British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Doubles - ATP reforms to downgrade the importance of doubles

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

I don't like it, but I would say that, wouldn't I, & what can the fans do to thwart the ATP, if that's what it's decided to do? furious

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

"Julian Cash and Lloyd Glasspool, last years historic all-British mens doubles winners, have threatened legal action over ATP proposals to halve doubles draw sizes and shift the singles-to-doubles prize money split from 80:20 to 90:10 by 2028. They argue the changes will make it nearly impossible for players to sustain a career solely in doubles. Fellow Brit Henry Patten criticised the move as odd and elitist, claiming decisions were made behind closed doors without proper consultation."

I don't know what legal grounds they have - no one has the right to a specific career - otherwise we'd have people queuing up demanding to be paid for being chimney sweeps and candlestickmakers

If there were representations made, that might be a different point

And the 'trade union' arguments of proper consultation has some weight

But it's not 'odd' at all, Henry - it's because no one watches it

And elitist is a daft comment, as I'm sure he realises in hindsight

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, surely the only legal case can be against process, such as what consultation is required.

Lots of folk love doubles, doubles players love doubles, but I have to agree with CD that they have no right to a doubles career, as it is just now, or at all.

Personally I would prefer it to continue as it is and that these changes were not introduced..

Blue_Belle · Pro player

Sigh like SC I feel it will happen regardless but I'm not happy about it.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

I guess that tennis, like everything else it seems is all about making money, and more people watch singles, even if they play more doubles at club level.
For me it's no different to any other career. Supply and demand dictate market value, and some people get to make a living from something they enjoy, which is a real privilege. (And lets face it most tennis players have come from a privileged background) The rest of us have to just get on and make ends meet. So although I find it a bit sad that money is ruling in tennis, it is a sad fact of life.

christ · Challenger qualifying

There are almost no televised doubles, so no-one watches doubles, so even fewer doubles matches are shown, so the spiral continues. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The same could be said of women's football (or pretty much any women's sport) - "hardly anyone watches it, so we shouldn't waste our time on it", but there is a gender divide there that can be characterised as "discrimination", so the broadcasters and bureaucracy are encouraged to swim upstream and continue to broadcast things that no-one wants to see in order that they can try to re-educate the audience; doubles players don't, unfortunately, have an "-ism" that they can blame.

The general (non-anorak) audience, thus the broadcasters, thus the ATP Tour doesn't care about anyone outside the top 100 (or even, really, the top 10 plus exceptions), so it is not a huge surprise that this nonsense gains traction.

I think that it is sad that the big name tennis players are campaigning vociferously to take a higher percentage of the gross, but they aren't fighting to broaden the base for distributing the money that they are hoping to win. The big names (which, as above, are the "draws" for the TV audience and therefore for the broadcasters) seem to be snuffling at the trough to extract more for themselves, not to the benefit of the sport: if only they could be persuaded into the sort of altruism that leads to equal pay for women and apply that to the rest of the sport that made them what they are.

If these players are "working to rule" to benefit the players rather than profiting the administration, then should be saying that they will "work to rule" until the lower ranked players get more, doubles players get more, wheelchair players get more, but they can afford to keep what the singles winner gets the same - even as "the pot" massively expands - indicating that they are interested in the sport, not themselves. But they aren't.

It is mildly ironic that the administration say that they want to encourage more participation in the sport, most participation in the sport is through doubles, but the people that run the sport seem to want to stamp that out. "We need more black/ gay/ asian/ disabled/ whatever star players" to encourage - and act as role models for - young black/ gay/ asian/ disabled/ whatever players to get into the sport. But doubles is wasting our oxygen.

We all saw this coming when they screwed with the mixed at the US Open: after that it was only a matter of time before doubles got the bullet.

wolf · Tennis legend

What christ said.

It's greed, pure and simple.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
There are almost no televised doubles, so no-one watches doubles, so even fewer doubles matches are shown, so the spiral continues. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The same could be said of women's football (or pretty much any women's sport) - "hardly anyone watches it, so we shouldn't waste our time on it", but there is a gender divide there that can be characterised as "discrimination", so the broadcasters and bureaucracy are encouraged to swim upstream and continue to broadcast things that no-one wants to see in order that they can try to re-educate the audience; doubles players don't, unfortunately, have an "-ism" that they can blame.

The general (non-anorak) audience, thus the broadcasters, thus the ATP Tour doesn't care about anyone outside the top 100 (or even, really, the top 10 plus exceptions), so it is not a huge surprise that this nonsense gains traction.

