Doubles crisis threatens boycott of new US Open spectacle
A group of leading tennis players is considering skipping the commercially important mixed doubles tournament at the US Open to increase pressure on the Grand Slam organizers in negotiations over revenue sharing, pension contributions and players' influence on decisions. The dispute is erupting at a time when the ATP is considering deep cuts to men's doubles, while the USTA is transforming the same discipline, in a shortened, star-studded format, into one of the main events of New York's Fan Week.
NEW YORK - Just over a month before the start of the main singles tournament, the US Open is facing the possibility of an uncomfortable partial boycott. According to reports by The Athletic, The Times and The Guardian, some leading players are considering withdrawing from the mixed doubles event, and the possible action could also include certain other paid or promotional events ahead of the final Grand Slam of the season. Jannik Sinner and Jessica Pegula are among the names publicly associated with the pressure on the organizers, while the final list of participants in any potential boycott has not been officially confirmed. As of July 25, 2026, no formal joint decision by the players had been announced, so the threat remains a negotiating instrument, but it is an instrument that could directly affect a project in which the United States Tennis Association, the USTA, has invested considerable marketing and commercial capital.
The target of the pressure is not the main singles draw, at least for now, but an event that the USTA has deliberately separated from the traditional tournament schedule in recent years. The official US Open pages for 2026 announce 16 mixed doubles teams on August 25 and 26, during Fan Week, five days before the main singles draw begins on August 30. Tickets for that program are sold separately, including the evening session featuring the semifinals and final at Arthur Ashe Stadium, and the winning team is set to receive a prize of one million US dollars. According to The Athletic, thousands of tickets have already been sold, which means that the withdrawal of the biggest names would represent both an organizational problem and a public blow to a tournament promoting the event as a meeting of the world's best male and female tennis players on the same stage.
Boycott as leverage in the dispute over Grand Slam revenue
At the center of the conflict is not only the size of the prize fund for one discipline, but also the way the four Grand Slams share revenue with the players. A group of 20 leading male and female tennis players signed a letter to the heads of the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open back in March 2025, the Associated Press reported. They demanded a larger share of tournament revenue in the prize fund, regular contributions to pension and health insurance programs, and a stronger voice for players in decisions affecting the schedule, competition, health and working conditions. The signatories included Novak Đoković, Jannik Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz, Aryna Sabalenka, Coco Gauff, Iga Świątek and Jessica Pegula, giving the demands a weight that earlier individual statements had lacked.
According to The Guardian, the players' current demand provides for the prize fund to be immediately tied to at least 16 percent of the revenue of each Grand Slam, with a gradual increase to 22 percent by 2030. The key difference compared with the existing system would be predictability: instead of organizers independently announcing the prize amount each year, there would be an agreed formula in advance. The players argue that their performances create the fundamental value of television rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, hospitality and licensed merchandise, so they want their share to track the commercial growth of the tournaments. At the same time, Grand Slam organizers emphasize investments in infrastructure, tennis development, staff, security and year-round programs, which is why the dispute is not simply a question of dividing a single pool of money.
In 2025, the US Open increased total player compensation to a record 90 million dollars, 20 percent more than the previous year, according to tournament data. The singles champions received five million dollars each, the men's and women's doubles champions received one million dollars per team, and the same amount went to the mixed doubles winners. Nevertheless, the leading players are not merely seeking another nominal increase, but a long-term mechanism that would link their share to revenue growth. As of July 25, the US Open prize fund for 2026 had not yet been announced, and its publication in early August is considered one of the first major tests of the negotiations.
Meeting in London failed to produce a breakthrough
According to a report by The Athletic carried by Yahoo Sports, representatives of the players' group, including Jessica Pegula, met USTA president Brian Vahaly in London on July 4. The talks were held during Wimbledon, but according to sources familiar with the negotiations, they failed to produce enough progress for the boycott threat to be withdrawn. Vahaly is the chair of the USTA board for the 2025-2026 term, and the association has also just appointed a new chief executive officer. Craig Tiley, the long-serving head of Tennis Australia and the Australian Open, officially assumed his position at the USTA on July 20, only a few weeks before the start of the New York tournament.
