Tennis players, including Aryna Sabalenka, have raised the possibility of a boycott, demanding a greater share of the revenue from the major tournaments.
Players’ Demand for Fairer Revenue Split
The players are calling for a greater percentage of the gross revenues generated by the majors. The players ought to be paid a greater percentage of the gross revenues the majors generate. The majors should negotiate in good faith. The current 15 to 18% of gross revenue that the majors pay to tennis labour is not in line with industry standards.
In-kind wages are meaningless to the players. Players don’t care about the U.S. Open facilities upgrade, the Australian Open cold plunges or the extra meal vouchers; they want money.
The majors’ argument that they are nonprofits pouring money into the growth of tennis is also being challenged. Sabalenka and Jannik Sinner don’t—and shouldn’t—care that the U.S. Open revenue they generate is being spent on USTA coaches, school gymnasium short courts, or repaving courts in Topeka, or that the Australian profits might be poured into talent development in Perth.
The Complexities of a Boycott
Players must be realistic about their leverage and the challenge of collective action.
- The majors pay more than other events, even at the current ratio.
- Top players often have endorsement contracts with bonuses for winning majors.
- The majors hold significant prestige and historical importance.
A first-round loser at the U.S. Open makes four times the purse of a first-round loser in Rome. If you’re a top player, are you really going to sacrifice this opportunity?
The majors are the four coins of the tennis realm. History remembers your major haul, not your Shanghai, or even Indian Wells, haul.
Part of the draw of the majors is the prestige and the experience. Fans attend and tune in for the event itself. Don’t bluff a boycott unless you mean it.
Looking Ahead
Next week there will be a Roland Garros draw show and plenty of lead-in content.