Dissatisfaction at Roland Garros: tennis players demand a larger share of Grand Slam tournament revenues
Dissatisfaction among leading female and male tennis players ahead of the start of Roland Garros 2026 has further opened the question of how money is distributed at the biggest tournaments in professional tennis. The trigger was the decision by the organizers of the Paris Grand Slam to increase the total prize-money fund this year to 61.723 million euros, which, according to the official Roland Garros announcement, represents a 9.53 percent increase compared with 2025. The organizers presented that amount as a record and emphasized that the increases are especially directed toward qualifying, the first rounds of the main draw, as well as wheelchair tennis and the quad competition. However, some players believe that the increase does not keep pace with the growth of the tournament's overall revenues and that their share in the financial result of the biggest competitions is decreasing.
According to information reported by international media, referring to the positions of the players' group, Roland Garros generated around 395 million euros in revenue in 2025, which is an annual increase of 14 percent. During the same period, the prize-money fund grew much more slowly, so the players claim that their share of revenues has fallen below the level they consider acceptable. Associated Press states that leading players expressed deep disappointment because, according to their calculations, the share of the prize-money fund in tournament revenues decreased from 15.5 percent in 2024 to a projection of 14.9 percent for 2026. The Guardian reported that players are seeking to move closer to a 22 percent share, which is mentioned as a reference level at combined ATP and WTA 1000-series tournaments.
A record fund, but also a dispute over distribution
The official Roland Garros announcement shows that the total prize-money fund for 2026 has been set at 61.723 million euros. The organizers stated that the qualifying fund was increased by 12.9 percent, that the main-draw prize-money fund rose by 10.1 percent, and that the first three rounds of the singles competition received increases of between 11.11 and 11.54 percent. For the remaining rounds of the main draw, increases of between 6.82 and 9.80 percent are planned, while the prize-money fund for women's, men's and mixed doubles was increased by 3.90 percent. For wheelchair tennis and the quad competition, 1.0185 million euros has been allocated, which according to the organizers represents an increase of 14.55 percent.
In the men's and women's singles competitions, the winners will, according to data published by the organizers and reported by relevant tennis sources, receive 2.8 million euros each. Roland Garros has for years applied equal prize-money distribution for men and women in singles competition, which means that the same amounts are paid by round in both draws. Such a model, however, does not resolve the broader dispute over the relationship between total Grand Slam tournament revenues and the portion returned to players through the prize-money fund, health and social programs, and long-term career protection. It is precisely on this issue that the greatest tension is now being created between players and the organizers of the biggest tournaments.
The players' side does not dispute that the fund has been increased nominally, but argues that the problem lies in the percentage. According to their argument, the biggest tournaments are recording revenue growth from tickets, media rights, sponsorships, hospitality and commercial content, while the prize-money fund is not growing at the same pace. For top players, especially those outside the very top of the rankings, this is a question of the sustainability of a professional career, not only the amounts that will go to finalists and tournament champions. The costs of coaches, travel, physiotherapists, equipment and logistics in professional tennis remain high, while a large number of players who exit tournaments early do not have financial security comparable to the sport's best-known names.
A symbolic media protest in Paris
The Guardian reported that leading players announced a form of protest ahead of the tournament based on the principle of fulfilling only the necessary obligations under the rules. Instead of the usual longer media activities, some players planned to limit appearances to around 15 minutes, thereby symbolically seeking to draw attention to the claim that Grand Slam tournaments direct on average around 15 percent of revenues toward the prize-money fund. According to the same report, the players intended to complete the mandatory press conference and a brief interview with the television rights holder, but to avoid additional promotional and media activities that are not necessary for avoiding sanctions.
Reports from Paris stated that a group of leading female and male players took part in or supported the action, including Aryna Sabalenka, Jannik Sinner, Iga Swiatek, Coco Gauff, Jessica Pegula, Mirra Andreeva, Félix Auger-Aliassime, Ben Shelton, Daniil Medvedev and Taylor Fritz. Novak Đoković, according to The Guardian, did not participate in the form of protest itself, but supported the idea of greater player organization and better governance of the sport. The role of well-known names is important because the most visible athletes are precisely those in a position to open a topic that most directly concerns a broader circle of professionals, including lower-ranked players.
Aryna Sabalenka stated, according to The Guardian, that the goal of the initiative is not exclusively in the interest of the highest-ranked players, but in supporting players lower down the rankings, those returning after injuries and younger generations who are only trying to build a career. Coco Gauff is also mentioned among the players who publicly spoke about the need to discuss a larger player share of revenues. Andrey Rublev, according to the same source, also warned about the problem of communication with organizers, stating that players have not received responses to official letters for months. In this way, the dispute has grown beyond the issue of the amounts themselves and opened the topic of the institutional position of players in the Grand Slam tournament system.
