British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

emmsie69 · Masters Series Champion

Doubles - ATP reforms to downgrade the importance of doubles

JonH · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
The problem Squash has it's actually not very watchable (I play Squash, not Tennis) It's definitely a participation sport. Unfortunately particiaption in minority sports is on the decline (Padel being the exception)
I disagree with Doubles not being exciting (I sat through Sinners match on Monday, just dire) I think for the Tennis fan that doesn't actually play Tennis, doubles is a far better spectator sport.
To this day the best match I've seen at Wimbledon live is the Huss/Moodie v Bryan Brothers Final.

I probably should have clarified - I actually agree with you at slam or Davis Cup level, doubles does have real impact there and can really grip. Not sure if it is the occasion, the crowd - but it does or can have real appeal.

At Challenger level, or lower down the tour at 250 level, it (to me) is played by anonymous players with little riding on it ( to the crowd) and the play can seem quite monotonous.

I definitely agree at slam and DC level - I am a big fan of doubles and our doubles players, dont get me wrong, I think my feeling was to the casual fan and at the lower levels where they seem to be making the biggest changes

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
The problem Squash has it's actually not very watchable (I play Squash, not Tennis) It's definitely a participation sport. Unfortunately particiaption in minority sports is on the decline (Padel being the exception)
I disagree with Doubles not being exciting (I sat through Sinners match on Monday, just dire) I think for the Tennis fan that doesn't actually play Tennis, doubles is a far better spectator sport.
To this day the best match I've seen at Wimbledon live is the Huss/Moodie v Bryan Brothers Final.

But if this were true, the doubles matches would be packed with spectators, and Serena William's match would get no one

emmsie69 · Masters Series Champion

Serena was on Centre, all the doubles were on outside courts. Sabalenka didn't have many watching on Centre on Monday either (I was on Centre), it wasn't just the Royal box that emptied after the Sinner match.

People started drifting back in for the Djokovic match, do you think they should downgrade Womens singles too?

The fact is that people watch the Players with a recognisable profile, the answer to that is not to downgrade parts of the sport but to uplift them and raise the profile of more players.

-- Edited by emmsie69 on Friday 3rd of July 2026 11:18:49 AM

indiana · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
emmsie69 wrote:
The problem Squash has it's actually not very watchable (I play Squash, not Tennis) It's definitely a participation sport. Unfortunately particiaption in minority sports is on the decline (Padel being the exception)
I disagree with Doubles not being exciting (I sat through Sinners match on Monday, just dire) I think for the Tennis fan that doesn't actually play Tennis, doubles is a far better spectator sport.
To this day the best match I've seen at Wimbledon live is the Huss/Moodie v Bryan Brothers Final.
But if this were true, the doubles matches would be packed with spectators, and Serena William's match would get no one

Yes, not for me, singles is definitely in general my preferred spectator sport though I occasionally enjoy some doubles ( less so than in the past - some might suggest cause and effect in that I am maybe being given less relative access to doubles compard with previously? )

But with the same access, i recall going to the final day of the ATP finals at the O2 one year. Very many folk with clearly tickets covering both chose to remain out of the tennis arena, eating, driinkng etc, while the doubles final was on ( my recollection is that I sat in an arena that wasn't half full ) and then poured in for the singles final which that year was a rather surprise singles final lacking the very biggest names ( the Bryans were in the doubles final ).

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 3rd of July 2026 11:46:05 AM

Var · Challenger qualifying

I used to love watching the doubles back in the day on centre or number 1. Not all top players played doubles but enough to draw in a crowd on a balmy summer evening. McEnroe and Fleming , Newcombe and Roche, BJK and Casals. Showing my age there, but you have to ask, why more top players dont play doubles? Rather than we are ditching doubles because top players dont play it nymore? I think the AtP, WTA are at the root of the problem here. Is it down to the schedule, the tour is so demanding and nothing left in the tank to play doubles? Should they have parity of prize money? Bet they would all play then lol!

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
Serena was on Centre, all the doubles were on outside courts. Sabalenka didn't have many watching on Centre on Monday either (I was on Centre), it wasn't just the Royal box that emptied after the Sinner match.
People started drifting back in for the Djokovic match, do you think they should downgrade Womens singles too?
The fact is that people watch the Players with a recognisable profile, the answer to that is not to downgrade parts of the sport but to uplift them and raise the profile of more players.

-- Edited by emmsie69 on Friday 3rd of July 2026 11:18:49 AM

I think doubles has had their chance to raise the profile of their players - it's had Grand Slams, it's had very good prize money, if the paying public don't want to watch it on TV, or in real life, very much, then so be it

I'm a huge tennis fan and I've not watched a single ball of Lloyd and Julian, say, for the past 12 months. I've only watched Henry when he won Wimbledon. And those are my home country players. (I watch Marcus a bit, and Evo, but that's different )

And I don't believe the argument that the we should do everything possible to more money into the sport, not less, because that is nor targeted

Far better, IMO, to put more money into low-ranked tournaments in the UK, support players, get schoolkids along, get local sponsors etc etc etc. I have no problem with paying less to Wimbledon doubles players who are simply not something that interest the public.

After all, how much do the wheelchair tennis players get? Maybe the doubles money should go to them? If reducing doubles is 'elitist', according to Henry, why is paying doubles players more than wheelchair players not elitist?

emmsie69 · Masters Series Champion

Why would you get more young people playing (and continuing to play) when you're removing a potential career path and income stream for them. How much of the ATP marketing budget goes on doubles.

JonH · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
emmsie69 wrote:
Serena was on Centre, all the doubles were on outside courts. Sabalenka didn't have many watching on Centre on Monday either (I was on Centre), it wasn't just the Royal box that emptied after the Sinner match.
People started drifting back in for the Djokovic match, do you think they should downgrade Womens singles too?
The fact is that people watch the Players with a recognisable profile, the answer to that is not to downgrade parts of the sport but to uplift them and raise the profile of more players.

