US Open: Schedule disputes and money

When Venus Williams was awarded a wildcard for the women's singles at the US Open, she was chosen for a primetime match slot in the first round - Sunday night, on Arthur Ashe, against compatriot Sofia Kenin in front of a home crowd for possibly the final time as a solo player.

But Williams and Kenin did not end up playing on Sunday. Instead they stepped on to court just after midnight on Monday, with Kenin completing a win in straight sets shortly after the clock struck 2am local time in New York.

Afterwards Williams described the scheduling as "not ideal" and said it "wasn't great" for either her or Kenin in terms of conditioning.

The 46-year-old - who lost her 15th singles match in a row, but is set to also play doubles at the tournament alongside sister Serena - is just one of a long list of players who have criticised the late running of matches at the Grand Slams in recent years.

So what exactly is behind the scheduling issues in tennis, what is to be gained from late starts, and will anything change in the near future?

Three of tennis' four Grand Slam tournaments - the Australian Open, Roland Garros and the US Open - operate a split schedule during their competitions, separating matches into day and night sessions.

At the US Open, this means organisers selecting two matches - one men's, one women's - to be played from 7pm in the heart of New York City, after the majority of play has already taken place during the day.

The logic behind building designated night-session matches into the schedule is simple - organisers can make more money.

That is because it makes it possible to sell twice as many tickets, with the same seat being bought by someone for the day session before somebody else pays for it to see the night session.

Night-session tickets are typically more expensive, both because the start time is deemed more attractive for spectators who can arrive after a day at a work, and because they typically feature higher-profile players.

Furthermore, creating the night session package makes TV rights much more lucrative.

The US Open is broadcast domestically by ESPN, who agreed a deal in 2024 to pay a whopping $2.04bn (£1.5bn) to show every single match at the tournament until 2037. That's $170m (£126m) per year.

ESPN can charge higher prices for its TV advertising slots during primetime hours, which skew slightly later in the US than the UK, with some of the country's most popular late-night talk shows only starting around 11pm.

Wimbledon does not operate the same system. Play at SW19 begins at 11am local time and finishes at 11pm, even if the match has not been completed, in which case the players return to go again the next day.

Players have occasionally shown frustration when a match that is nearing its end is forced to stop.

But the clear rules mean players know where they stand and spectators are sure they can travel home by public transport and won't be staying on Centre Court until the early hours.

The fact that the BBC, which broadcasts the tournament, is not reliant on advertising revenue means that the financial desire to have guaranteed late-night matches is not the same.

So the appeal is clear for those who manage the financial spreadsheets, but what about everybody else?

US Open organisers have not yet commented in the wake of the Williams-Kenin match, but have previously argued late scheduling is a benefit to fans.

"Without question late-night matches were heavily discussed and reviewed after the 2022 US Open", tournament director Stacey Allaster said in 2023, after opting to maintain the late schedule.

"We looked at starting the evening session earlier, instead of 7pm start at 6pm, but it's not really a possibility because it's hard for New Yorkers to get here even at 7pm.

"We talked about [changing to] one match at night, but we felt that's not fair to our fans. One of the realities we have in tennis is that we are not defined by a start and an end time. We can have a short match or we can have a five-hour match."

And that lack of certainty is where the problems arise. Organisers might not think all matches will run long, but they definitely know it's a possibility.

A five-set men's match can easily run for over four or even five hours and a women's match that goes the distance can comfortably pass the three-hour mark. Put those two matches back-to-back on Arthur Ashe with a short break in-between and suddenly whoever is playing second isn't finishing until about 3am.

The reason Williams and Kenin started their match so late is that Novak Djokovic's defeat by Mariano Navone took five sets and over four hours to complete.

By the time Williams and Kenin were finished, the crowd in the 23,933-capacity stadium was sparse.

Scheduling issues form part of an ongoing dispute between players and Grand Slam organisers which has been running for years.

Players have been asking for a greater share of the revenue made by the event organisers, citing issues like late-night start times, lack of recovery time, increases in media duties, and pension contributions.

At Roland Garros and Wimbledon, Players including Gauff, Aryna Sabalenka and Jannik Sinner restricted their media duties in protest at what some players see as unfair conditions.

The dispute led to Wimbledon and the US Open increasing the prize money available to players in 2026, and the creation of a Grand Slam players advisory council which will launch after the US Open concludes and give players a greater say on how the majors are run.

Whether the council will aim to force the end of late finishes is unclear, but their unpopularity with the majority of players is evident.

If a change is brought about amid player pressure, organisers may find broadcasters aren't willing to play quite as much for TV rights, and then players could in turn see their prize money reduced as the overall revenue pot is smaller.

For now, though, the tug-of-war between finances and players' rights means the matter remains unresolved.

Click here to read article