“`html
Aryna Sabalenka (left) currently holds the women’s world number one ranking, while Jannik Sinner is the men’s world number two.
As a new Grand Slam season commences, a significant number of players continue to express concerns that they are undervalued and lack sufficient input in crucial decisions made by the major championships.
This sentiment persists despite a 16% increase in prize money at the Australian Open this month, and a total player compensation package of $90m (£68.64m) at last year’s US Open.
Notably, the US Open’s prize money exceeded four and a half times that of the most lucrative combined ATP and WTA Tour event held at Indian Wells.
However, late last year, several top-10 players voiced their concerns in interviews, advocating for increased prize money, greater contributions to player welfare benefits, and a more significant voice in areas such as scheduling.
Wimbledon champion Jannik Sinner remarked to The Guardian that there should be “prize money that better reflects what these tournaments earn.”
Speaking with BBC Sport, world number one Aryna Sabalenka urged the Grand Slams to “come to the table to have a conversation and see if we can find mutually beneficial solutions.”
In an article for the Sports Business Journal, world number six Jessica Pegula called on the four majors to contribute to player benefits, stating that they are “the focal points of the calendar, the tournaments that take the most out of players physically and emotionally.”
The question arises: Are these player demands reasonable?
The junior Slam champion who match-fixed to ‘escape’ tennis
Sinner and Sabalenka were accompanied by Coco Gauff, Madison Keys, Alex de Minaur, and Casper Ruud for a preliminary discussion with Grand Slam representatives at Roland Garros last May.
This player-led initiative, known as Project RedEye, is being spearheaded by former WTA chairman and chief executive Larry Scott.
While players do not directly cover the costs, the campaign is funded through the Women’s Tennis Benefit Association – a subsidiary of the WTA – and funds available to ATP Board player representatives.
Top-10 players have conveyed their concerns in two letters to the Slams, with the second letter, reviewed by the BBC in late July, outlining specific demands.
The players are requesting that each Slam allocate 22% of their revenue to prize money by 2030, aligning with the commitment made by the ATP and WTA Tour at their combined 1000 events.
Their objective is for the Slams to initially commit 16% of their revenue this year, with a subsequent annual increase of 1.5% until 2030.
Beyond prize money, players seek consultation on scheduling and key decisions, such as the adoption of a Sunday start at all Slams except Wimbledon. They have proposed the formation of a Grand Slam Player Council, akin to those on the ATP and WTA Tour, to assess any new plans affecting them.
Project RedEye also advocates for Grand Slam contributions to pension, healthcare, and maternity benefits.
It estimates that the ATP and WTA provide approximately $40m annually in benefits, excluding bonus payments.
To match this sum and account for inflation, they are seeking a $12m (£9.15m) benefit contribution per Slam by 2030. The target for this year is $4m, with a projected $2m annual increase.
This video can not be played
Should top tennis stars be paid more money?
The Grand Slams argue that revenue figures can be misleading, given the substantial costs associated with operating a major tournament and the necessary investment in warm-up tournaments, stadia, and player facilities.
However, publicly available data indicates that the US Open and Australian Open are approaching the players’ initial target, with Wimbledon trailing slightly.
Tennis Australia’s total revenue for the year ending September 2025, which encompasses income from its role as the national governing body, was A$697.2m, external (£346.21m).
Players propose that the Grand Slams project a 5% revenue increase when calculating this year’s prize money, and then allocate 16% of that figure.
This year’s total prize fund at the Australian Open is A$111.5m (£55.55m), which is nearer 15% of the players’ target.
The US Tennis Association (USTA) reported revenue of $559.66m (£492.96m) from the US Open alone in 2024, nearly achieving the players’ initial target a year ahead of schedule.
Total 2025 compensation of $90m, which represented a 20% increase, also equates to about 15% of the players’ goal.
The All England Club’s (AELTC) total revenue for the year ending July 2024 was £406.5m. In 2025, prize money was £53.5m, which, according to the same calculation, meant Wimbledon fell approximately £15m short of the players’ 16% target.
The French Tennis Federation, which operates Roland Garros, has not released publicly available figures.
The Margaret Court Arena has a capacity of 7,500
All four Grand Slams have made substantial investments in their grounds and facilities in recent years.
Each venue boasts at least two courts with retractable roofs, with the Australian Open adding a third during the refurbishment of the Margaret Court Arena in 2015.
Guaranteed play contributes to increased TV rights deals, which, in turn, benefit the players financially.
The AELTC’s ongoing nine-figure refurbishment of the Millennium Building includes significant upgrades to player gyms, recovery areas, lounges, and restaurants, including a rooftop terrace and garden upon completion in 2027.
The USTA is currently constructing a $250m (£189.7m) player performance center at Flushing Meadows, featuring expanded warm-up areas, locker rooms, and dining facilities.
On an annual basis, players competing in qualifying rounds or the main draw receive additional allowances from the Grand Slams. At this month’s Australian Open, players will receive per diems of A$350 (£174.35) per day – covering hotel room costs – an on-site meal allowance of A$100 (£49.81) per day, and five free racquet restrings for each round they play.
Tennis Australia also offers a travel grant, increased this year by 67% to A$10,000 (£4,981.30), while medical and laundry services, as well as tickets and gifts, are provided at all venues.
The Slams also invest heavily in warm-up tournaments, which would otherwise often operate at a loss. The AELTC, for example, reports having spent over £60m supporting grass court events since 2019.
In addition to investing proceeds into performance and grassroots tennis in their respective countries, each major championship contributes $750,000 (£572,302) annually to the Grand Slam Player Development Programme.
Major winners such as Elena Rybakina, Li Na, and Gustavo Kuerten have benefited from this fund, which supports players from developing tennis nations on their path to professional careers.
At the elite level, top players secure lucrative sponsorship deals, further enhancing their financial standing.
For instance, Sinner, Gauff, Carlos Alcaraz, and Iga Swiatek are all Rolex ambassadors, benefiting from the watchmaker’s long-standing association with the Grand Slams, which, in Wimbledon’s case, dates back nearly half a century.
Benefit payments are likely to remain a contentious issue, but even if the Slams are hesitant to commit to a specific prize money formula, the financial figures may align with the players’ demands by the end of the decade.
Wimbledon, and potentially the French Open, appear to be lagging behind in the eyes of the players, despite both tournaments having doubled their prize money in the past 10 years.
The Grand Slams could establish player councils, but the extent of additional influence players would gain remains uncertain.
One executive stated that players are not in a position to determine whether a Grand Slam should be extended to 15 days, as they are not responsible for the business operations.
The Grand Slams are aware of the players’ concerns, but believe they can make a more significant impact in other areas, primarily regarding the length of the season and the need for at least eight weeks between seasons.
Strike action is not currently a viable option, but while the Slams feel they are listening and engaging, the players believe they are stonewalling, and will consider their next steps following the Australian Open.
Live scores, results and order of play
Get tennis news sent straight to your phone
“`