As the 2026 Grand Slam season gets under way, a familiar debate has resurfaced in professional tennis: are the sport’s biggest stars being fairly compensated, and do they have enough influence over the tournaments that define their careers?

Despite record-breaking prize money increases at recent majors, many of the world’s top players believe they remain undervalued, underrepresented, and excluded from key decision-making at the four Grand Slams — the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and US Open.

Their demands have reignited a long-running tension between players and tournament organisers, raising fundamental questions about revenue sharing, player welfare, and governance in modern tennis.

---

Why Top Players Are Speaking Out Now

Prize money at the Grand Slams has risen sharply in recent years. The Australian Open increased its prize pool by 16% in 2026, while the US Open paid out a total of $90 million (£68.6m) in player compensation in 2025.

To put that in context, the US Open alone paid more than four and a half times the prize money available at Indian Wells, the most lucrative combined ATP and WTA Tour event outside the Slams.

Yet many elite players argue that these headline figures mask a deeper imbalance.

World number two Jannik Sinner, the reigning Wimbledon champion, told The Guardian that prize money should “better reflect what these tournaments earn.”

Women’s world number one Aryna Sabalenka echoed those sentiments when speaking to BBC Sport, urging the Grand Slams to “come to the table” and engage in meaningful dialogue.

Meanwhile, American star Jessica Pegula, ranked sixth in the world, wrote in the Sports Business Journal that the Slams should contribute more to pensions, healthcare, and maternity benefits because they are “the focal points of the calendar” and place the greatest physical and emotional strain on players.

---

What Exactly Are the Players Asking For?

The push for reform is being coordinated under an initiative known as Project RedEye, led by former WTA chairman and chief executive Larry Scott.

Last May at Roland Garros, Sinner and Sabalenka were joined by Coco Gauff, Madison Keys, Alex de Minaur, and Casper Ruud in early discussions with Grand Slam officials.

The campaign is funded through existing player structures — including the Women’s Tennis Benefit Association and ATP player-representative resources — rather than direct personal contributions from players.

In two formal letters sent to the Grand Slams, the second of which was delivered in late July and seen by BBC Sport, the players laid out specific, measurable demands.

1. A Revenue-Based Prize Money Formula

Players want each Grand Slam to commit to paying 22% of tournament revenue in prize money by 2030, matching the standard already used by the ATP and WTA at their combined 1000-level events.

Their proposed roadmap:

• 16% of revenue in 2026
• Annual increases of 1.5%
• Reaching 22% by 2030

2. A Greater Voice in Decision-Making

Players want formal consultation on issues such as:

• Scheduling changes
• Calendar congestion
• Structural shifts, including extended tournaments and Sunday starts

They have proposed the creation of a Grand Slam Player Council, similar to those already in place on the ATP and WTA Tours.

3. Contributions to Player Welfare and Benefits

Project RedEye is also calling on the Slams to contribute to:

• Pensions
• Healthcare
• Maternity benefits

Currently, the ATP and WTA spend approximately $40m per year on benefits. Players want each Slam to contribute $12m annually by 2030, with a gradual increase starting at $4m this year.

---

How Close Are the Grand Slams to Meeting These Demands?

The Grand Slams argue that revenue figures can be misleading, pointing to high operating costs and long-term investments in infrastructure, facilities, and warm-up tournaments.

Still, publicly available data suggests some tournaments are already close to meeting players’ initial targets.

Australian Open

• Tennis Australia revenue (2025): A$697.2m
• 2026 prize money: A$111.5m
• This equates to roughly 15% of the players’ proposed revenue share

US Open

• USTA revenue from the US Open alone (2024): $559.66m
• 2025 player compensation: $90m
• Close to 15% of the players’ target — nearly hitting it ahead of schedule

Wimbledon

• All England Club revenue (2024): £406.5m
• 2025 prize money: £53.5m
• Falls approximately £15m short of the players’ 16% benchmark

French Open

• The French Tennis Federation has not published comparable figures, making analysis difficult.

---

What Do the Grand Slams Already Provide?

Tournament organisers stress that compensation goes far beyond prize money.

All four Grand Slams have invested heavily in infrastructure:

• Multiple retractable-roof courts
• Upgraded player lounges, gyms, and recovery facilities
• Expanded performance centres, including the USTA’s $250m project at Flushing Meadows

Players also receive:

• Daily per diem allowances
• On-site meal credits
• Free racquet restrings
• Travel grants (up to A$10,000 at the Australian Open)
• Medical, laundry, ticketing, and hospitality services

In addition, the Slams:

• Contribute $750,000 annually to the Grand Slam Player Development Programme
• Invest millions in warm-up tournaments, many of which operate at a loss
• Fund grassroots tennis in their home nations

Top stars also benefit commercially. Players such as Sinner, Coco Gauff, Carlos Alcaraz, and Iga Swiatek enjoy lucrative sponsorships tied directly to Grand Slam exposure, including long-standing partnerships with brands like Rolex.

---

Where Does This Standoff End?

Prize money itself may not be the biggest obstacle — by the end of the decade, totals could naturally approach what players are requesting.

The more contentious issues are:

• Benefit contributions
• Governance and influence
• Who ultimately controls the sport’s direction

Some tournament executives argue players should not dictate business decisions, such as expanding Grand Slams to 15 days, because they do not bear the financial risk.

For now, strike action is not considered realistic, but frustration is growing. Players believe they are being stonewalled, while the Slams insist they are listening — just not conceding control.

With no immediate resolution in sight, the next phase of the dispute is likely to unfold after the Australian Open, when players reassess their leverage and decide how hard to push.