Pegula spoke eloquently about the fact that tennis as a whole is also present in the men’s circuit. players are pushed to their absolute limits without ever being able to sit down at the table to discuss the issues.
Players like the American who has won nine singles titles and has long been in the sport’s top five have called for it to also be a bigger share throughout the draw so that those at the bottom of the ladder struggling to survive can make ends meet. Essentially, the share of sporting success from the perspective of the biggest stars of the ATP and WTA is seen as something that should not be a restricted view.
But now that the season is over, Pegula sees it as the perfect time to reignite the debate and come to the table to sort out the issues with players who are up in arms not only about it, but also about the prize money of the past year, especially at the Grand Slams which are considered the goose events that lay the golden eggs but don’t provide what even tour events do in terms of welfare.
“Since the end of lockdown, there has been a huge demand from fans, broadcasters and sponsors for live sports and associated content. Sports have been racing to meet this demand. So far, so good.
“Yet these demands must be weighed against the well-being of the main players in the drama, namely the athletes. Sometimes it feels like we are little more than assets to be exploited to increase our income. But we are human beings and there must be limits to the demands placed on us.”
Pegula cited the fact that Jack Draper, for example, has long talked about the number of injuries that occur on the men’s tour, as has Taylor Fritz. Holger Rune was also used by many as an example after tearing his Achilles in Stockholm last month, a freak injury that highlighted the need to protect players due to the number of tournaments played. She also explained how she would change it herself.
“I’m not the only one who thinks this,” she wrote. “Noting a spate of season-ending injuries among his professional colleagues, Britain’s Jack Draper said last month: “We push our bodies to do things they’re not supposed to do in elite sport. …However, the tour and schedule must adapt if any of us are to achieve some longevity. This was echoed by Taylor Fritz, who spoke of “the weekly grind (becoming) even more physically demanding and hard on the body.”
“They are right. Adapting the calendar is an important issue, and discussions about it and the creation of a “Premium Tour” have taken place between the WTA and ATP Tours and the Grand Slams. Yet, we are no closer to a conclusion. It is time to accelerate these negotiations.
Jessica Pegula teamed up with Jack Draper at the US Open – both talked about the rigors of the tour and players’ need to get their fair share.
“The first way to improve player welfare is to consult players on decisions that affect them. In recent years we have seen a series of decisions made – beginning on Sunday at the Australian and US Opens; mixed doubles being brought forward and in a new format at the latter; the final 10-point tie-break at all Grand Slam tournaments – in which players have had little or no input. This cannot be right.”
Enough is enough – Pegula
The American also added that for her, this is enough, especially since the players are not in the room to make decisions that impact them greatly and longevity cannot be achieved by playing so much. The same can be said for parenting in her case and also for her age. She has often stated recently that she has put an age limit on her career and will retire when she becomes a mother.
Ons Jabeur, who announced today that she will become a mother later this year, also previously said that she will not be able to become a mother until she wins what she needs, which is Wimbledon. Although she has now taken a break from the sport amid a decline in rankings, she has managed to achieve this ambition.
But even if the timeline is as it is, Pegula believes those who actually deliver the product should have more of a say rather than the fat cats in a boardroom.
“The players love the four major championships. They are the pinnacle of the sport and, although they cannot exist without the players, credit goes to their management teams for elevating them to the status of the greatest sporting events in the world. I have always had a good relationship with the USTA, which manages the US Open.
“Most players recognize that tennis cannot stand still and that Slams must innovate to attract new fans. Yet we cannot do this if we are not present in the room when major decisions are made. This is why we have called for a regular and structured dialogue between players and Slams on changes that alter our working conditions.
“There’s another element to player well-being. The type of longevity Jack wants to achieve is something we all aspire to. However, it’s not easy to achieve: injuries happen, parenthood calls, age takes its toll. No matter how long you’ve been playing the sport, there comes a time when every tennis professional knows enough is enough.”
Take care of the top and bottom
She also added that at present, Grand Slam tournaments do not contribute a cent to players’ welfare benefits and that, although they are central points on the calendar, they are the ones that could end in disaster. But she also quoted Coco Gauff as saying that this should trickle down to all players and not just those at the top.
“As of now, Grand Slams contribute nothing to player welfare profits. The ATP and WTA contribute $80 million to those profits. Yet Grand Slams are the focal points of the calendar, the tournaments that get the most out of players physically and emotionally and also bring in about 80% of professional tennis’ revenue. It doesn’t seem like a big ask that they pay their fair share.
“As for prize money, as Coco Gauff said last month: “As we know in this sport, it’s the Grand Slams that generate the most revenue… When you look at the percentage of that revenue that goes to prize money, it’s not the same as the WTA and the ATP, even though they generate less revenue than the Grand Slams. This is important for the entire ecosystem of sport… We are not only talking about increasing the prize money (at Grand Slams) for the champion, but passing it on to qualifying. Our top 200 and 300 players are struggling to make ends meet.
“Well said, Coco. Even though it’s the top 10 players who signed our proposals, we’re trying to create change for every professional. No one turns pro and goes straight into the top 10. We all know how difficult it can be financially when you’re starting out or, for that matter, when you’re nearing the end of your career.
“Increasing Grand Slam prize money would allow the huge revenues from major championships, since the sport emerged from lockdown, to filter down to players lower in the rankings.”
Pegula concluded that players shouldn’t have to fight over something so easily fixed and that in reality, the offseason is the perfect time now to have these wise debates and call for change.
“In October, Jannik Sinner called on Slams to respond to our proposals. “We want to work with Slams to find solutions that are good for everyone in tennis,” he said. Carlos Alcaraz also spoke out. “We are all tennis players and we are fighting to have something better for us,” Carlos said last month. When Carlos said “we,” he meant all tennis professionals.
“We shouldn’t have to fight. We respect the Grand Slams and want to work collaboratively with them. That’s why, as the season draws to a close and players look forward to a well-deserved rest, we call on the authorities to use the offseason to resolve these issues. Although each of our personal journeys is unique, we all want change.”
