Roland Garros will not change the prize fund despite pressure from tennis players
The leadership of Roland Garros will not change this year's prize fund, although leading male and female tennis players intensified pressure on the organizers of the Grand Slams before the start of the tournament, demanding a larger share of revenue. Tournament director Amélie Mauresmo confirmed in Paris that the amounts for 2026 will not be revised immediately before the start of the main draw. According to an Associated Press report, Mauresmo said that the organizers want to open talks with the players and their representatives, but that they currently do not plan to change the already announced distribution of money. Such a position comes at a time when player dissatisfaction is no longer limited only to individual statements, but has turned into a coordinated action by part of the top of world tennis.
The debate centers on the question of how much revenue Grand Slam tournaments should return to players through prize money and additional support programs. According to players' claims reported by international media, Roland Garros's prize-money share of the tournament's total revenue is lower than the share usually cited for standard ATP and WTA tournaments. The organizers, on the other hand, emphasize that the total fund for this year's edition has been increased and that they paid special attention to qualifying and the first rounds, in which players for whom financial support is most important for covering the costs of a professional season compete.
The total fund has increased, but the dispute remains open
According to official Roland Garros data, the total prize fund for 2026 amounts to 61.723 million euros, which is 9.53 percent more than a year earlier. The organizers state that the main tournament fund has been increased by 10.1 percent compared with 2025, while the qualifying prize fund has been increased by 12.9 percent. The amounts for the first three rounds of singles competition have been increased in particular, by between 11.11 and 11.54 percent, which the organizers present as a measure aimed at players outside the very top of the rankings. The prize fund for doubles has been increased by 3.90 percent, while 1.0185 million euros has been allocated for wheelchair tennis and quad competitions, or 14.55 percent more than last year.
The Associated Press states that the winners of the men's and women's singles tournaments will each receive 2.8 million euros this year. The finalists will each receive 1.4 million euros, the semifinalists 750,000 euros, and players who lose in the first round of the main tournament 87,000 euros each. Winning pairs in the men's and women's doubles competitions will receive 600,000 euros per pair, while 122,000 euros is planned for the winners of mixed doubles. In absolute terms, this is a record or very high fund for the Paris tournament, but the players' argument is not aimed only at nominal growth, but at the relationship between the tournament's total revenue and what is paid to participants.
According to claims reported by the Associated Press, players say that Roland Garros's prize-money share of revenue fell from 15.5 percent in 2024 to a projected 14.9 percent for 2026. The same claims emphasize that the tournament generated 395 million euros in revenue in 2025, with growth of 14 percent compared with the previous year, while the prize fund grew more slowly. For that reason, player representatives believe that increases should not be viewed only through final amounts, but also through the proportional distribution of revenue. The organizers of Roland Garros have so far not accepted the request to change this year's structure at the last minute.
Mauresmo announced talks, but not an urgent change
Amélie Mauresmo, the former world No. 1 and winner of Wimbledon and the Australian Open, today leads one of the four biggest tournaments in the sport. According to the Associated Press, when asked whether there was a possibility that the prize fund could be changed already this year, she replied that nothing would change, but that talks would be opened because, as she said, all sides want that. She added that she does not expect the problem to be solved quickly and easily, but that discussions could continue even after the tournament ends. In doing so, the organizer sent a double message: this year's financial framework remains locked, but the question of the relationship between the Grand Slams and the players will not disappear with the end of the Paris tournament.
Such an approach reduces the possibility of an immediate change before the start of competition, but leaves room for negotiations about future editions. For the organizers, budget predictability is important, especially because Grand Slam tournaments include a much broader system than just the matches in the main draw. Costs include infrastructure, security, staff operations, media production, court maintenance, development programs and commercial obligations. Players, however, start from the fact that they are the main carriers of the tournament's market value and that revenue growth from tickets, television rights, sponsorships and hospitality should be reflected more clearly in their earnings.
In the background is also the broader question of the governance of professional tennis. Grand Slam tournaments do not belong to the ATP and WTA, but are organized by national tennis federations and separate bodies. This means that their financial logic and governance model differ from regular tournaments on the men's and women's tours. For that reason, the players' demands are not only about larger payments by round, but also about greater involvement in decisions that directly affect the schedule, media obligations, workload, playing rights and the long-term social security of professionals.
A media protest as a symbol of a share of around 15 percent
Player dissatisfaction in Paris also took a visible form through the announcement of limits on media obligations during the traditional media day before the start of the tournament. The Guardian reported that leading players planned to limit participation in media activities to 15 minutes, which is a symbolic message connected with the approximate share of revenue that, according to their claims, is returned to players through the prize fund. Instead of the usual 60 to 90 minutes of various interviews, photo sessions and promotional obligations, players focused on mandatory formats, including a press conference and an interview with the broadcaster.
According to the same report, numerous highly ranked male and female players took part in the action, among them Aryna Sabalenka, Jannik Sinner, Iga Świątek, Coco Gauff, Jessica Pegula, Mirra Andreeva, Félix Auger-Aliassime, Ben Shelton, Daniil Medvedev and Taylor Fritz. Sabalenka emphasized that the demand does not refer only to the best-paid stars, but also to lower-ranked players, those returning after injuries and the younger generation that is only trying to survive financially in professional tennis. Such an argument is important because it softens the impression that the dispute is only about larger amounts for winners and finalists.
