ROME — More tennis stars have echoed Aryna Sabalenka’s view that they will eventually boycott Grand Slams due to disputes over prize money and player representation.
Over the weekend, a group of leading ATP and WTA players that has been pressuring the Slams for more than a year expressed “collective disappointment” at this year’s French Open prize money, because of the overall share of the tournament’s revenue it represents.
During a news conference Tuesday ahead of the Italian Open, Sabalenka said “at some point we will boycott” the four biggest tournaments in the sport.
“I feel like that’s going to be the only way to kind of, like, fight for our rights,” the 28-year-old Belarusian said.
“Let’s see how far we can get. If it’s going to take players for boycott. I feel like nowadays, we girls can easily get together and go for this because some of the things I feel like it’s really unfair to the players. I think at some point it’s going to get to this.”
The organizers of Wimbledon and the Australian, French and U.S. Opens were not immediately available for comment on Sabalenka’s statement.
Later that day, world No. 4 Coco Gauff said that she agreed with Sabalenka’s view, as did Australian Open champion Elena Rybakina.
“For all of us showing up, everyone’s going to act as normal. I definitely agree with her on that standpoint,” Gauff said in a news conference.
“I think a few other players agree, too.”
WNBA players recently held out of negotiations for 17 months to achieve nearly 20 percent of their league’s revenue, an example which Gauff cited.
“If everyone were to move as one and collaborate, yeah, I can 100-percent see that,” Gauff said of a possible boycott.
“It’s not about me. It’s about the future of our sport and the current players who aren’t getting as much benefits as even some of the top players are getting, when it comes to like sponsorship and things like that. We’re making money off court.
“When you look at the 50 to 100, 50 to 200, how much money each Slam makes, it’s kind of unfortunate where the 200 best tennis players are living paycheck to paycheck, whereas other sports it’s not even a discussion.
“If we all collectively agree, then yes. … I think that is something us as players have to talk amongst ourselves and do it, and talk within each other and decide what’s best. But we definitely can move more as a collective.
“I feel like we’re doing well, though. The progress we made since last year to now, just having the top 10 all agree on something, is I think the first that’s happened in our sport in a long time. I do think there’s progress, but we can do more, for sure.”
The French Open’s 2026 prize pool is up by 9.5 percent from 2025, to a total of €61.7 million ($72.3 million). This will come in at 15 percent of the French Open’s projected revenue, according to the group’s estimates. That’s a proportion the players deem to be well below what they want from the four majors.
Joint ATP and WTA Tour events award 22 percent of revenue to the players, while many U.S. team sports set an even higher mark, with players in the NFL, NBA and MLB receiving close to 50 percent of league revenues.
“As Roland Garros looks to post record revenues, players are therefore receiving a declining share of the value they help create,” a statement circulated by the player group said. It was attributed to the 20 signatories of an initial letter sent to the four majors in March 2025, including Sabalenka, Jannik Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz and Coco Gauff.
“While other major international sports are modernising governance, aligning stakeholders, and building long-term value, the Grand Slams remain resistant to change. The absence of player consultation and the continued lack of investment in player welfare reflect a system that does not adequately represent the interests of those who are central to the sport’s success.”
In a statement sent to The Athletic following the players’ latest communication, the French Tennis Federation (FFT) said it “remains fully committed to ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders in global tennis, including speaking directly with individual players. It will continue working to improve overall player conditions, in line with its responsibilities and its model.”
The group of players sent their first letter to the Slams in March last year, followed by a second in July, pushing for three key areas of reform: prize money to represent a greater proportion of revenues; contributions to player welfare, and greater consultation and representation, with the formation of a Grand Slam Player Council.
Despite meetings with the tournaments during last year’s majors, progress has been elusive, and players have been reticent to discuss forming a council before discussions over prize money have met their expectations.
Earlier on Tuesday, the world No. 3 and six-time Grand Slam champion Iga Świątek said she hadn’t heard of a possible boycott, describing it as an “extreme” option, but she pointed too to the power of the player collective.
“I think we have good communication between us,” Świątek said in a news conference. “Sometimes if it’s an important topic, we are ready to speak together.
“I think the most important thing honestly is to have proper communication and discussions with the governing bodies so we have some space to talk and maybe negotiate. Hopefully before Roland Garros there’s going to be (an) opportunity to have these types of meetings and we’ll see how they go.”
Ben Shelton, the American world No. 6, said in an interview Tuesday that “it’s important for us players that we at least get a seat at the table to talk about these things. That’s something that’s been lacking in our sport, especially from the Slams and probably the part that makes us the most disappointed.”
Shelton said he did not know about the possibility of a boycott.
There is precedent for players boycotting Grand Slams. In 1973, 81 male players declined to play that year’s Wimbledon in solidarity with Nikola Pilić. Pilić had been barred from the tournament by the International Lawn Tennis Federation (now the I.T.F., the world governing body of tennis that runs all the Grand Slam tournaments) for refusing to play a Davis Cup match for his native Yugoslavia a month earlier. Billie Jean King suggested she would boycott the same year’s U.S. Open if it did not award equal prize money.
The French Open begins Sunday May 24, while the Italian Open, the last big warm-up for Roland Garros, ends Sunday May 17.
‘It’s a natural progression’
Analysis from Ava Wallace, senior tennis writer
Aryna Sabalenka’s suggestion that top tennis players could boycott the Grand Slams over prize money disputes isn’t extreme. In the long history of athletes fighting for what they believe, it’s a natural progression.
It has been more than a year since 20 top players first sent a letter to the four majors asking to initiate discussions about reforming prize money and player welfare contributions, with little movement of consequence since then.
Grand Slam prize money continues to rise and tournament revenues have skyrocketed in the years coming out of the pandemic. But without threat of action, there’s been no impetus for the national federations that run the majors to meaningfully consider negotiating with players about giving them a bigger piece of the pie.
Tennis players look to major U.S. sports as an ideal example of revenue sharing: NFL, MLB and NBA players take home roughly 50 percent of their leagues’ revenues, sums enshrined in collective bargaining agreements negotiated by powerful player unions. It’s not a perfect comparison — tennis players have a unique disadvantage in that they aren’t negotiating with a singular league, like baseball or football players do. They’re asking four separate national federations of widely varying power and financial might to each accept a 22-percent yardstick.
Those federations are also responsible for growing the sport in their respective countries. Redirecting funds from those pursuits could have other negative downstream effects on less fortunate players, the same group for which top players say they want better benefits.
Still, there is an applicable lesson. The MLB, NFL and NBA player associations were all founded in the 1950s. They’re effective in part because of their demonstrated history of being willing to stand together and give up paychecks in the short term for the sake of long-term progress. WNBA players recently held out for a long 17 months of negotiations to get improved player benefits and a higher percentage of the league’s revenue written into their CBA — a process that included voting to authorized a workers’ strike, if necessary.
Tennis players aren’t unionized. Pulling off a Grand Slam boycott would mean getting every individual player of impact to agree to participate. Even if they achieved that, players would then have to negotiate with four independent authorities.
It’s undoubtedly a tall hill players have to climb. But history shows that sports organizations and leagues tend not to respond without collective player action or, in the PGA Tour’s case, a direct threat from a competing league. Tennis players look at the revenue sharing agreements other athletes have with longing. They appear to be also taking note of how those athletes got there.