I think that it is sad that the big name tennis players are campaigning vociferously to take a higher percentage of the gross, but they aren't fighting to broaden the base for distributing the money that they are hoping to win. The big names (which, as above, are the "draws" for the TV audience and therefore for the broadcasters) seem to be snuffling at the trough to extract more for themselves, not to the benefit of the sport: if only they could be persuaded into the sort of altruism that leads to equal pay for women and apply that to the rest of the sport that made them what they are.

If these players are "working to rule" to benefit the players rather than profiting the administration, then should be saying that they will "work to rule" until the lower ranked players get more, doubles players get more, wheelchair players get more, but they can afford to keep what the singles winner gets the same - even as "the pot" massively expands - indicating that they are interested in the sport, not themselves. But they aren't.

It is mildly ironic that the administration say that they want to encourage more participation in the sport, most participation in the sport is through doubles, but the people that run the sport seem to want to stamp that out. "We need more black/ gay/ asian/ disabled/ whatever star players" to encourage - and act as role models for - young black/ gay/ asian/ disabled/ whatever players to get into the sport. But doubles is wasting our oxygen.

We all saw this coming when they screwed with the mixed at the US Open: after that it was only a matter of time before doubles got the bullet.

Well said, Chris. The ATP is turning into tennis's answer to FIFA, only it's aiming to shrink the accessibility (if that's the right word) of doubles rather than bloat, sorry, expand it - cf. the World Cup 2026.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I agree with a lot, christ

But not all

Pushing women's soccer, say, was important (for me) not because it was politically correct and ticked an -ism, but because it encouraged more girls to play sport and teenage girls are dreadful at dropping sport, with bad consequences for their health etc etc. It tapped into a global love of football and provided a lot of entertainment for people of all classes

There aren't, IMO, the same arguments for doubles. I see no reason why tennis doubles should be forcibly pushed.

To be honest, the powers that be would be better to replace doubles with Padel - that's what people love playing now, and may well love watching too, I've no idea (I don't play Padel but a lot of tennis playing friends do). Why is it greed to not push doubles but not greed to not push Padel?

I would far rather that the money from doubles went to the lower ranked singles players - we've had top level doubles for decades now, with great British participation, and if that's not enough for people to clamour for watching doubles, then so be it and things evolve.

JonH · Tennis legend

I agree with CD. Look, I love doubles and I love the success we have had in it over the past few years.

But it isn't commercially viable and probably never has been, really - it couldn't stand alone as a tour or entertainment - in men's or women's. I would hate to see it disappear though and it feels like looking at it with this lens makes sense.

Clearly a lot of our chaps won't like it. But having an equal number of doubles players at any given event (32 from 16 pairs say against 32 singles players) probably doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, really.

Whether cutting the fields to 8 pairs in a 250/500 or 16 in a 1000 makes sense, not sure. I might approach it differently and take out the doubles from a 250 altogether, free up the money there purely for the singles players, where the players could actually benefit more from getting a little more pay. 100% rather than 90%.

But have doubles at 500 level (16 pairs) and 1000 events (16 pairs) BUT with entry purely on doubles rankings and not combined rankings. So the money (reduced clearly) goes to doubles players who are plying their trade (maybe a wildcard or two for singles players), with Grand Slam events staying as they are.

Obviously this would make the transition up to 500 from Challenger level harder and longer in terms of rankings and so it may need a different lens on how that all works.

The ATP proposal (if that is what it is) may also need that upward progression ladder to be looked at as well, as chances to progress will be limited compared to now and older players will stick around longer).

christ · Challenger qualifying

Coup Droit wrote:
Pushing women's soccer, say, was important (for me) not because it was politically correct and ticked an -ism, but because it encouraged more girls to play sport and teenage girls are dreadful at dropping sport, with bad consequences for their health etc etc. It tapped into a global love of football and provided a lot of entertainment for people of all classes

Precisely my (obviously badly phrased) point. Pushing women's sport is important for us because it encourages participation, but it is important to them because if they don't do it they are accused of sexism.

I really believe that the same applies to doubles: Pushing doubles is important for us because it encourages participation, but it isn't important to them as there is no "-ism" that they can be said to be contravening.

There is a thread elsewhere on the forum where someone says that they watch football because of Harry Kane, and watched tennis because of Andy Murray: there was a glorious moment (on which we failed to capitalise) where Joe Salisbury was the most famous tennis player in Britain (and remember when Mr Evans got told off for telling Mr Murray (J) that doubles wasn't a proper sport?). It may capture a slightly different audience to singles, but if pushed I see no reason why doubles could not be as popular with the viewing (and playing) public as singles, particularly now, when we have at least half a dozen potential doubles "superstars".

