Tennis slams’ refusal to discuss money is slap in face for players who are right to threaten boycott | Tumaini Carayol

Jannik Sinner said the major tournaments were not addressing players’ concerns. Photograph: Tullio Puglia/Getty Images

The prospect of the players actually progressing with any sort of boycott still seems unrealistic. The top players remain in a great position, earning significant amounts of money every time they compete in the big events, and they are devoted to their personal goals. Sabalenka will soon be the second female athlete in history to earn $50m in prize money, after Serena Williams. Change is preferable, but these are not desperate people. For now, it is incredibly difficult to imagine them hurting their own personal ambitions by missing the major tournaments they train each day for.

As multimillionaires pushing for greater pay, they are also not sympathetic figures. The most damaging argument against them is the immense wealth they have already acquired in the sport, a significant amount of their earnings coming from the prize money and exposure provided by the grand slam tournaments.

Still, the majors are even wealthier, and lucrative businesses do not automatically have their workers’ best interests at heart. They are not beyond being questioned and challenged and, if the player demands are unrealistic, the grand slams should have no problem explaining in detail and with transparency why their current revenue share model is fair.

The players’ concerns are more than valid. The 13-15% revenue share they receive from the grand slams is low. Roland Garros’s recent prize money announcement, which completely ignored the players’ concerns, was a big blow. Despite the tournament’s claims that prize money has risen 45% since 2019, adjusted for inflation, the figure is only 14%. The grand slams’ continued refusal to even address their concerns is a further slap in the face to the players. All eyes are on Wimbledon now, for the tournament’s prize-money announcement.

From the perspective of the grand slams, the players are not nearly as important as they view themselves. These events transcend the sport, their success and financial status a consequence of decades of growth, branding and history. Meanwhile, most of the money they generate is invested back into the sport, whether through the transformation of the tournament grounds or to national federations. For example, 90% of Wimbledon’s surplus goes to the Lawn Tennis Association, the governing body for tennis in Britain, which amounted to £48.1m last year.

These arguments mean nothing to the players, who are still the focal point of the events, the workers. The improved infrastructure at the grand slam venues is even more beneficial to the actual tournaments. Players from countries such as Belarus or Bulgaria, where they receive minimal federation support, are rightfully unmoved by the status of slams as glorified fundraisers for their national federations in wealthy western countries.

For more than a year now, the grand slams have opted to pay little mind to these demands. Tennis players, after all, have been asking for more money since the dawn of time. It may be tempting for the grand slams to continue as usual, to dare Sabalenka and her colleagues to advance with their threats, but perhaps a more constructive way forward would be to engage the players in good faith, as partners, and find a compromise for all.