Tennis wants to replicate Formula 1. It never will.

(Getty/Dom Gibbons)

As Formula 1 roared back to life at the Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne last week, it once again reminded the sporting world what a perfectly packaged global championship looks like.

A tightly controlled calendar of glamour events, building towards a single title with just 22 drivers.

For tennis administrators, it sounds like a dream and has become something of an obsession.

Over the past few years, those at the top of the game have repeatedly pointed to Formula 1 as a model for tennis.

A F1-like premium tour?

Proposals floated in recent years have been described as creating a "Formula 1-style premium tour".

This would be a smaller circuit of elite events sitting above the rest of the tennis calendar.

Former Tennis Australia CEO Craig Tiley confirmed discussions around a premium global circuit had been happening for years.

"The premium tour for the future of the sport has been on the table for quite a few years," he said.

ATP chairman Andrea Gaudenzi has even used motorsport as a structural comparison when discussing tennis.

"In no other sport can a Formula 1 driver compete in a Formula 2 race. You protect the value of the top level," he said.

Former British No.1 Tim Henman has also suggested there is "too much irrelevant tennis" and that the sport could learn from motorsport's scheduling.

"Tennis could learn from Formula 1, where races are spaced out to allow anticipation to build," Henman said.

The admiration is clear, but it misses something fundamental. Tennis cannot fit a Formula 1 model.

And trying to reshape it in that image risks damaging what makes the sport tick.

Listen to The First Serve Live every Monday at 8pm AEDT 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.

The sports are incomparable

Formula 1 works because it is contained.

Just 11 teams with 22 drivers competing in the same races at the same time in an annual championship where the cast barely changes. 

Tennis is built on the opposite principle.

Every week across the world, hundreds of players compete across a pyramid of events.

Grand Slams, the most popular tournaments, feature 128-player draws before qualifying is even considered.

Even if the tour were streamlined, that same principle would still apply.

It is messy, but that openness is also one of tennis' greatest strengths.

That chaos is not a flaw; it is one of the reasons people love it, whether they acknowledge it or not. 

As much as the game wants to see the champions consistently battle it out, fans crave the upsets, the breakthrough runs, and the veteran having one last shot at glory.

This was evident at this year's Australian Open.

With a tournament lacking major upsets and largely straightforward results, fans were disappointed. The tournament lacked some of the stories, emotion, and unpredictability that define the sport.

Bring in an F1-style tour, and we'll see that more often week after week. 

Tennis has a system that works

Despite constant debate about the calendar, tennis already has a functioning hierarchy on the main tour.

Grand Slams sit at the top.

Below them are Masters 1000 events, followed by 500 tournaments and then the 250s.

It may not be perfectly streamlined, but it allows something Formula 1 never could.

Players can rise as quickly as their talent allow and unknown players can suddenly reach the biggest stages. Think of Emma Raducanu winning the US Open as a qualifier or the meteoric rise of Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner to the top of the sport.

In Formula 1, that simply cannot happen within a season or even two. Drivers must work through other categories like Formula 3 and Formula 2 before even having a chance at a seat. Even then, they don't reach the top teams. 

The best driver in the world could still be stuck waiting for an opportunity. 

In tennis, you still have to climb the rankings, but it can happen far more rapidly.

Alcaraz went from No.141 to No.1 in the world in under two years; in Formula 1, that simply wouldn't be possible.

The fight over smaller tournaments

Where the tension really shows is in the debate over the future of smaller tournaments.

Gaudenzi has suggested there are too many ATP 250 events on the calendar, raising the possibility of reducing their presence in the coming years.

That has triggered pushback from many across the sport.

Former US Open champion Marin Čilić warned that removing them would erase an important part of tennis culture.

"I will feel sad to lose 250s. I'm a traditional guy, I love the small tournaments," the Croatian shared.

"When I started my career, I went from Satellites, Futures, then to Challengers, and then 250s. Everything has its own piece of flair."

Coach Toni Nadal also warned against undervaluing smaller tournaments.

"We've entered a world where people no longer place much value on small tournaments. I think that's a mistake," he said.

Relegating 250 events and potentially preventing top players from competing threatens to stifle the game.

Tennis is a global sport, not just in terms of fans but also in participation.

Imagine the Philippines hosting a 250 tournament but not allowing Alexandra Eala to play. It would be a huge missed opportunity to grow the sport in a rapidly expanding tennis market.

Former world No.1 Yevgeny Kafelnikov also sees the potential damage.

"The 250 tournaments are necessary. They help develop young players and promote tennis globally," he explained.

"If we keep going down this path, I honestly don't know what's going to happen to tennis in the future."

The calendar problem

There is no doubt that the tennis calendar is crowded.

And although many players want to keep 250s, others like Daniil Medvedev has even more radical ideas to shorten the season.

"The only way to make the tour shorter is to make the other tournaments without points," Medvedev said.

"Make it four Grand Slams and 11 Masters. The others maybe make them without points."

Although that may be extreme, the calendar is an issue and needs a tennis-solution, not a F1-solution. 

What tennis should actually learn from Formula 1

There is one lesson tennis should take from Formula: Storytelling.

Formula 1's recent boom has been driven largely by its ability to turn drivers into personalities that fans connect with.

Particularly through the Netflix series Drive to Survive, something tennis tried with Break Point.

But the series arrived during a transitional period between the Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic era and the new generation led by Sinner and Alcaraz.

And it missed the mark because it tried to be a copy, rather than its own entity. 

Tennis has always had the material to create compelling rivalries and personalities: Federer. Nadal. Graf. Seles. Sampras. Agassi. Borg. McEnroe. The Williams sisters.

Now the next generation is ready. Alcaraz, Sinner, and many more behind them.

Tennis simply needs to tell its own stories better, in its own way.

Don't be an inferior copy

Formula 1's growth has understandably attracted admiration from tennis administrators.

But copying another sport rarely works.

We have already seen the chaos that followed when the Davis Cup tried to model itself on the FIFA World Cup.

Ultimately, the biggest issue that will always remain is that tennis is not a closed championship.

It is a sprawling ecosystem with tournaments and players competing around the world.

That openness is part of its identity.

Trying to reshape it into a Formula 1-style model risks stripping away the very thing that makes tennis unique.

The sport does not need to become Formula 1. It simply needs to build on the strengths it already possesses.

The legendary Kooyong Classic will be back 12-14^th January 2027 at the spiritual home of Australian tennis. Keep an eye out for all information re hospitality packages and ticket sales, plus player announcements at www.kooyongclassic.com.au