Amidst the resounding echoes of critics asserting that “Tennis can’t get out of its own way”, a sentiment oft-repeated by sports journalists and those entrenched in the sport’s coverage, the saga of professional tennis unfolds. Spanning 55 years since the inauguration of “The Open Era” in 1968, tennis has organically ascended to claim its place as the fourth most popular global sport, boasting a dedicated following of a billion fans. Yet, beneath the veneer of this success, a paradox lingers. Despite over five decades of professional competition, the majority of tennis professionals find the path to a sustainable livelihood rather arduous. As both a player and an avid fan, I thought I’d weigh in on this conundrum, offering some of my thoughts on how the sport can chart a course toward a more prosperous future for players, fans, and the sport at large. A discussion on this topic wouldn’t be complete without some thoughts on the recently announced OneVision initiative by the ATP and the PTPA also, so I’ll give my thoughts on those as well since they are working towards improving the aspects of tennis I discuss here.
My tennis background and perspective
Ever since my teenage years in the mid-1990s, I’ve been playing recreationally and following the world of pro tennis, captivated by the era of legends like Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, and Agassi. In those early days, my tennis universe revolved around watching matches and highlights when they were nationally televised. No cable TV meant mostly following the four majors and keeping tabs on who claimed the coveted titles.
As a young adult paying for my own cable TV package, I was watching tennis on TV as often as I could (sometimes ruining my sleep schedule over two weeks) and began following the sport and players much closer. My frequent playing resulted in breaking strings often enough that I decided to buy my own electronic stringing machine and taught myself how to restring racquets to save some money long-term. This perfunctory cost-savings decision was actually one that would end up having a huge impact on my level of involvement in the sport later in my life (stories for another time).
As more information about players, tournaments, and the business side of the sport gradually trickled on to the internet I was surprised about some of what I was learning. Perhaps even more surprising is that not much has changed in the twenty years since then, which at the time already had decades of the status quo making up the sport’s history.
While I have a laundry list of improvements I think tennis could make, I’ll focus on these for now:
- Lopsided Prize Money
- The Single-elimination value proposition
- Player Unionization / Representation
- Support for developing talent
- Revenue Sharing with players
Let’s get into it. Also, I love to hear from readers what they think, so feel free to leave your comments at the bottom of the page.
Prize Money: The status quo has to go
In the realm of professional sports, be it team-based or individual, a pronounced income disparity prevails among players. The superstars of the sports world can amass earnings ten, twenty, or even fifty times greater than their colleagues, especially when factoring in income from sponsorships and other non-salary streams. In the context of tennis, the phenomenon of top-ranked and highly popular players out-earning their lower-ranked counterparts isn’t inherently problematic from a financial perspective.
However, where tennis faces a critical financial challenge lies in the distribution of prize money at tournaments. It’s here that a nuanced examination is warranted. A more equitable—dare I say, fair—allocation of the prize money pool could significantly enhance the sport. Such an approach would not only democratize access to crucial resources like coaching, training, and career development, but also holds the potential to extend the longevity of players’ careers. By fostering a more inclusive financial landscape, tennis can ensure that the benefits of success are shared more broadly, creating a sustainable and thriving ecosystem for all its participants.
For my example, I’m using a decent size professional tennis tournament. Not one of the four majors, but one of the bigger tournaments - Indian Wells. In the table below is the prize money structure for the 2023 Indian Wells men’s singles draw, and how I would structure the prize money if it were up to me. I would also increase the share of revenue that tournaments are required to share with the players via prize money, but that’s a whole other topic. While I’m only using men’s singles as an example here the same redistribution percentages could be applied to prize money for women’s tennis, doubles, etc.
2023 BNP Paribas Open Men’s Singles (Indian Wells)
It’s important to keep in mind the percentages as well as how many players get eliminated each round (receiving the same payout) and what percentage of the prize money that the payouts for that round’s losing players represents. I’ve included it all in this breakdown to hopefully show how absurdly lopsided the earnings are at the top.
The total prize money available on the men’s side (as well as the women’s) in 2023 was $8,800,000. A portion of that goes to doubles teams so the total prize money going towards singles competition was $6,857,990.
