A close read of the ATP Chairman's comments on the state (and future) of tennis
A mix of intriguing and at times contradictory comments on the tennis calendar, the off-season, two-week masters, and more.
The ATP chairman and former tennis player Andrea Gaudenzi held a press conference at the Finals in Turin yesterday and he said a lot of things. Even if you don’t really care about the business of tennis (which seems unlikely if you’re reading this newsletter), it’s worth wading through his comments, as they signal some significant potential changes to the sport as well as the massive roadblocks stunting its growth. His perspective at times seemed conflicted and confused, which is in some ways the perfect reflection of the state of tennis today.
Let’s get into it with a close read of his key statements. The headlines below are my personal summations of what he said, with the relevant quotes below. They’ve been very lightly edited for clarity due to the language barrier.
The fragmented tennis structure, as many of us know, is currently set up to fail—or at least hold itself back monumentally. That makes fixing calendar issues next to impossible.
“[There’s] the complexity that we have seven entities participating in this effort [to work out the tennis calendar]. The four Grand Slams are individual, they have their own dates. Then you have the ITF with the Davis Cup format that has been changing quite a bit in the last few years, [as well as] the ATP and WTA.
If you think about the overall picture, I have sympathy from a player standpoint. You’re dealing with seven entities that are managing a calendar, but in reality there’s seven boards making decisions. So it’s difficult to actually have a streamlined effort, which is at the core of my plan, the One Vision Plan, where you try to unify the governance and have somebody trying to come up with an ideal or next-best option of an ideal calendar, which is more streamlined.
[We want] to get everyone in one room, players—men and women, equally represented—then Grand Slams, Masters, 500s, 250s. Everybody needs to be at the same table because we are talking to the same people, the fans and [the media], who watch the entire season.
I said many times, [the way things are now is] like writing a book and the chapters are written by different writers and they’re sold in different bookstores. It’s not optimal.”
Fans and certain players may not love two-week masters, but they’re paying off financially so they’re here to stay.
“We are a sport that is very, very heavy in terms of ticketing. Ticketing revenue is already above 50-60%. You compare [that to] other sports, they’re very [reliant on] media. You look at their breakdown of revenue, media is probably 60-70%. We are low in media [revenue] and very high in ticketing for many reasons, one of them [being] fragmentation [of the sport]. So ticketing is really the core.
When you add days, [this was] year one of the expanded Masters—including Canada and Cincinnati—and I already see the results. If you look at the top-line revenue, which I cannot disclose, it’s going up really high. It’s changing a lot.
You’ve already seen [an increase in player compensation], thanks to the [profit-sharing] formula the players now have with expanded Masters 1000s. In 2024, we paid out almost $20 million in profit sharing. That was up from $6 million [the year before]. That was a 25% increase on top of the usual [base] prize money, which was already increased.
All I’m trying to say is it is working from a financial standpoint and provides a lot of value to all players because that money goes to the whole ecosystem, [including] the players ranked 100, 150.”
But he recognizes that the two-week masters format is particularly difficult for top players who make it to the final rounds and says the ATP needs to find a way to reward them.
“I knew, I always knew, that this format is probably particularly not well-received by the top players because they need to [come] a few days early and also have a lot of sympathy for the fact that they’re the ones that stay late. They’re really the ones affected by the 12 days. All the other players, they lose early. Even in the quarterfinals, there’s really not much of a change.
I think the issue we have now is we need a few more years into the plan or we probably need to shift more compensation to them and reward them for the value they’re driving because they’re really driving the value.
It also becomes a little bit of a debate around compensation per day. It’s very simple mathematics. They probably look at this event and say, I could be making X in an exhibition for one day. If I go there, I make X divided by 12 days. That’s the issue at the moment—it’s an issue of economics.”
Again, I want to be very clear. I’m not dug in or [think that] this is the perfect model. All I [know] is we’ve started with an assumption, we need to give it a few years to see if it works, then we have a review moment where we decide whether we go backwards or we continue.”
The stock of 250s continues to nosedive and he wants less top players signing up for them for the appearance fees. However, he doesn’t offer a clear replacement for those earnings.
