Tennis players send second letters to Grand Slams pushing for reform as the sport’s internal conflict continues

A group of leading men’s and women’s tennis players have sent a second series of letters to the Grand Slams pushing for reform of the sport.

The letter was sent to all four majors on July 30 but is only coming to light today, and was signed by almost all of the world’s leading players, including Aryna Sabalenka, Coco Gauff, Iga Świątek, Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner. Novak Djokovic is the only signatory on the original letter, sent on March 21, who is not a part of this one.

The original letter included the top-10 players on each tour from the week of March 3, apart from former Wimbledon champion Elena Rybakina (who was replaced by the then world No. 11 Mirra Andreeva). The most recent letter also includes Jack Draper, Lorenzo Musetti, Ben Shelton, Frances Tiafoe and Amanda Anisimova, reflecting their improved rankings by the end of July. Of the men’s and women’s top 10s, only Djokovic, Rybakina and Félix Auger-Aliassime, whose rise up the rankings came more recently, are missing. The aim of the group is to represent the interests of players at all levels.

The most recent letter, which has been reviewed by The Athletic, reiterates the players’ desire for three key areas of reform from the slams:

To start contributing to player welfare and a benefit fund to improve pension, health care, and maternity benefits. (The ATP and WTA already make contributions each year.)

An increase in prize money as a proportion of revenue — up from the current estimate of 16 percent to 22 percent by 2030, in line with joint ATP and WTA Tour events (and closer to the NFL, MLB and NBA, where players receive closer to 50 percent of revenues, as referenced by Djokovic and other players).

Greater player consultation and representation, with the formation of a Grand Slam Player Council. This would be consulted on decisions like expanding tournaments to 15 days, as the Australian Open and U.S. Open have done in the last couple of years.

“I’m not really a fan of it. I don’t know why they had to make it even longer. Well, I know why they did it — they get to sell tickets for an extra day,” world No. 7 Jessica Pegula, one of the signatories, said at this year’s U.S. Open. “I don’t think a lot of the players were for it, especially those who play the week before a Slam. It makes everything a little longer and a little harder.”

On the consultation point, an Australian Open representative said that the players and tours were consulted on the event’s Sunday start and that all of the revenue from the first Sunday ticket sales went to the players.

The latest series of letters follows the increasing mobilisation of a group which this year hired former WTA chief executive Larry Scott to help lobby the Grand Slams on their behalf. The group held separate meetings with the slams at the French Open, where Sinner, Sabalenka and Gauff were among those present, and then at Wimbledon. Scott was at both series of meetings, accompanied by a player and agent representative at Wimbledon.

The discussions were said to be productive, with the players largely making their case in Paris before hearing the slams responses in London. The slams’ position reflected the one they outlined in a terse response to a letter sent by the ATP and WTA on March 16 in which the governing bodies outlined their vision for how the sport needed to change.

In their response a few days later, the Grand Slams explained that their vision to fix tennis would entail an even more streamlined calendar of elite tournaments, in a bid to attract more fans and sponsors to bring more money into a more unified sport. The Grand Slams’ proposed schedule would have around 30 events — the men’s and women’s singles in their four tournaments and 10 further events on the men’s and women’s side per year. It formed the “Premium Tour” that they proposed to the ATP and WTA in 2024, and which never went further than discussions.

The original letter from the players to the slams was sent at this time and, during what was a tumultuous period for tennis, came just three days ​​after an antitrust lawsuit had been launched by the Professional Tennis Player Association (PTPA), the organization co-founded by 24-time Grand Slam champion Djokovic in 2021.

The original filing named the four Grand Slams as “co-conspirators” to a “cartel” comprising the men’s and women’s tours, the International Tennis Federation (ITF), and tennis’ anti-doping authority, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA). Djokovic was not listed as one of the plaintiffs, saying that he felt uncomfortable with some of the language used in the lawsuit. He added that: “There are things that I agree with in the lawsuit, and then there are also things that I don’t agree with.”

The PTPA subsequently removed the ITF and ITIA from an updated complaint filed in June, but then added the slams to the New York lawsuit on Tuesday. The ATP and WTA governing bodies have filed to dismiss the lawsuit entirely.