The leadership change further increases the importance of the upcoming decisions. Tiley arrives in the United States with a reputation as an organizer who transformed the Australian Open into a broad commercial and entertainment experience, but he is now taking over an association amid the most open dispute between tennis stars and the Grand Slams in recent years. The USTA had previously stated that it was open to direct talks with players and that it was proud of its history of equal prize money for men and women and the growth of total compensation. However, the new leadership is now expected to respond to more precise demands: a percentage of revenue, contributions to social programs and formalized player influence.
Pressure on the US Open was also increased by news that Roland Garros is prepared to discuss a revenue-sharing model. On July 21, The Guardian reported that representatives of the French Grand Slam had offered player representative Larry Scott a framework that would link the prize fund to revenue, along with a willingness to contribute to pensions and healthcare and to provide players with greater participation in governing issues that directly affect them. A final agreement has not yet been reached, but the very fact that one Grand Slam has accepted the principle under discussion changes the balance of negotiations. The US Open, Wimbledon and the Australian Open can now less easily argue that such a model lies outside the possible institutional framework.
Mixed doubles spectacle has become a sensitive pressure point
Mixed doubles is an ideal target for pressure because it is simultaneously an official Grand Slam discipline and a marketing product that depends on the participation of the biggest singles stars. In 2025, the USTA moved the traditional tournament to the week before the main draw, reduced the number of teams from 32 to 16 and introduced shorter sets with a deciding point at deuce. The goal was to allow players who primarily compete in singles to participate without a major burden immediately before the two-week Grand Slam. The winners' prize was increased to one million dollars, while the event received prime slots on the largest stadiums and strong television promotion.
The model immediately produced attractive pairings, but also raised the question of who is entitled to participate. Highly ranked singles players were given priority in selection, while numerous doubles specialists were left out of the draw. Italians Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori, the defending champions at the time, publicly criticized the change as unfair to players who had built their careers in doubles. Ironically, it was they who won the title in the new format in 2025, defeating Iga Świątek and Casper Ruud in the final, thereby giving the organizers an appealing story while also reminding them that specialized doubles skills cannot be replaced by simply combining star names.
For 2026, the USTA retained the basic concept of 16 teams and expanded it with an additional qualifying day, while official ticket sales single out mixed doubles as one of the main paid events of Fan Week. That is precisely why a potential boycott carries more weight than a symbolic absence from an ordinary exhibition. The organizer is selling the promise that spectators will see the world's best male and female tennis players together in one place, and the value of that promise falls sharply if key names collectively withdraw their entries. For the players, this represents a rare opportunity to apply pressure without giving up participation in the singles Grand Slam, ranking points, multimillion-dollar prizes and the sporting prestige of the main tournament.
ATP plan opens a separate crisis in men's doubles
While the leading singles stars are disputing revenue with the Grand Slams, men's doubles specialists are fighting a parallel battle with the ATP. According to reports by ESPN, the Associated Press and other media outlets, the ATP is considering a reform that would halve many doubles draws from 2028 and reduce their share of tournament prize funds from approximately 20 to 10 percent. Under the proposed model, Masters 1000 tournaments could feature 16 teams instead of 32, while ATP 500 and ATP 250 events could drop from 16 to only eight teams. The proposal concerns the ATP Tour rather than the Grand Slams directly, but players fear that such a severe cut would transform the entire labor market for specialists.
A group of leading doubles players responded with a joint statement saying that doubles is not a "carnival sideshow" and warning that, outside the very top of the rankings, a professional career would become almost unsustainable. They are particularly concerned about the possibility that some Challenger places could be made more easily available to singles players, while doubles specialists would lose opportunities to compete, earn points and make money. The ATP responded that it is assessing the format, draw sizes and distribution of compensation in pursuit of a more sustainable long-term model, while maintaining an important role for doubles. The organization also said that redistribution could increase prize money in the early rounds of singles tournaments and help more players cover the high costs of travel, coaches and physiotherapists.
