What’s Fault with Tennis? Why a $2.5bn Sport Still Fails Most of Its Players

What’s Wrong with International Tennis?

Tennis has an unusually fragmented governance structure. Seven organisations oversee the sport globally: the WTA, ATP, ITF, US Open, Australian Open, French Open and Wimbledon. This fractured model absorbs a significant portion of the sport’s annual USD$2 billion revenue into overheads rather than player earnings. Executives, including Andrea Gaudenzi of the ATP, have criticised the bureaucracy for slowing progress and complicating operations.

The players most affected are not the top 20, who benefit from prize money, sponsorships and endorsements. Instead, most professional players struggle financially. Sports journalist Matthew Putterman notes that for the bottom 80 of the top 100, breaking even is uncertain. During the pandemic, the ATP, WTA and ITF created a relief fund for lower‑ranked players, but this support was temporary.

Some argue that this is simply the nature of competitive sport. However, comparisons with golf reveal stark differences. Both sports classify players as legally independent contractors, yet the financial outcomes differ significantly.

Tennis vs Golf: A Revealing Comparison

The 50th best golf player, Taylor Moore, earned USD$4,062,261 in prize money. The 50th best ATP player as of 26 July 2023, Emil Ruusuvuori, earned USD$2,987,885. Golf’s governance structure is more streamlined, with the PGA, LIV and International Golf Federation overseeing the sport.

Noah Rubin, ranked No.125, earned USD$225,000 from two Grand Slams. A comparable PGA player would earn around USD$600,000 more. After expenses, Rubin retained only USD$15,000.

This disparity is striking given tennis generates around USD$2.5 billion annually. Tennis players receive only 15 to 25 per cent of total revenue, roughly half of what athletes in other sports receive.

What Can Be Done?

Combine the Tours

A major point of contention is revenue distribution. Historically, the men’s game generates more revenue than the women’s game. In 2008, WTA President Larry Scott proposed a USD$1 billion merger with the ATP, but ATP players rejected it. Some feared resources would shift disproportionately to women’s tennis.

Andy Murray has noted that some male players preferred no salary increase over equal pay with women. Because players currently receive only 15 to 25 per cent of tennis revenue, reform could benefit all players.

Combined tours could attract more spectators. Tennis holds only 1.3 per cent of global media sports rights, so it relies heavily on ticket sales. Grand Slams succeed partly because they feature both men’s and women’s matches. Media rights for combined tours are highly valuable. The USTA receives USD$770 million from ESPN over an 11‑year period (2015 to 2026) to broadcast the US Open. Recently, the WTA and ATP merged their marketing departments.

Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA)

Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil founded the PTPA to reform and grow tennis. Ons Jabeur and Paula Badosa also sit on the executive committee. The PTPA advocates for shared success, equitable compensation and expanded opportunities.

The PTPA is affiliated with the Winners’ Alliance, which creates off‑court commercial opportunities for players. It recently partnered with Zoomph to analyse digital brand value and social media presence. Investor Bill Ackman supports the PTPA and has criticised tennis governance, stating that “tennis is an oligopoly, and oligopolies are not innovative, and nonprofit ones are even less innovative.”

Private Equity

Private equity is increasingly shaping global sport. CVC invested USD$150 million into a new WTA commercial venture. The ATP has reportedly discussed investment with the Saudi Public Investment Fund. Examples across sport include LIV Golf, Manchester City, Newcastle United and McLaren’s majority stake sale to the Bahrain Sovereign Fund.

Private equity could help tennis players break even and increase revenue distribution. Bill Ackman has stated that “this is definitely the time to go long on tennis, 100 per cent.”

Employ Players and Create Teams

A radical option is restructuring tennis to resemble Formula 1. Players could join teams, receive salaries and compete collectively. This model could simplify rankings, increase competitiveness and reduce reliance on individual prize money. Some have suggested shortening matches to avoid 4‑hour contests, although long matches remain part of tennis tradition.

Conclusion

Tennis is a global sport with immense cultural value. Despite its fractured governance, the organisations overseeing tennis have built a USD$2.5 billion industry. The PTPA and private equity investment offer promising avenues for reform. Greater unity across governing bodies could increase revenue, improve fan experience and, crucially, support professional players beyond the top 20.