Is the solution to the doubles problem a new tour?

(Getty/Nicolò Campo)

Doubles tennis is at an inflection point: with new proposals under discussion, the future of the discipline is uncertain, and a war is set to erupt between the players and the governing bodies. 

There are certainly a few problems to be solved, with the watchability of men's doubles increasingly becoming an issue, as I have argued in the past. This problem perhaps reached breaking point at Wimbledon this year, with Henry Patten and Harri Heliövaara winning 8/12 of their sets in tiebreaks in heavily serve-dominated matches.

Equally, the lack of marketing by the ATP and Tennis TV has also hamstrung the ability of players to promote the game and themselves. While the quality of play remains exceptionally high, there is a growing sense that doubles is an untapped product that needs to evolve if it is to thrive.

Listen to The First Serve Live every Monday at 8pm AEST in its 18th year on the SEN Network/App, Australia's only dedicated weekly tennis program on commercial radio running through till the end of November.

A radical solution is required to bridge the gap between players and governing bodies, which I propose should be a separate doubles tour at the ATP 250 and 500 level. The ATP has reportedly proposed halving the doubles draw sizes at Masters 1000, ATP 500 and ATP 250 events, but this raises the question of what happens to the vacant court time.

At Masters 1000 tournaments in particular, there is relatively little singles tennis during the closing stages of the event and removing doubles from those tournaments would leave tournament directors with even less content to schedule.

A more logical alternative would be to retain doubles at Masters 1000 events while removing it from ATP 500s and ATP 250s, where tournament directors could instead use exhibition matches as a lead-in to the semi-finals and finals, or a short doubles draw of a few singles players.

If tournament directors genuinely believe doubles no longer provides sufficient value, these alternatives would seemingly satisfy their scheduling needs. 

This naturally leads to the question of what happens to the doubles tour itself, but rather than viewing these changes as a threat, they could be an opportunity to establish standalone doubles tournaments.

These events could be held in regions that have traditionally received little ATP tennis but have strong interest in the sport, like South America, which continues to produce outstanding doubles specialists or emerging markets such as India, which have a long history of success in doubles. A dedicated doubles circuit could bring professional tennis to these regions while giving doubles players greater ownership of their own product.

Such a model would also provide the ATP with a valuable testing ground for new markets. Countries such as Peru, Paraguay or even nations across Africa currently have little or no ATP presence and standalone doubles events could introduce professional tennis to entirely new audiences while allowing the ATP to assess long-term commercial potential.

New Zealand provides another interesting example as the country consistently produces high-quality doubles players and attracts excellent support for its lone ATP event in Auckland, and a dedicated swing with several tournaments in the region (which could include Australia) could build on that existing interest and create opportunities for both players and fans.

Financially, the proposal is not as unrealistic as it might first appear.

Prize money at an ATP 250 doubles event is already comparable to that of a Challenger 125 singles tournament, so it wouldn’t be that much of a financial commitment compared to what already currently occurs.

There are also competitive benefits.

In 2021, Orlando Luz and Rafael Matos reached the Challenger final in Concepción without winning a match due to a series of withdrawals and walkovers. Although an aberration in its extremity, it is a pattern that has begun to occur, with the most pronounced example being when both Roland Garros and Wimbledon featured walkovers in the men's doubles draw as players prioritised their singles campaigns.

A more prestigious and self-contained doubles circuit would reduce those incentives as players would have greater reason to commit fully to doubles events, improving competitive integrity while strengthening the commercial value of the tour. 

Many of the long-running complaints about doubles failing to generate sufficient prize money would also become easier to address if the circuit became financially self-sustaining.

Even if Challenger draws were cut to address the walkover issue, players in transition would be able to naturally transition towards either a singles or doubles career, leaving players with more incentives to compete. Further, the fact that there are four players on court instead of two has not proven to be a barrier in other sports, as noted by Rohan Bopanna when he spoke to The First Serve a few years ago. 

“If you find the right product, it’s all about how to promote it and manage it," said Bopanna. "If you look at padel, it’s massive all over Europe, and they play doubles, so when it becomes a main event, people want to watch it, so that needs to be the big change."

The obvious criticism of this proposal is that it separates the singles and doubles tours.

A handful of players, including Rinky Hijikata, Jordan Thompson, Pierre-Hugues Herbert and Marc Polmans, still compete regularly in both disciplines; however, the overlap is small to the point of being almost negligible, and players like Hijikata (and to a lesser extent, Thanasi Kokkinakis) tend to focus on the grand slams anyway.

The reality is, as best-of-five-set tennis becomes increasingly demanding, fewer singles players are entering doubles than ever before, especially at the slams. As a result, a separate doubles tour that converges with the singles tour only at the Masters and Grand Slams doesn’t seem as problematic as it would be on the WTA Tour, where many (if not most) of the top doubles players are also competitive on the singles tour. 

More importantly, an independent circuit would allow doubles players to market themselves far more effectively. With greater control over promotion and sponsorship, tournaments would have stronger incentives to sell the personalities and rivalries within doubles rather than treating it as a secondary attraction.

At present, doubles is often marketed as the sideshow, and so it is hardly surprising that public interest remains limited when the sport itself signals that doubles is secondary. A standalone circuit would create opportunities for player stories to be told, for highlight reels to receive greater prominence on Tennis TV and for fans to become invested in doubles specialists rather than seeing them as anonymous players.

Despite the merits of such a proposal, Australian doubles player Matthew Romios is sceptical that the ATP would consider it. 

“It’s probably pretty tricky. It would require the ATP running doubles-only events, which would really increase their costs, which they are trying to cut out,” said Romios to The First Serve. “The ATP haven’t really accepted these suggestions in the past; they don’t sell the rights to doubles, and they don’t really want to invest in it either.”

Doubles tennis has ultimately reached a crossroads. If the current model is no longer working, simply reducing draw sizes is unlikely to solve the underlying problems, except for destroying the ecosystem of doubles, which seems counterintuitive to growing the game. Accordingly, alongside the rule changes I have already advocated for, a radical solution like a separate doubles tour warrants serious consideration as the singles and doubles tours become increasingly disparate.

If the governing bodies were to take this kind of creative approach, this could create a generation of marketable doubles stars, provide players with a genuine alternative career path and expand professional tennis into regions that have rarely hosted ATP events; however, as things currently stand, the proposals risk shrinking the professional tennis ecosystem in a way that benefits no one.

The choice now rests with the governing bodies and the players. With doubles set to change in some way, this is an opportunity for everyone to benefit from the change.

Who knows, the players may want to form a breakaway tour in any case. 

Play USA Tennis Pathways supports athletes who want to go down the college pathway, assisting players to get recruited to a college that meets their academic and athletic goals. If you are a player, parent, or coach and are interested in the college pathway in the United States, contact Lachlan Puyol at playusatennispathways@gmail.com