The account “Sports Ball” posted a video on several social media platforms explaining the current player argument that the Grand Slams are not “sharing the wealth,” as prize money fails to keep up with increases in revenue and ticket sales.
It absolutely blew up on Wednesday, with top WTA and ATP players — including Jannik Sinner, Daniil Medvedev, and Jessica Pegula — reposting it on Instagram and X.
The complaint is as follows:
1. Tour-level events such as Masters 1000 tournaments (like Indian Wells and Miami) provide around a 22% revenue share with players. They also chip in for “player benefits” (maternity leave, mental health services, etc.).
2. The four majors don’t. They don’t provide 22% rev share (it’s more like 13 or 14%). And they don’t chip in for maternity leave. Because they are run by the ITF, so they don’t have to.
3. The players want them to. They want them to pay their fair share in prize money and chip in for player benefits.
Think about that for a moment. More and more people pack into the U.S. Open every year — to the point that finding seats on the outside courts devolves into the tennis version of the Hunger Games. But those extra sales haven’t resulted in a commensurate increase in prize money. And the players are fighting back.
On one hand, the slams’ position is somewhat understandable. The U.S. Open, for example, is a not-for-profit event. The USTA uses proceeds to advance junior tennis programs and to otherwise grow the game in the United States. The Australian Open is also officially not-for-profit. Wimbledon is unique, as it’s club tennis and its proceeds funnel back into the LTA (All-England Lawn Tennis Association) — but they still donate back to charity and support British tennis programs.
So it’s not like any of the tennis associations are stuffing their pockets with cash. But with that said, I am on the players’ side on this one. They are the talent; they are the reason people show up. The tennis season is a 10-month slog with an offseason that is the approximate length of a commercial interruption on YouTube.
No, I’m not disingenuous enough to pity professional athletes. That would be a wild position to take…. But I don’t take their stressors lightly, either.
The mental health concerns that come from constant travel, time away from their families and the pressure of competing week in and week out are no joke. Player welfare is not joke. And, sure, you could argue that neither Sinner nor Carlos Alcaraz is hurting for cash. But increased prize money doesn’t just benefit the men and women who win. It helps those who are scratching out a living outside the top 50.
The sport is nothing without its talent. I don’t blame them for advocating for themselves. Their request is not unreasonable — and even as I type that, I can admit that if it’s acted upon, the ticket buyers are the ones who are going to absorb the hit. This is the way.
thoughts?
Hmmm. I don’t think the top players need any more money, they are IMO already excessively compensated compared to non-sportspeople doing difficult and important jobs. But I do think the middle and bottom could get some more of the proceeds. If it were up to me I would redistribute extra money to the qualifier level and R1/R2. Possibly also shuffle some of it to Challenger level where some people do it tough, since Challenger provides a training ground for rising players and often the qualifying draws of ATP events.
Another thing that seems obvious to me is that the tennis players are really just the cash cows for the organisers. Like any other large workforce they are getting screwed by the top who are trying to get them to work harder and/or work for less so their own profit margins increase. It’s less visible with the top players who are making megabucks from tournaments, appearance fees, bonuses and sponsorship deals but they are still (prize) cash cows. It’s the middle to lower end where things can be tough.
The other side of the equation is that IMO the spectators are also getting screwed. It used to be affordable to go see some pro tennis, particularly away from Grand Slam serious rounds. Now we couldn’t justify the inflated expense and would rather go to a gig — better value (depending on your tastes; I don’t do stadium music because I don’t see the point). Obviously there are still plenty of spectators but they are clearly skewing away from average income people and courting those who have more money than sense, particularly for the pointy end of a tournament. You can also see that in the advertising if you’re watching tennis on commercial TV; it’s aimed at the glitzy glam set and the aspiring wannabes. It was less that way 30 years ago but enshittification is a noted widespread phenomenon. I include in that category the fawning upon which glitzy stars happen to be at the tennis.
I just like tennis, not the BS around it. Probably one reason I like it is because of its low player to ball ratio, which makes it laid-back and almost meditative to watch, compatible with relaxing but still interesting with high-energy and sometimes amazing moments. Also I am enjoying the apparent camaraderie amongst players these days, one thing that I think has actually gotten better.