More money and bigger say - are top-10 stars being reasonable?
As the 2026 tennis season opens, a growing rift between the sport’s top players and the four Grand Slam tournaments is coming into sharp focus. Despite record prize money—including a 16% increase at this month’s Australian Open—stars like Jannik Sinner, Aryna Sabalenka, and Jessica Pegula are demanding a larger revenue share, contributions to player benefits, and a formal role in decision-making.
Dubbed Project RedEye and led by former WTA chief Larry Scott, the player campaign has outlined specific targets in letters to the Slams, seen by the BBC. Players are calling for each major to allocate 22% of its revenue to prize money by 2030, starting at 16% in 2026 and increasing 1.5% annually. They also seek the creation of a Grand Slam Player Council for consultation on scheduling and other impactful changes, and annual contributions of $12 million per Slam by 2030 toward pension, healthcare, and maternity benefits.
The Financial Gap: How Close Are the Slams?
Public figures show the Australian Open and US Open are nearing the initial 16% target, while Wimbledon trails slightly.
Australian Open: 2026 prize pool is A$111.5m (~15% of projected revenue).
US Open: 2025 compensation was $90m (~15% of 2024 tournament revenue).
Wimbledon: 2025 prize money of £53.5m fell approximately £15m short of the 16% goal based on 2024 revenue.
Roland Garros: No public revenue figures are available.
Slams Counter: Investment Beyond Prize Money
The tournaments emphasize massive ongoing investments in facilities, player amenities, and the broader tennis ecosystem. Upgrades include Wimbledon’s Millennium Building refurbishment, the USTA’s $250m player performance center in New York, and expanded on-site services like daily allowances, travel grants, and medical care. The Slams also financially support warm-up events and fund the Grand Slam Player Development Programme, which has aided stars from developing nations.
A Stalemate With Season-Long Implications
While strike action is currently seen as unlikely, players feel their concerns are being “stonewalled.” The Slams, however, believe their contributions extend far beyond prize money and that players lack the operational perspective to make decisions like extending tournament length.
The standoff is set to continue beyond the Australian Open, with players expected to regroup and consider their next steps. The core conflict—balancing the commercial growth of the sport with equitable compensation and meaningful player representation—remains unresolved, setting the stage for a protracted negotiation that could define the future structure of professional tennis.
.jpg)
.jpg)