Why the figure of 22 percent has become crucial
One of the central points of the dispute is the demand that Grand Slam tournaments move closer to a 22 percent share of revenues for players. The Guardian states that this figure is connected to a model that players see as comparable to arrangements at the highest-category ATP and WTA tournaments outside the Grand Slam level. For players, this is an argument that the biggest tournaments, which generate the greatest visibility and commercial value, should not lag behind standards developing in the rest of the professional tennis system. The organizers of the Grand Slams, on the other hand, have a different structure of costs and obligations, including maintaining complexes, local organization, security, development programs and infrastructure investment.
The problem is further complicated because Grand Slam tournaments are not part of the regular ATP or WTA tournament structure in a governance sense, although they carry the most ranking points, the greatest prestige and the highest media interest. The Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open have their own organizers, business models and negotiating positions. This means that players are not negotiating with only one institution, but with four separate organizational systems. According to AP, comparison with other Grand Slams further increases the pressure because the Australian Open increased payments to players for 2026 by 16 percent, while the US Open increased its prize-money fund by 20 percent in 2025.
In that context, the Paris increase of around 9.5 percent is not viewed only as an isolated figure, but as part of a broader trend in which players analyze how much of the commercial success of the biggest tournaments ends up in prizes and related funds. If revenues grow faster than the fund, the players' relative share falls even when absolute amounts reach record levels. That is precisely why percentages, and not only amounts for winners or finalists, are increasingly mentioned in statements and reports. For players, the question of share is more important than the headline about a record fund, because it shows how the money generated by the tournament is distributed.
Broader demands: pensions, care and a voice in decision-making
According to The Guardian, the dispute has lasted longer than a year and began after leading players sent a signed letter to the Grand Slam tournaments. In that letter, according to the report, they requested a larger share of tournament revenues in the prize-money fund, contributions to player welfare programs, including pension models, and the establishment of a Grand Slam player council. Such a council, according to their idea, would enable athletes to have a more direct influence on decisions concerning schedules, working conditions, commercial obligations and the long-term development of competitions. This extends the demand from a short-term increase in prizes to the issue of governance of the entire professional tennis system.
Pension and health security are particularly sensitive topics because professional tennis does not have the same employment structure as many team sports. Players generally operate as independent professionals, finance their own teams and travel themselves, and depend on results, sponsorships and prize money. Those who do not remain constantly at the top often have to cover high costs without any guarantee that the season will end with a positive financial result. For that reason, the demand for welfare funds does not affect only the best-known athletes, but primarily those who are part of the professional circuit yet do not have the revenues of the biggest stars.
The role of Larry Scott, former WTA chief executive and former ATP player, has also been highlighted in reports by international media. The Guardian states that Scott is advising the players in talks with organizers and that meetings are planned with representatives of the French Tennis Federation and Roland Garros. The French Tennis Federation, which organizes the tournament, emphasized in its official information precisely the increases for qualifying and early rounds, showing that the organizers are also trying to present the fund as an instrument of support for a broader circle of players. However, such an explanation has so far not removed dissatisfaction over the overall percentage relationship.
The tournament begins amid sporting and financial tension
Roland Garros 2026 begins with the main draw on May 24 in Paris, after the qualifying week that lasted from May 18 to 22, according to official tournament information. Associated Press states that the women's final will be played on June 6, and the men's final on June 7. The tournament is played on the clay courts of the Roland-Garros complex, and the central court Philippe-Chatrier has a retractable roof. In sporting terms, the competition enters the season with a number of important storylines, including the status of defending champions, the form of leading players and returns after injuries, but the financial dispute could mark the atmosphere of the first days just as strongly as the matches.
For this year's edition, the organizers have also announced several novelties, including an expanded opening-week program, content for spectators and trial permission for the use of certain devices for tracking players' biometric data, according to AP's report and official tournament information. Such innovations show how Grand Slams are trying to increase the value of the event for audiences, sponsors and television partners. It is precisely this growth in commercial scope that further feeds the players' argument that their share of revenues should grow in line with the tournament's business development. For the organizers, however, any change in distribution must be aligned with maintenance costs and the development of tournament infrastructure.
The dispute around Roland Garros is therefore not an isolated incident, but part of a broader reassessment of the economics of professional tennis. If the talks in Paris do not bring progress, the pressure could also transfer to Wimbledon and the US Open, because the same arguments apply to all Grand Slam tournaments. According to The Guardian, the players have already announced that negotiations will continue with representatives of other major tournaments, and the question of the prize-money fund could remain one of the most important topics of the season. In the meantime, the Paris tournament enters the main part of the competition with a record fund, but also with clearly articulated dissatisfaction from those without whom that sporting spectacle would not exist.
Sources:
- Roland-Garros / French Tennis Federation – official announcement of new features for the 2026 edition and prize-money data (link)
- Associated Press – guide to the French Open 2026, schedule, tournament context and summary of the prize-money dispute (link)
- The Guardian – report on the announced players' media protest and demands toward Grand Slam tournaments (link)
- The Guardian – report from Roland Garros on the participation of leading players, Aryna Sabalenka's statements and the broader player demand (link)
- Lawn Tennis Association – overview of the Roland Garros 2026 prize-money fund and payments by round (link)