-- Edited by emmsie69 on Friday 3rd of July 2026 11:18:49 AM
I think doubles has had their chance to raise the profile of their players - it's had Grand Slams, it's had very good prize money, if the paying public don't want to watch it on TV, or in real life, very much, then so be it
I'm a huge tennis fan and I've not watched a single ball of Lloyd and Julian, say, for the past 12 months. I've only watched Henry when he won Wimbledon. And those are my home country players. (I watch Marcus a bit, and Evo, but that's different )
And I don't believe the argument that the we should do everything possible to more money into the sport, not less, because that is nor targeted
Far better, IMO, to put more money into low-ranked tournaments in the UK, support players, get schoolkids along, get local sponsors etc etc etc. I have no problem with paying less to Wimbledon doubles players who are simply not something that interest the public.
After all, how much do the wheelchair tennis players get? Maybe the doubles money should go to them? If reducing doubles is 'elitist', according to Henry, why is paying doubles players more than wheelchair players not elitist?

The wheelchair players make almost all their money from the 4 slams. Wimbledon wheelchair prizemoney is something like £500k this year, the British Open WC 1000 (top level outside the slams) this week at Roehampton has $45k total - so, what, £35k? Without the slams, the players would struggle to survive (US Open is something like $1.5m?). But, outside the slams, there are no spectators - only a few anoraks like me follow it outside the slams and no one comes to spectate, it may not even be on TV at all?

Which makes it an interesting comparator. The poor prizemoney outside the slams reflects the true interest in the sport and that, itself, may be subsidised. The slams are a different creature and it may be that is where doubles goes - continued big money in the slams and Tour Finals, diminishing returns to the players outside of that

emmsie69 · Masters Series Champion

Interesting no response to my point about the court emptying for Sabalenkas match. Friend is on ct 1 right now and it's emptied after the Sinner match so it seems as though no one is bothered about watching Osaka either.
Again I'm going to ask, should we downgrade Women's Tennis?

JonH · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
Interesting no response to my point about the court emptying for Sabalenkas match. Friend is on ct 1 right now and it's emptied after the Sinner match so it seems as though no one is bothered about watching Osaka either.
Again I'm going to ask, should we downgrade Women's Tennis?

Of course not - the WTA tour survives in its own right and the slams have a protocol of equal prize money across mens and womens that is agreed and set in place. The ATP doubles decision is outside the slams and, as it stands, there appears no move to downgrade mens doubles at the slams. It is just on the atp tour. The womens tour - currently- stands alone and makes it own decisions, clearly it wont downgrade itself.

If tours merge as has been suggested may happen, it will be done on a clear understanding as to where mens and womens events sit and Im sure there is no chance womens tennis will be downgraded in any merger.

so, no of course it wont happen and shouldnt happen.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
Interesting no response to my point about the court emptying for Sabalenkas match. Friend is on ct 1 right now and it's emptied after the Sinner match so it seems as though no one is bothered about watching Osaka either.
Again I'm going to ask, should we downgrade Women's Tennis?

I certainly don't think the women are worth the equal prize money that's now paid & I dislike so many of the eastern Europeans who seem to rule the roost these days.

Brendan F · Strong Club Player

Stircrazy wrote:
emmsie69 wrote:
Interesting no response to my point about the court emptying for Sabalenkas match. Friend is on ct 1 right now and it's emptied after the Sinner match so it seems as though no one is bothered about watching Osaka either.
Again I'm going to ask, should we downgrade Women's Tennis?
I certainly don't think the women are worth the equal prize money that's now paid & I dislike so many of the eastern Europeans who seem to rule the roost these days.

If prize money was based on likability then Djokovic would have scarcely been able to make a living, and Zverev would be living in poverty.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
Interesting no response to my point about the court emptying for Sabalenkas match. Friend is on ct 1 right now and it's emptied after the Sinner match so it seems as though no one is bothered about watching Osaka either.
Again I'm going to ask, should we downgrade Women's Tennis?

Possibly, in some form, at some point, yes

The WTA is barely making a penny

Compared with the ATP, they are a shadow

The commercial venture arm looks a touch more promising but it's very early days (and, remember, they've sold 25% of the equity to give themselves some up-front cash to keep operating - they can't do that every year !)

The problem can't be ignored indefinitely - do you think tax payers should subsidise it? The ATP have refused.

There's a lot of publicity, great media coverage, and I love women's tennis. But if the democratic vote doesn't follow, one can't just ignore people's opinions.

PS Women's tennis is not a good comparison anyway as there is no message, no point of principle, no ethical question about putting a lot of money into men's doubles whereas those arguments can be made for parity between sexes - though someone may have to pay for them

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Friday 3rd of July 2026 09:19:29 PM

Canda · Lower Club Player

emmsie69 wrote:
Interesting no response to my point about the court emptying for Sabalenkas match. Friend is on ct 1 right now and it's emptied after the Sinner match so it seems as though no one is bothered about watching Osaka either.
Again I'm going to ask, should we downgrade Women's Tennis?

It is not the women's style of tennis at fault. The Sinner match had 34 games and 2 tie breaks. Spectators need a break. They will sacrifice the first set of the match following a men's, to get loo, coffee, Pimms etc and stretch legs. The Sinner match was only 3 sets. The problem is worse when it goes to 5 sets. If you put a men's match on straight after a men's, the same thing would happen - the court would empty of spectators who would then gradually drift back towards the end of first set or 2nd set. Just because people have bought tickets, doesn't mean they want to sit on a hard seat for hours without a break. A stroll around the outside courts occasionally to catch a glimpse of other players makes for a lovely day.