Players v Grand Slams: Are top-10 stars being reasonable?

As another Grand Slam season dawns, many players still believe they are undervalued and denied a voice in key decisions made by the major championships.

This is despite a 16% increase in prize money at this month's Australian Open, and total player compensation of $90m (£68.64m) at last year's US Open.

The US Open prize money was over four and a half times more than the most lucrative combined ATP and WTA Tour event at Indian Wells.

But late last year, a host of top-10 players gave interviews in which they asked for increased prize money, contributions to player welfare benefits and a greater say in areas such as scheduling.

Wimbledon champion Jannik Sinner told The Guardian there should be "prize money that better reflects what these tournaments earn".

When world number one Aryna Sabalenka spoke to BBC Sport, she asked the Grand Slams to "come to the table to have a conversation and see if we can find mutually beneficial solutions".

And in a piece for the Sports Business Journal, world number six Jessica Pegula asked the four majors to contribute to player benefits because they are "the focal points of the calendar, the tournaments that take the most out of players physically and emotionally".

So - are the players being reasonable?

Sinner and Sabalenka were flanked by Coco Gauff, Madison Keys, Alex de Minaur and Casper Ruud for a preliminary conversation with the Grand Slams at Roland Garros last May.

The player's campaign - dubbed Project RedEye - is being spearheaded by former WTA chairman and chief executive Larry Scott.

Players are not meeting the costs directly, but the campaign is funded through the Women's Tennis Benefit Association - a subsidiary of the WTA - and money available to ATP Board player representatives.

Top-10 players have now sent two letters to the Slams and the second one in late July - which has been seen by the BBC - made some specific demands.

Players are asking each of the Slams to pay 22% of their revenue in prize money by 2030. That, they argue, would match the commitment made by the ATP and WTA Tour at their combined 1000 events.

Their hope is the Slams will each commit 16% of their revenue this year, with the figure rising by 1.5% per annum until 2030.

In addition to a prize money increase, players want to be consulted on scheduling and key decisions, such as the move to a Sunday start everywhere bar Wimbledon. They have proposed the formation of a Grand Slam Player Council, similar to those on the ATP and WTA Tour, to evaluate any new plans which impact them.

Project RedEye is also making the case for the Grand Slams to contribute to pension, healthcare and maternity benefits.

It argues that after stripping out bonus payments, the ATP and WTA pay about $40m a year in benefits.

To match that sum, and to allow for inflation, they want each of the Slams to pay $12m (£9.15m) in benefits per annum by 2030. The target for this year is $4m, with a $2m increase expected each year.

The Grand Slams argue that revenue generated can be a misleading figure, as the costs of running a major tournament are huge and investment is required in warm-up tournaments, stadia and player facilities.

But if we examine the figures that are publicly available we can see that the US Open and Australian Open are close to reaching the players' initial target, with Wimbledon a little further behind.

The total revenue of Tennis Australia in the year to September 2025, which also includes some income from its role as the national governing body, was A$697.2m, external (£346.21m).

Players are suggesting that, to calculate this year's prize money, the Grand Slams should assume a 5% increase in revenue, and then take 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) had revenue of $559.66m (£492.96m) from the US Open alone in 2024, and the tournament very nearly hit the players' initial target a year early.

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 to July 2024 stood at £406.5m. In 2025, prize money was £53.5m, which under the same calculation meant Wimbledon fell about £15m short of the players' 16% target.

No figures have been published by the French Tennis Federation, which runs Roland Garros.

All four Grand Slams have made huge investment in their grounds and facilities in recent years.

Each has at least two courts with a retractable roof, and the Australian Open added a third when the Margaret Court Arena was refurbished in 2015.

Guaranteed play leads to an increase in TV rights deals, which feeds into players' pockets.

Part of the AELTC's current nine-figure refurbishment of the Millennium Building includes a significant upgrade to player gyms, recovery areas, lounges and restaurants. There will be a roof terrace and garden on the top floor when it is completed in 2027.

The USTA is in the process of building a $250m (£189.7m) player performance centre at Flushing Meadows with expanded warm-up areas, locker rooms and dining facilities.

And on an annual basis, players competing in either qualifying or the main draw receive additional allowances from the Grand Slams. At this month's Australian Open, players will be given per diems of A$350 (£174.35) a day - which covers the cost of a hotel room - an on-site meal allowance of A$100 (£49.81) a day and five free racquet restrings for every round they play.

Tennis Australia also offers a travel grant, which has been 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 the venues.

The Slams also invest heavily in warm-up tournaments, which would otherwise often lose money. The AELTC, for example, says it has spent over £60m in supporting grass court events since 2019.

As well as investing proceeds into performance and grassroots tennis in their respective countries, each major championships contributes $750,000 (£572,302) a year to the Grand Slam Player Development Programme.

Major winners Elena Rybakina, Li Na and Gustavo Kuerten are among those to have benefited from the fund, which aims to help players from developing tennis nations on the road to the professional ranks.

And at the other end of the scale, top players can broker lucrative sponsorship deals off the back of their success.

Sinner, Gauff, Carlos Alcaraz and Iga Swiatek, for example, are all Rolex ambassadors and benefit from the watchmaker's long association with the Grand Slams, which in Wimbledon's case dates back nearly half a century.

Benefit payments are likely to prove a sticking point, but even if the Slams do not want to commit to a specific prize money formula, the numbers may not be far away from what the players are asking by the end of the decade.

Wimbledon, and possibly the French Open, are lagging behind in the eyes of the players, but both tournaments have doubled prize money in the past 10 years.

The Grand Slams could establish player councils but how much extra influence players would gain remains to be seen.

One executive claimed players are in no position to decide whether a Grand Slam should be extended to 15 days, as they are not the ones responsible for running the business.

The Grand Slams know exactly what the players want, but feel they can make a difference in other areas - primarily over the length of the season, and their belief in the need for at least eight weeks between one season and the next.

Strike action is not currently a plausible option, but while the Slams feel they are listening and engaging, the players think they are stonewalling - and will consider their next move after the Australian Open.

Click here to read article