“In the last few years we’ve had the strategy to reduce the number of 250s. We [have gone] from 38 down to [30]. The target—in our effort to optimize the calendar for 2028, when the new Saudi Masters will come on board—is to continue to reduce the number of 250s.
250s are very important. Every category is important. But we had a bit too many of them. It was really difficult to schedule [them] within the calendar.
Another problem that we have is [that we’re] an open system. Players are independent contractors. We have a calendar, but technically a player can choose where to play. They can prioritize a 250 over a 500, they can prioritize a 500 over a Masters.
We have rules that are related to the incentives, to the rankings—we try to influence their behavior. But ultimately a player chooses where to play.
It’s a difficult problem to solve because [oftentimes] a player is attracted by money and plays in a lower category [where they get high appearance fees]. I don’t think players should schedule with the guaranteed money as a priority. Players should be playing for ranking points and titles, especially if you are a top-50, top-100 player.
If you’re [highly ranked], you shouldn’t be playing down. If you’re Sinner or Alcaraz, you have no need to play the 250s for money, because it doesn’t fit within your ranking and it’s not your level. When you’re winning Slams and Masters, you should be playing up.
In no other sport [do we see this], a Formula 1 driver is allowed to go and race in a race which is in a lower category. They try to protect their talent. But they have a different system.”
He thinks our remote work-heavy, more-flexible culture makes the new midweek finals at certain events more appealing but also says they’re not optimal (?) and is open to reconsidering.
“Regarding Cincinnati, we agreed to do the final on Sunday next year. Obviously with Canada being very short in the swing between Wimbledon and the US Open, there was no other alternative than to squeeze it in three weeks. If you squeeze it in three weeks, you end up with a final on Wednesday. I don’t know whether that is optimal. Probably not.
I know that many sports have gone away from the Sunday final at 2:00 as the Holy Grail. If [you look at] soccer now, they play a lot of Monday night matches. Football in America is on Thursday. Champions League on Wednesday.
I generally believe in the new world, our work [and habits are] a lot more flexible and remote. People don’t work Monday-Friday, 9 am to 5 pm as they used to. Generally I see more flexibility in the scheduling of other spots.
One of the elements of scheduling should also be what you’re up against. If you go against Formula 1 on Sunday, and Formula 1 is very attractive, I might think, ‘Okay, tennis should be scheduling against another sport,’ [so] we try to engage as many viewers as possible. It’s complicated.
I [have an] open mind. Let’s give it a few years to test. For example, I’m happy we’re changing to Sunday next year [for Cincinnati]. [We’ll] see the difference between the fan response from Monday to Sunday and the [difference in] TV viewership.”
He thinks the Davis Cup should move to a biennial format with traditional home-and-away ties (a concept that top players like Alcaraz and Sinner have agreed with).
“In an ideal world, I think [it would help the calendar] if the Davis Cup could go home and away and [be held] over two years. There is no World Cup in sport that happens every year, to my knowledge. I think it would be better for the Davis Cup product and also release a lot of pressure from the calendar.”
He thinks the off-season should be at least seven weeks but that the players need to be responsible for building some of that in by playing less. He also uses Sinner as an example which is…something.
“Jannik won the Australian Open without playing anything [beforehand]. For those guys, winning at that level, sometimes you probably can gain a few weeks in week one and two.
Again, I go back to the concept [that the players] have the flexibility to do that. You don’t have to play week one and two. If there are no Masters, that’s where you create your own flexibility. If you go too deep and play more matches than the other, that’s when you have to stay, ‘Stop.’ That’s why we’re going to [keep that in mind as we look at] 2028.
I think when we have this conversation, we need to say, ‘You can build your own flexibility within the schedule.’ I do believe players need at least seven weeks off in the off-season.”
So there you have it and I’m really curious for your thoughts. Tell me what you’d love to scream from the top of Arthur Ashe or email the ATP (and cc: tennis orgs at large) in the comments. And as always, send tips, secret messages, or love notes to jessica@hard-court.com.