Tennis' prize money dispute: A complicated issue

(Getty/Daniel Kopatsch)

The start of this year's Roland Garros has been dominated by two things: unprecedented heat, which is stifling, and a debate about prize money, which caused almost as much fuss.

Unhappy about the cash on offer, players staged a mini-revolt on media day, two days before the start of the tournament, fulfilling only 15 minutes of their usual press time.

When the protest was announced, my first thought was that 15 minutes is an improvement - most pressers don't last longer than 10 – but actually, it covered all their press commitments and was generally targeted at the host broadcasters. The total of 15 minutes compares to a usual total of around 45-60 minutes, even more for the likes of Jannik Sinner and Coco Gauff.

Having said that, the hour also includes tournament social media channels and therefore, one-on-one requests were also harder to come by.

The 15 minutes were intended to symbolise the 15 per cent (or thereabouts) of tournament revenue that is distributed to the players in prize money at Roland-Garros. That's below the stated average of 22 per cent that ATP Tour and WTA Tour events provide, though that figure is difficult to accurately quantify.

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.

Players wanting more money is nothing new. In 2012, the US Open began amid open talk about a possible strike over the same issue. Led by Roger Federer, the players forced the US Open to almost double its prize money in the next five years, to $50 million. It's grown consistently of late, and in 2025, it was $90 million. Other slams followed suit. At Wimbledon in 2012, it was just over £16 million; last year it was more than £53 million, a rise of more than 231 per cent. At this year’s French Open, the total prize money is 61.7 million euros (£53.3 million).

What irks players most of all is that, though prize money has risen a lot, tournament revenue has risen even faster. In their letter to Roland Garros, players claimed that French Open revenue was 395 million euros in 2025, an increase of 14 per cent on the previous year, but since prize money for this year's event rose by only 5.4 per cent to 61.7 million euros, the percentage of revenue the players receive as prize money actually dropped from 15.5 per cent to 14.3 per cent.

At Wimbledon, prize money as a percentage is around 13 per cent, and at the US Open it's around 14 per cent, although the Australian Open is an outlier. Tennis Australia's revenue in 2025 was AUD$692.7 million (often misreported as 697.2m). Of that, the Australian Open accounts for AUD$550 million. With 2025 prize money of AUD$96.5 million in 2025, that equates to a percentage of just under 21 per cent, by far the best of the four majors.

The problem for the players is that their messaging is all over the place. While some of them explain that they want to grow the game, with more money needed for lower-ranked players to make a living, others try to compare tennis with the big US sports, "football", basketball, hockey and baseball, where 50 per cent of revenue is given to athletes.

That is an entirely misleading comparison, at best. Athletes in the US are employees of their sports; as such, they are guaranteed big salaries, but don't have control over their image rights. Tennis players are considered independent contractors, earning money from the Tours and majors. It's apples and oranges. Men's No.1 Sinner said recently that players "wouldn't dare" ask for 50 per cent, but others keep raising it, including former stars, like Boris Becker.

Mark Petchey, the former British No.1, ex-coach of Andy Murray and now a leading commentator, pointed out that the likes of Aryna Sabalenka, one of the leading signatories to the players' letter criticising the French Open prize money, make the vast majority of her cash at Grand Slams. In general, players in the top 100 earn 62 per cent of their money from the slams. If anything, it's the Tours that should be paying the players more, he said.

But here's another thing. If players take a larger share of tournament revenue, that means a disproportionate amount of money goes from other things. Three of the four Grand Slams are run by national federations, which also fund junior tennis initiatives, programmes for the under-privileged, not to mention infrastructure. Even Wimbledon, which is run privately by the All England Club, gives 90 per cent of its profit to the Lawn Tennis Association, which runs tennis in the United Kingdom. If they give away more in prize money to what's effectively a limited number of players, the profit may go down, and UK tennis could suffer, in theory.

Then there are the optics. With many countries in the world experiencing cost-of-living crises at the moment, tennis players asking for more money doesn't sit that well, especially when the top players are earning millions.

Not everyone is fully on board, either. Novak Djokovic co-founded the Professional Tennis Players' Association (PTPA) to create a united front, independent of a Tour supposedly half-owned by players and tournaments. Djokovic has led the push for many years, but didn't take part in the protest in Paris. Though he still backs the aims, he's leaving it to others. The PTPA is suing the slams (minus the Australian Open), accusing them of creating a cartel that's pushing down wages.

Players also want discussions on welfare (read pension contributions) and representation, and the players' argument is when they argue that prize money needs to be increased for the good of lower-ranked players, and that growing the game is the main thing.

According to The Guardian, talks that took place in Paris this week have been productive, with the FFT pledging to return soon after this year's event with proposals for future editions. Let's see what Wimbledon comes up with in a couple of weeks. The best guess is that they will increase prize money significantly, but loaded heavily in favour of the lower-ranked players.

Perhaps it's best if the talking is left to Jessica Pegula. Daughter of billionaire parents, Pegula has never had to worry about money personally, but she is one of the most intelligent players on Tour. She gets it.

"Of course, the top earners and performers of our sport should be making what they have earned, for sure," she said this week. "But the whole point is to help the ecosystem in the sport. That's the lower-ranked players and giving them a chance to have a good career, to have chances to break through, and to see more of those stories happen."

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