| Total Purse: $6,857,990 | Prize Awarded | Percent of Purse | Total for Result | Result Percent of Purse | Players Awarded | My Prize Proposal | Percent of Purse | Total for Result | Result Percent of Purse |
| Champion | $1,262,220 | 18.4 % | $1,262,220 | 18.4 % | 1 | $630,935 | 9.2 % | $630,935 | 9.2 % |
| Runner-up | $662,360 | 9.7 % | $662,360 | 9.7 % | 1 | $493,775 | 7.2 % | $493,775 | 7.2 % |
| Semifinal | $352,635 | 5.1 % | $705,270 | 10.3 % | 2 | $322,325 | 4.7 % | $644,650 | 9.4 % |
| Quarterfinal | $184,465 | 2.7 % | $737,860 | 10.8 % | 4 | $171,450 | 2.5 % | $685,800 | 10 % |
| Round 4 | $96,955 | 1.4 % | $775,640 | 11.3 % | 8 | $102,870 | 1.5 % | $822,960 | 12 % |
| Round 3 | $55,770 | 0.8 % | $892,320 | 13.0 % | 16 | $61,720 | 0.9 % | $987,550 | 14.4 % |
| Round 2 | $30,885 | 0.45 % | $988,320 | 14.4 % | 32 | $34,290 | 0.5 % | $1,097,280 | 16 % |
| Round 1 | $18,660 | 0.27 % | $597,120 | 8.7 % | 32 | $30,860 | 0.45 % | $987,550 | 14.4 % |
| Qualifying Rnd 2 | $9,440 | 0.14 % | $113,280 | 1.7 % | 12 | $19,890 | 0.29 % | $238,660 | 3.5 % |
| Qualifying Rnd 1 | $5,150 | 0.076 % | $123,600 | 1.8 % | 24 | $$10,290 | 0.15 % | $246,890 | 3.6 % |
Certain figures in the table above show just how much tennis rewards their champions at the expense of the rest of the field. The current distribution of prize money:
- Awards the champion roughly twice what it awards the opponent they defeat in the final. Double the reward for winning just one more match. In fact, the champion could potentially win fewer points in that match, but still receive double the prize money.
- Awards the champion as much as the runner-up plus the combined sum given to all 32 players that lost their first round matches.
- Awards just one person (the champion) 18.4 percent of the total prize money purse in an event where nearly 100 players entered the main draw.
- Awards the champion a larger share of the prize money than any other round of the tournament by far. The champion receives $1.26M while all 32 players that lose in the second round collectively receive $987,550.
In the columns to the right where I’ve laid out what my take on the prize money distribution could be, you see:
- Players that lose in qualifying (likely younger players still developing, or players coming back from injury) receive roughly double the current amount.
- The Champion still receives the largest share of any one player, but it’s only 9.2% of the total purse compared to the 7.2% the runner-up receives. Not double the amount, but enough to make a meaningful difference.
- The slight decreases in prize money going to the Quarterfinalists and Semifinalists also help fund more meaningful payouts to the players losing in rounds 1 - 4. Keep in mind that typically (not always, but regularly) the players making the quarterfinals and beyond in any given tournament are reaching those later rounds in most of the tournaments they play in. This means they will still be repeatedly earning larger prize money sums than their lower-ranked peers for better performance. A lot of those players also have the clout to earn money outside of tournament prize money from sponsorships, playing exhibitions and appearance fees.
While we’re talking money
Some kind of player allowance for hotel, transportation, meals, and airfare - should be part of the financial commitment each tournament makes. It’s bad enough when a player loses early, but then having their prize money check barely cover the cost of their stay for the week just makes it even more painful. Players can opt to make whatever accommodations they choose, but a base budget for each player should cover their stay at “reasonable” accommodations for the week within a certain distance of the tournament site.
Single Elimination is the enemy of player value
As soon as the first round of a tournament has finished, half of the players from the main draw have been eliminated. At a major, that’s 64 players that practiced and prepared, made all the necessary travel arrangements to be at the tournament - sometimes bringing along a coach, and potentially arriving several days before their match to get used to the conditions - all to be eliminated within a few hours. The nature of single elimination tournaments is also stressful and chaotic for players trying to schedule and purchase flights, hotels and other travel accommodations. It’s not like the eliminated players suddenly lost all of their tennis ability or appeal to fans. What if tournaments figured out some ways to keep eliminated players around and had ways for them to still make some money? They could offer players the chance to:
- Participate in exhibition matches - either with other eliminated players, or with fans willing to pay for the awesome experience of hitting with a touring pro. Players would have to weigh the risk of potential injury against what kind of financial gain was on the table, of course.
- Coaching sessions / lessons - a lot of tennis fans play the sport regularly. Offer fans a chance to pay for a 15, 30 or 60 minute long practice session where a pro gives them feedback on their game or offers some coaching advice. Tournaments could sell raffle tickets to some of these sessions as a way to pay the players involved.
- The equivalent of a “back stage pass” - access to players for photo ops, autographs, and Q & A sessions. Social media companies could sponsor these sessions and pay the players a stipend if it made financial sense.
- Commentating guest appearances - If you’ve been lucky enough to hear accomplished players such as Agassi, Roddick, Blake, Becker and others offer their insights during matches, then you know how interesting some of their insights into the match can be. I’m betting most players inside the top 250 in the world would have some interesting comments to share if given the chance. Partner with the broadcasters for this.
There are probably several other ways tournament sponsors and organizers could maximize the value of the players that enter their tournaments if the players were willing to participate and it made sense for them financially and schedule-wise.
