s in Aryna Sabalenka.
These are players who both earned in excess of $15 million on the court last year, figures which reportedly rose to around $45 million for Sinner and $30 million for Sabalenka once endorsements and off-court earnings were included. So why are players who already earn enough to sustain not only their careers, but their lives after tennis, becoming increasingly vocal about their disappointment with the Slams and their financial structures?
As Sinner himself said, “It’s (more) about respect.”
The World’s Best Players Fighting the Grand Slams
The Tennis Player Power Campaign
Although voices within tennis have pushed for better incentives for as long as one can remember, the player power campaign truly gained momentum last year. Ironically, it was the usually reserved and carefully shy Sinner who emerged as one of the movement’s most prominent figures, using his voice as a leader in this post-Serena Williams and Big Three era to openly criticize the widening gap between what players want and what the sport’s biggest tournaments are willing to provide.
“Calendar and scheduling are important topics, but there’s no good reason to delay action on welfare benefits. The Grand Slams generate most of the revenue in tennis, so we’re asking for a fair contribution to support all players, and for prize money that reflects what these tournaments earn.”
And while it was Sinner who delivered those words, the movement received backing from 19 of the combined top 20 players across both tours, with names such as Coco Gauff and Sinner’s rival Carlos Alcaraz echoing similar sentiments through press conferences, social media comments, and public appearances.
Why the Players Are Upset
To truly understand why the players are upset, it is important to understand what exactly they are fighting for. While the tennis circuit may appear to operate as one unified entity, the reality is far more fragmented.
The four Grand Slams are all independent entities. Each operates on its own revenue-based system, generating money through ticket sales, sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and commercial deals. This differs from the rest of the tennis calendar, which is operated by the ATP on the men’s side and the WTA on the women’s side.
The ATP and WTA determine revenue allocation and player welfare incentives, such as pensions. At the biggest ATP events, particularly the joint Masters 1000 tournaments such as the Indian Wells or the ongoing Italian Open, players receive approximately 22% of tournament revenue through prize pools. That percentage changes depending on the level of the event. However, despite the Slams being historically and financially larger than any ATP or WTA event, their revenue allocation toward players and welfare programs lags significantly behind.
Although the prize pools at the four Grand Slams continue to increase annually, the percentage of total revenue allocated to players has largely stagnated and, in most cases, even declined, as has been the case for the French Open’s revenue allocation this year.
The four Major tournaments currently allocate only around 12-15% of their total revenue toward prize money, far below the 22% standard seen at the biggest ATP events. In addition, the Slams do not contribute toward player welfare programs such as pensions, insurance protection, or maternity-related support.
That disparity lies at the heart of this player movement.
The Threat of a Boycott
Over the last year, the player campaign has become increasingly public, reaching its most dramatic point this week when Sabalenka openly suggested that boycotting the Grand Slams may eventually become necessary.
“I feel like that’s going to be the only way to kind of, like, fight for our rights… Let’s see how far we can get. If it’s going to take players for boycott. I feel like nowadays, we girls can easily get together and go for this because some of the things I feel like it’s really unfair to the players. I think at some point it’s going to get to this.”
A similar sentiment was echoed by Gauff during her pre-tournament media activities in Rome.
“From the things I’ve seen with other sports, usually to make massive progress and things like this, it takes a union. We have to become unionized in some way. We definitely can move more as a collective.”
And while, on the surface, it may appear that millionaire athletes are simply campaigning for even more money, that interpretation misses the broader point entirely.
The campaign has never been about the top players increasing their already massive earnings. Instead, the movement has consistently focused on lower-ranked professionals, many of whom spend years grinding through qualifiers and Challenger-level events while living paycheck to paycheck in pursuit of their dreams. No player has been a bigger advocate for that cause than the most successful tennis player of all time, Novak Djokovic.
“The players’ position is not where it should be with the Grand Slams and the tours. The system is structured in a way that does not benefit players in all areas. We are probably the only sport in the world where the lowest-ranked players do not have financial security.”
The co-founder of the Professional Tennis Players Association, Djokovic has long pushed for structural changes aimed at improving the financial stability of players outside the elite level. Although the 24-time Major champion distanced himself from the PTPA early this year, his stance on player rights and welfare has remained unchanged.
The Bigger Goal Behind the Movement
This feeling about fighting for the lower-ranked players was also expressed by Alcaraz last year during his title run in Tokyo.
“We are all tennis players, and we are fighting to have something better for us. I think right now, it’s a little bit of a mess between everything, between the ATP, between the Grand Slams. What we want, all the players, is to have everything together.”
Gauff further reinforced that same message.
“We’re not talking about just raising the prize money for the champion, but also trickling all the way down. Our 200th best player, our 300th best player is struggling to make ends meet.”
So when the biggest tennis stars unite in demanding what they believe is a fairer share, especially when tennis players, even after their proposed 22% prize pool allocation, would still receive a far smaller percentage of revenue than athletes in leagues such as the National Basketball Association (51%), National Hockey League (50%), Major League Baseball (50%), and the National Football League (48.5%), the fight is not simply about adding more money to already set bank accounts.
It is about creating a healthier tennis ecosystem, one in which professional players, regardless of ranking, can sustain a career without constantly worrying about rent, travel expenses, or coaching fees.
It is about ensuring that a player whose career is cut short by injury has some form of protection. It is about allowing aging players to retire without risking their long-term health simply because they cannot financially afford to stop playing.
And then, when in response to the players’ demands, the Slams’ response is resistance, lack of communication, and even reduced revenue allocation, the frustration within the locker room becomes not only understandable but entirely justified.
Main photo credit: Mike Frey-Imagn Images