That argument reveals the sensitive distribution of resources within professional tennis itself. Most players outside the elite circle do not have the contracts and income of the biggest stars, and they travel as independent contractors who finance their own teams and logistics. The ATP is therefore attempting to improve the sustainability of lower-ranked singles careers, but players in another recognized discipline could pay the price. Critics of the plan argue that the problem of insufficient income in singles should not be solved by eliminating jobs in doubles, especially because doubles play is a foundation of club, recreational and national-team tennis around the world.
Paradox: the discipline is shrinking while its star-driven version grows
The conflict is particularly striking because of the contrast between two processes. On the regular men's Tour, fewer teams, fewer opportunities and a smaller share of the prize fund for doubles are being considered. In New York, however, mixed doubles is being used as premium content: it has been placed in a separate time slot, promoted through the names of singles champions, sold through special tickets and offers one million dollars to the winners. Doubles players therefore warn that governing structures are not rejecting the discipline itself, but its traditional professional base, while retaining the elements that can be more easily transformed into a television spectacle.
Organizers can respond that the new format gives mixed doubles visibility it had not enjoyed for years. The traditional tournament was often played alongside the singles and other draws, in front of smaller crowds and without the biggest stars, who conserved energy for more important commitments. By moving it to Fan Week, the USTA created a clear time slot, a stronger television product and a financial incentive that attracted a broader audience. The problem arises when greater visibility is not accompanied by transparent criteria, sufficiently broad access and a sense that specialists are included in decisions about the future of their own discipline.
For that reason, the dispute over Grand Slam revenue and the ATP plan for doubles are formally separate but politically connected. In both cases, players argue that key decisions are being made from the top down, without sufficient consultation with the people whose careers depend on those rules. In both cases, organizers respond that they must consider the sustainability of the entire product, audience interest and the financing of the wider system. And in both cases, commercial success becomes a double-edged argument: the more tournaments earn and the more successfully they sell their stars, the harder it becomes to avoid the question of how much of that value should belong to the players.
What comes next before the start of the US Open
The next few weeks will show whether the boycott threat is primarily intended as a means of accelerating negotiations or as an action the players are genuinely prepared to carry out. The announcement of the total prize fund for 2026, a possible USTA response to the demand for a percentage share, and the final list of teams will be key points. The organizer has a strong incentive to reach a compromise before the marketing campaign enters its final phase, because last-minute replacements cannot simply compensate for the globally recognizable names on which the event's sales depend. The players, on the other hand, must maintain unity long enough for the threat to remain credible.
A complete boycott of the main US Open would still be a much more radical and costly step, so the current strategy targets a sensitive but limited point in the schedule. That is precisely what turns mixed doubles into a test of the balance of power in professional tennis: the event is important enough to harm the organizer, but not so important that the players would have to sacrifice the entire Grand Slam season. If an agreement is reached, the new spectacle could take place as planned and simultaneously become a symbol of a new model of cooperation. If negotiations fail, gaps in the star-studded lineup could highlight the paradox that triggered the crisis - doubles is supposedly not valuable enough to retain space on the regular Tour, but valuable enough to carry one of the most expensively promoted stages of the US Open.
Sources:
- The Athletic / Yahoo Sports - report on the boycott threat, tickets sold and Jessica Pegula's meeting with USTA leadership on July 4, 2026. (link)
- The Guardian - players' demands for a 16 percent revenue share, Roland Garros's offer and pressure on the US Open (link)
- Associated Press - letter from 20 leading players to the Grand Slams and the three main demands concerning prize money, social programs and influence over decisions (link)
- US Open / USTA - official schedule and ticket sales for mixed doubles on August 25 and 26, 2026. (link)
- US Open / USTA - official information on the 2025 US Open prize fund, including one million dollars for the mixed doubles winners (link)
- USTA - official information on the start of chief executive officer Craig Tiley's term and the association's leadership (link)
- Associated Press / Yahoo Sports - proposals to reduce draws and prize money in men's doubles and the ATP's response (link)
- Associated Press - context of the redesigned US Open mixed doubles tournament, the 16-team format and criticism from specialists (link)