A strong players union is long overdue
Professional tennis players relationship with the “T-7” (ATP, WTA, ITF and the 4 major events) is similar to that of a contractor. The players have little collective bargaining power when the tour environment is every man/woman looking out for themselves. While I do believe the recent emergence of the PTPA will be an improvement over the ATP and WTA Player Advisory Councils in the long term, it still is yet to establish itself in the tennis world as an organization with enough power and influence to affect real change - yet. Their list of core tenets and principles sound promising, though.
Perhaps with a players union, tournaments wouldn’t do things like schedule night session matches that end up lasting long past midnight, or other common practices that players lament during their post-match press conferences.
It takes a village (and a small fortune) to produce a tennis professional.
Talent and hard work combined can still fall short in the world of tennis. This is not unique to tennis, but tennis can make it awfully difficult to attain the professional ranks. Depending on a variety of factors (country of origin, socioeconomic status, access to coaching and lessons, parental support, and much more) - players trying to develop professional level talent in a sport as demanding as tennis face a long arduous road that sometimes even takes some lucky tournament draws to help them along.
Then there’s the cost of training. Most pro’s begin playing at a young age (around 5 years old give or take a couple of years) so these costs start adding up pretty early on in their lives. These are things like:
- Gear - just a racquet and tennis balls to start with, but by their teenage years you’re looking at multiple racquets, string and the cost of re-stringing, a decent racquet bag, and shoes that only last a few months. A lot of small stuff too like overgrips and wristbands/headbands, etc.
- Fees - court rental and tournament entry as well as potential memberships like USTA.
- Lessons / Coaching - This can vary widely depending on who the coach is and the club or facility they teach at.
- Travel - Even at a fairly young age, competitive junior players need to travel to tournaments to play matches that will go towards some kind of regional or national ranking. As they get older, international travel enter the picture. Queue the sound of a cash register opening. Ka-ching!
At the most elite levels of training, you have tennis academies where many well-known professionals spent months or years training. Here are the costs at some of the well-known academies, for a single year:
- Evert Tennis Academy - $49,000
- Rafa Nadal Academy - $62,000
- Bollettieri (now IMG) Academy - $67,000 - $89,000
- Mouratoglou Academy - $65,000
Without a sponsor and/or wealthy family connections, these types of facilities and coaching are basically unattainable for the average aspiring tennis youth. Even if you are lucky enough to be in a financial position to make this kind of investment (or have it made on your behalf) there are the harsh realities of the odds that it will pay off and you’ll one day be a successful professional earning a living from the sport, because those two things are not necessarily tied to one another.
Tennis revenue needs to be shared more with the players
Have a look at this infographic that shows how much revenue is shared with tennis players compared to other professional sports organizations:
Taking a look at the average yearly earnings by professional athletes, it quickly brings into focus how low tennis ranks.
- Average NBA Salary (2023-2024 season, 450 players) $9.7 million
- Average NFL Salary (2023-2024 season, 1,696 players) $3.4 million
- Average MLB Salary (2023 season, 945 players) $4.9 million
- Average EPL Salary (2023 season, 555 players ) $3.9 million
- Average Tennis Earnings (2023 season, top 1,000) $185,000
One of these things is not like the others. It’s also worth noting that the $185,000 average figure for tennis is skewed by top players making several million while the 1,000 ranked player made just $4,273. The *median* salary for the top 1,000 tennis players is just $22,362. Also worth mentioning is that the athletes in those other sports are not paying for their own transportation, lodging, meals, and coaching. In men’s singles competition in 2023, only the top 70 players earned a net (before taxes) amount of prize money of $1 million or more. In the other sports, being a top 70 players is all-star territory and you’re likely earning 8 figures a year.
This is where I hope recent initiatives like the ATP’s OneVision can move things in the right direction and put more of the revenue from the sport into the players pockets.
Final Thoughts
As someone that spent a considerable amount of my youth playing and watching various sports, I’ve often reflected on the different elements of athleticism, coordination, mental strength, agility, and other intangibles that go into being great at playing each one. For me, tennis requires a unique, remarkable blend of technical skill, mental strength, enduring fitness and raw athleticism that is unmatched by most other sports. At the highest level, you need the hand-eye coordination similar to both throwing and hitting an MLB fastball (first serve) or curveball (second serve). You have to possess a level of anaerobic fitness near that of a track and field athlete. You need a limber and flexible frame as you slide across both clay and gritty concrete surfaces. You need the strategic mind and tactical abilities of a chess player as you try and impose your game on your opponent, anticipate their next move, and expose their weaknesses. It’s disheartening that only a select few (top 70 men and top 42 women) in the world can achieve a million in annual earnings in such a globally beloved sport. The current disparity in financial rewards highlights a critical need for governing bodies to unite, charting a course toward increased accessibility and appeal. By fostering a more equitable environment, tennis can hope to unlock the untapped potential of future stars and relevance on the stage of professional sports in the years to come.