(I consider doubles to be the same sport as singles, but with more people on the court; but I consider padel, pickleball, short tennis, and others to be different sports, and not the concern of the same authorities.)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Possibly, christ, but I still don't think pushing doubles is important for me (just the 'me' part of the 'us', not speaking for anyone else) because it encourages participation

If older people love playing doubles, that's great

But they could equally go rambling, or swimming, or do Pilates, or whatever

And it's generally only older people - and those with means

Whereas female soccer covers youngsters and people without means

(Yes, there are some 25 year-olds in my family who sometimes get together with mates to play doubles, and have fun, and a couple are quite passable, but whether the ATP pushes doubles or not makes zero difference to them)

NB Padel is covered by the same federation as tennis in France

emmsie69 · Masters Series Champion

Whether you like Doubles or not, (I do) the less opportunities there are for players to make money from Tennis, the fewer players that will consider it a potential career path.
If Sports bodies want to grow their sport they should be seeking ways to expand their offering and make it more attractive, not restrict it further. Utterly stupid.

JonH · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Possibly, christ, but I still don't think pushing doubles is important for me (just the 'me' part of the 'us', not speaking for anyone else) because it encourages participation

If older people love playing doubles, that's great

But they could equally go rambling, or swimming, or do Pilates, or whatever

And it's generally only older people - and those with means

Whereas female soccer covers youngsters and people without means

(Yes, there are some 25 year-olds in my family who sometimes get together with mates to play doubles, and have fun, and a couple are quite passable, but whether the ATP pushes doubles or not makes zero difference to them)

NB Padel is covered by the same federation as tennis in France

The LTA is also the federation for padel here as well.

Padel is an interesting comparison, it has sort of displaced squash as the rival racquet sport at the playing level. It is easier to play than tennis, particularly for less skilled players, and requires less room etc. Kit and racquets are cheaper. Squash used to play that role - I played both tennis and squash.

Squash for many, many years tried to push itself into TV and professionalism above the level it was able to reach. It peaked, probably, in the 80's or 90's. At the pro level, there is the PSA Tour, but prizemoney has never really improved, TV coverage also. It is hardly shown on British TV. The game at a club level has also declined, I believe, and it is a poor cousin to tennis. But it sustains a pro circuit (dominated by Egyptian players) albeit with prizemoney more akin to the Challenger level at tennis. Part of the issue for it is and always was televisual - it is poor, and the best players tend to win with few upsets at pro level. It is hard to get excited about the game when watching it.

Padel at the playing level has exploded in the UK - it is popular across all age groups, simple to play (from a skills perspective) and it has taken the space squash had. However, at the pro level it isn't massive globally. Padel IS big in some latin countries with Spain, Portugal in Europe and Argentina in South America being the dominant countries. There are pro tours - albeit competing pro organising bodies like tennis in the days of WCT v Grand Prix v the US Indoor Circuit. These will probably merge. The bigger pro events are in those countries and also in Dubai and Middle East. They tend to have more money in them than squash, but a lot less than tennis. The biggest pro padel events are probably along the lines of an ATP250 event in terms of prizemoney. I have watched padel a lot (more than tennis) and again it harder to get excited about from a TV / spectator perspective. Rallies tend to be long and fairly attritional, like squash and less explosive big moments like tennis provides.

The other issue for both padel and squash are that the players that are big are not from the bigger markets for TV - Egypt for squash, latin america for padel - which makes it harder for "fans" to align with their favourites etc.

I see doubles as being a bit like both - it provides the mass playing level appeal as it is easier at a club level and provides more players opportunities to play - 4 on a court is better than 2 in terms of productivity. It is easier for folks like me , in their early 60's, who still fancy themselves as Boris Becker or John McEnroe, but can't quite cut it on a singles court. But, like squash or padel, the game at a pro level isn't as exciting or pleasing. Combined with that, the big names in the sport have all focused on singles and the money has moved with them. Tennis has tried ever since it went Open in 1968 to promote and push doubles and it hasn't happened - and it won't happen, nothing is going to amazingly change.

The ATP/WTA have three options - either cut it loose and let it go as a separate circuit to the main tour and see if it survives (spoiler, it won't survive); or subsidise it like they do now, beyond it's commercial appeal; or find a new way of supporting it whilst recognising it a) does have a role but b) will never cut it commercially.

I think what they are broadly doing clearly fits that third model and makes most sense to me, albeit I would tweak it slightly per above and it creates issues with the current entry and ranking structure that will need considering. Given the target is 2028, they have 18 months to work on that