An All England spokesperson said on Tuesday it “acknowledged” the PTPA’s application to amend its complaint and add the slams as defendants. “Our position continues to be that we are always open to having meaningful and constructive discussions to achieve the best possible outcome for the health and success of our sport,” the spokesperson continued.

A UTSA statement read: “We are disappointed in the PTPA’s decision to take this action given our ongoing efforts as we have worked throughout this process to find a viable solution in the best interest of the sport, while continuing our longstanding leadership on player compensation. We remain committed to working productively to solve the issues facing tennis today.”

An FFT statement read: “While we regret that this matter has reached the courts, we want to stress that we remain open to all forms of dialogue.”

After the talks at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, the players sent their second series of letters to the slams, pushing again for reform and reflecting their view that even if the slams think a Premium Tour or equivalent is the way to go, that doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive with addressing players’ concerns in the short term.

In August, the slams responded to the players with letters of their own. Brian Vahaly and Stacey Allaster, the then interim co-CEO and tournament director respectively of the United States Tennis Association (USTA), wrote in a letter dated August 18 and seen by The Athletic, that: “the USTA must balance our obligations to professional players with our primary responsibility to fund the growth of tennis.”

Addressing the comparisons that have been made between tennis and other sports, where players are paid much more when it comes to proportions of revenue, they added that: “The USTA is very different from for-profit leagues and event owner/operators within tennis and across other sports who do not shoulder the same mission-related obligations — and our decision making will frequently reflect those differences. We would be happy to continue the conversation about comparable events of global interest that feature independent athlete contractors and where the owner/operator also shares a responsibility to reinvest in the growth of its sport.”

They also pointed to the increased prize money at the 2025 U.S. Open, which was announced on August 6, a week after the players sent their second letters. At $90 million, the 2025 purse represented a 21 percent increase from the previous year, “with double-digit increases for every round of every competition for every player — including singles, doubles and wheelchair athletes, combined with additional benefits to reduce players’ expenses in NYC.”

Partly trying to explain the benefit of the divisive Sunday start that Pegula criticized, Vahaly and Allaster wrote that: “We have always been willing to increase compensation for players — as evidenced by the 57 percent growth of the US Open purse over the past five years — particularly when additional collaboration on the part of the players helps to create additional revenue. For example, this year’s significant increase in compensation to $90 million reflects the addition of an extra day to the main draw singles competition and the resulting contribution made by players.”

Despite the attempts at diplomacy, a source who has been involved in the campaign, speaking anonymously to protect relationships, said the players were disappointed by the slams’ response — feeling that their concerns had not been directly addressed. A representative for one of the players added: “Generally speaking, the players are unified around making sure they have a real voice in the decisions that affect them.”

All four of the slams were contacted for comment, and a spokesperson for the All England Club which runs Wimbledon said: “Our position continues to be that we are always open to having constructive discussions to achieve the best possible outcome for the future success of our sport and for the benefit of our players and fans. We have been in regular dialogue with the players and their representatives to hear their feedback and these conversations will continue.”

As outlined in the letter to the ATP and WTA in March, the All England Club’s position remains that rather than trying to override the players’ concerns, their focus is on fixing the deeper-rooted issues within the sport, like player burnout caused by too many tournaments — which is where the Premium Tour idea comes in.

On prize money, they point to that over the last decade the prize money fund at Wimbledon has doubled. Including an increase of first-round prize money of 128 percent, and for qualifying of 309 percent. Like the USTA, the All England Club also has financial commitments to tennis’ growth beyond its flagship Grand Slam event. There is also a sense from many in tennis that having seven governing bodies makes any meaningful change extremely complicated.

The players and the slams find themselves at an impasse, with no further formal talks scheduled at this point. The next major milestone is the Australian Open announcing its prize money for the 2026 edition, which begins in January, and is expected towards the end of the year. The 2025 prize pool was up nearly 12 percent on the 2024 edition.

Whatever the Australian Open decides on prize money, the likelihood is that the first Grand Slam of next year will be another one where there’s almost as much intrigue at the happenings off the court as those on it.

(Photo: Julian Finney/Getty Images)

Click here to read article