Tennis facing stern test as pay demands increase on eve of Wimbledon

Amid the petunias and roses in the tennis heaven of SW19, a quiet rebellion is stirring.

Ahead of what many regard as this country’s sporting highlight of the year, the All England Club, which runs Wimbledon, face challenges on two fronts.

Representatives of several top 10 world-ranked men and women will meet with senior Wimbledon executives and officials from the other grand slams over the next fortnight to discuss a series of demands from the locker rooms.

In the collective action from leading male and female players there are three central requests: a greater proportion of the grand slams’ revenue to be shared in prize money; contributions from the four majors to player healthcare, pensions and maternity pay; and a formal say for the players in decisions regarding tournament scheduling that directly affect them.

Jannik Sinner and Coco Gauff were involved in similar talks with French Open officials before the tournament at Roland Garros last month, and may join the Wimbledon meeting if their schedules permit, while Carlos Alcaraz is also understood to be supportive.

The combined push for more money from, and a greater influence at, the grand slams follows a more formal power-grab earlier in the year led by Novak Djokovic, who is fronting a lawsuit in the United States from his recently formed union, the Professional Tennis Players Association [PTPA], against the sport’s three governing bodies, the ATP Tour, WTA Tour, and the International Tennis Federation.

The 163‑page legal complaint filed under anti-trust legislation in New York accuses the governing bodies of suppressing competition, manipulating prize money and imposing a restrictive ranking system to stop players competing in other tournaments outside the official tours.

Within tennis the PTPA claim is seen as posing the greater challenge, with officials who have negotiated with them saying it is underpinned by the threat of a LIV Golf-style breakaway tour.

A clue regarding the PTPA’s possible strategy may be found in their commercial partnership with Winners Alliance, which describes itself as a “for-profit affiliate,” and has reportedly raised $10m for the union in sponsorship and licensing agreements over the past 12 months.

Winners Alliance get a significant amount of funding from private equity firms and hedge funds, including $26m from the Pershing Square Foundation and Prysm Capital, leading to concerns within the sport that such investors will soon be pushing for a quick return.

“Private equity does not fund trade unions,” an ATP source told The Observer.

“They will want their money back – and more – which means one thing: freedom to set up their own tournaments and ever more prize money handed over to the players. This is a battle for the future of the sport.”

Winners Alliance is also heavily involved in cricket through their partnership with global players union, the World Cricketers' Association (WCA), to whom they have provided around $17m in funding.

Intriguingly the WCA was involved in talks earlier this year about a potential new global Twenty20 competition funded by Saudi Arabia’s SRJ Sports Investments, which is willing to invest $500m to set up four short-form tournaments each year.

Cricket Australia has expressed interest in staging one, but the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Board of Control for Cricket in India has outlined its opposition, while the International Cricket Council has yet to provide their endorsement.

Private equity is also funding breakaway leagues in other sports, including the proposed new R360 competition in rugby union, which is set to launch next year in defiance of the clubs and international unions, while undisclosed private investment is also behind the new Great Britain Basketball League that is also opposed by the existing clubs. 

For sports unable to secure the backing of a sovereign wealth fund in the manner of LIV Golf, partnerships with private equity appear to be the model for challenging the establishment with the players increasingly complicit.

“Winners Alliance are a stalking horse for rebel leagues,” a senior cricket executive said.

“They are following a classic disruptor model. So we have a venture capitalist that is funding a players’ union, which is a very odd combination. I wonder if the players understand this?”

The PTPA insist that using for-profit affiliates such as Winners Alliance to provide commercial revenue for non-profit organisations is common practice in the United States, citing the Major League Baseball and Major League Soccer Players Associations as examples.

They also rejected claims that their backers have aspirations to set up their own tournaments, saying their motive is to alter the structure of the sport.

“The people saying these things have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo,” a senior figure at the PTPA told The Observer.

“I can tell you that no-one has made any money out of the PTPA, in fact they have lost a lot of money as they want to do right by the players. We're not interested in breaking away, and will prove that in court.”

While the PTPA's motives are contested, the players engaged in negotiations with the Grand Slams appear committed to staying within the existing system, which has remained largely unchanged since the formation of the ATP and WTA tours in 1972 and 1973 respectively.

While the PTPA may opt to go its own way, or at least reserve the right to threaten to do so, the players engaged in negotiations with the slams remain committed to staying within the existing system, which has remained largely unchanged since the formation of the ATP and WTA tours in 1972 and 1973 respectively.

Despite the inevitable focus on players’ demands for more prize money, sources involved in the discussions say their concerns over welfare packages for lower-ranked players – men and women ranked down to 128 in the world would benefit – and consultation over tournaments are just as significant.

All the grand slams have introduced significant changes to playing conditions in recent years, including Sunday starts at the Australian and US Opens, playing on the middle Sunday at Wimbledon and more evening sessions everywhere, which has led to 3am finishes in Melbourne and Paris in particular.

Many players feel such changes have had a detrimental effect on their preparation for and recovery during tournaments, and want a formal say on such decisions in the future.

Wimbledon declined to comment on the talks that will take place during the Championships, but All England Club Chair Debbie Jevans was unequivocal when asked about the issue of prize money earlier this month.

The total prize fund available at Wimbledon has increased by seven per cent this year to £53.5m, in line with growth at the other grand slams, with the men’s and women’s champions both to receive £3m and first-round losers £66,000.

“The focus on just the prize money at the four events, i.e. grand slams, does not get to the heart of what the challenge is for tennis,” Jevans said.

“The challenge is the fact that the players don’t have an off-season, which they want.

“As yet, there hasn’t been any proposal as to how the tour is able to change its structure. As a tennis player they’re always going to ask for more money.”

The players contend that as a percentage of Wimbledon’s £400m-plus revenue, the prize pot remains unchanged at around 13 per cent however, significantly lower than the 22 per cent of revenue made available by the ATP and WTA tours, which also provide year-round healthcare including traveling specialists.

Given the top players aim to peak for the grand slams, which take up almost a quarter of the calendar including practice time, they feel the organisers should contribute more.

Photograph by Clive Brunskill/Getty Images