Some players warn that top-level tennis has high costs that the public often does not see. Travel, accommodation, coaches, physiotherapists, equipment, fitness preparation, medical care and tax obligations significantly reduce real earnings, especially for those who are not constantly among the best. Although the Grand Slams offer the biggest cash prizes of the season, most professionals do not regularly reach the final stages of tournaments. That is why support programs, pension models, health care and better institutional representation of players are increasingly mentioned in the demands.
Lower-ranked professionals are also in focus
Names such as Sabalenka, Sinner, Świątek, Gauff or Medvedev attract the greatest public attention, but the core of the dispute concerns the wider pyramid of professional tennis. Players at the top of the rankings have lucrative sponsorship contracts and greater security, while those outside the top often depend on results from week to week. In tennis there is no classic salary system as in team sports, and the costs of competing are mostly the individual responsibility of the players. That is why even relatively high rewards in the first rounds of Grand Slams do not mean equal financial stability for all participants.
Roland Garros emphasizes in official materials that this is precisely why it increased the amounts for qualifying and the early stages of the main draw. Qualifying is especially important because players who most often do not have regular income from major sponsors compete there, while at the same time bearing almost the same basic costs of travel and preparation as those at the top. The 12.9 percent increase in the qualifying fund can have a real effect on individuals fighting to enter the main tournament. Still, player representatives believe that such moves do not solve the main issue if the share of total revenue continues to fall.
This dispute is therefore not just a financial note before the tournament, but part of a broader debate about the sustainability of professional tennis. In a sport played almost all year round, with frequent changes of continents, surfaces and time zones, complaints about the calendar and workload are increasing. Players are demanding that their role in creating the value of tournaments be reflected not only in the prize fund but also in decision-making mechanisms. If talks continue after Roland Garros, the issue could spill over to Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open, because the demands are directed at all Grand Slams.
The tournament begins in an atmosphere of tension, but also record interest
The main Roland Garros tournament in 2026 begins on May 24 in the western part of Paris, and the competition is held on the clay surface that is the trademark of the Paris Grand Slam. The Associated Press states that, along with financial changes, the tournament is introducing a series of innovations for spectators and participants, including the possibility of wearing devices to collect data on players' physical performance on court. Mauresmo emphasized the importance of players' privacy, especially after earlier criticism of excessive camera access in spaces where tennis players prepare off court. The organizers said that private player areas remain out of reach of cameras.
Roland Garros is presenting itself again this year as a tournament that wants to combine tradition and controlled innovation. According to the Associated Press, the organizers are sticking with human line judges, unlike tournaments that have accepted electronic officiating to a greater extent. Mauresmo also left open the discussion about the possibility that women could in the future play best-of-five-set matches in certain stages of the tournament, but she emphasized that such a change cannot be implemented overnight. In addition to the sports program, events for the public have also been announced, including the Jardin des Chefs gastronomic area and free screenings of matches at Place de la Concorde during the final week.
Despite the dispute over money, the sporting part of the tournament is expected once again to attract great international attention. Roland Garros is the second Grand Slam of the season and the most important clay-court tournament, and results in Paris often strongly influence the rankings, reputation and course of the entire season. Last year's winners were Carlos Alcaraz and Coco Gauff, according to the Associated Press report, which further puts the focus on the new generation of leading tennis players. In such a context, the financial dispute does not suppress sporting expectations, but clearly shows that professional tennis is in a period in which the spectacle on court and the distribution of the value created by that spectacle are being discussed at the same time.
Why this dispute matters for the future of the Grand Slams
Grand Slam tournaments have a special place in tennis because they bring the most ranking points, the greatest prestige and the greatest visibility. Precisely for that reason, the debate about their revenues has a greater resonance than similar disputes at smaller tournaments. If players succeed in imposing the question of revenue share as a permanent topic, organizers will have to face pressure to explain their financial models and investment priorities more clearly. For the public, it is important to distinguish two levels of the debate: the prize fund can grow in absolute terms while players simultaneously believe that their relative share of total revenue is not satisfactory.
A possible outcome does not necessarily have to be only an increase in prizes for winners. Talks could be directed toward stronger support for qualifiers, better funds for injured players, pension contributions, covering part of travel costs or creating a formal players' council at Grand Slam tournaments. The Guardian states that the creation of a body that would give players a greater voice in decision-making is one of the demands being discussed in the longer-running dispute. This would expand the financial debate to the question of governance of the sport and the representation of those who carry the main part of the competition on court.
For Roland Garros, in the short term it is crucial that the tournament begins without disruption to the competition schedule. Players have so far resorted to limiting media obligations, not to boycotting matches, which shows that they want to maintain pressure without directly endangering the sporting part of the tournament. The organizers, meanwhile, decided not to open the 2026 budget in the final days before the start of the main draw. In this way, this year's prize fund remained unchanged, but the debate opened by the top of world tennis will probably continue even after the last match on the Paris clay.
Sources:
- Roland-Garros / Fédération française de tennis – official overview of news and the prize fund for the 2026 edition (link)
- Associated Press – report on Amélie Mauresmo's decision that the Roland Garros prize fund will not change despite players' objections (link)
- Associated Press – overview of the increase in the total Roland Garros 2026 prize fund and key tournament news (link)
- The Guardian – report on the players' media protest and demands for a larger share of Grand Slam revenue (link)