All of the talk in tennis at the moment seems to be surrounding the recent threat of a Grand Slam boycott.
That should come as no surprise really, given how drastic and unprecedented an action that would be.
Alas, after years of financial arguments with the powers that be within the sport, it was inevitable that eventually something would give.
Now, the higher-ups at these major events, and the rest of the tournaments on the ATP and WTA Tours, have been put on red alert.
With Aryna Sabalenka threatening the boycott at her recent press conference, and Jannik Sinner agreeing with her threat, the world’s very best players are mobilising.
However, not everyone is in agreement.
Mark Petchey claims players shouldn’t be angry at the Grand Slams amidst boycott threat
Ironically, just days after Emma Raducanu claimed she would not take part in a boycott, her former coach, Mark Petchey, has also offered his slightly opposing verdict.
After all, whilst he does support parts of the movement, he has argued that the players are angry with the wrong people.
Do you think Emma Raducanu’s stance is correct? 🤔
Speaking on Tennis Channel, he claimed: “I think it’s important to remember what the slams are doing. I think you’ve got to look at things like Sabalenka last year, 58% of her prize money came from the majors. That’s just 27 matches compared to 75 that she played throughout the course of the season.
“If we take a look at the men’s top 100, 62% of their prize money comes from the Grand Slams, and that equates to just 14% of their play in the season. I think the issue lies on both sides.
“Can it be fairer? I think there’s no question in my mind that there can be a fairer split of the revenues at the major. But I do think you’ve got to look at the tours and the jobs that they’re doing, particularly when you go down to like the 250s. $65,000 for a first-round loss at a 250 is not a great number.
“So I think that somewhere in the middle of all of this, you’ve got to remember just how much the slams are doing. If you look from 100 down to 200, and the amount of money that the slams are putting in in that period, I think it’s about 70% of the player’s money from 100 to 200 comes from the majors. They are pulling a lot of weight here.”
CoCo Vandeweghe admitted she ‘couldn’t agree more’, again stating that the tours need to be doing more rather than the majors.
She added: “I think the tours have failed us more than the Grand Slams.
“The Grand Slams have increased their prize money. They’ve given us more opportunities than ever, and also at the lower ranks. The tours have not, the tours have failed us as players in my opinion.
“We don’t get enough of the revenue share of even what this tournament in Rome does. We’ve moved to two weeks. You’re getting more money out of these tournaments, but what are the players seeing out of it?
“I think the players are slightly misaligned in their view of where to place blame.”
Tennis needs to change before players take drastic action
Whilst Petchey might argue that the players’ frustrations are misplaced, starting with the Grand Slams is the first logical step towards hopefully fixing the financial inequality that is rife within the sport.
After all, if they were to successfully get them to change, the rest of the tournaments on the ATP and WTA Tours would soon follow suit if similar threats and pressure were applied.
Is a French Open boycott realistic?
Players aren't happy with the prize money on offer…
These events need the players far more than the majors do. If they present a united front towards the Masters 1000 events and below, then change would surely be forthcoming.
It would not be a good look for the sport to see one of its most prestigious tournaments undermined by a boycott, even if it does seem like a very real threat.
Tennis needs to find a solution before such a claim materialises, given it is the only fair solution.
