Game, Set, Stalemate

Pro Tennis is at a standstill after a major disagreement between the sport’s biggest organizations.

On one side are the leaders of the ATP and WTA tours, Andrea Gaudenzi and Steve Simon. On the other are the four Grand Slam tournaments—Wimbledon, the Australian Open, the French Open, and the U.S. Open. The tours recently proposed a bold new plan to reshape professional tennis: fewer tournaments, better pay for players, and a more unified way to govern the sport.

But the Grand Slams aren’t on board.

The proposal, sent on March 16, suggested cutting the number of top-level events from 118 to around 75. It maintained the four Grand Slam tournaments and ten elite ATP/WTA 1000 events, while also keeping a larger slate of 500 and 250-level competitions. The Slams responded with a short, pointed letter rejecting the idea. Their main criticism? The plan didn’t solve the long-standing leadership and governance issues that continue to stall progress.

Instead, the Grand Slams want something more radical: a streamlined calendar featuring just 30 top-tier events and an extended offseason to give players more recovery time.

This back-and-forth isn’t new. The two sides have spent the past year in regular talks, but the divide remains deep. While the tours believe their unified board structure would make decision-making faster and more efficient, the Slams argue it only adds to the confusion and continues to overload players and fans with too many events.

Fueling the tension is a new legal battle. The Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA), co-founded by Novak Djokovic, has filed a lawsuit accusing the sport’s main governing bodies of operating like a cartel—limiting opportunities, stifling competition, and hurting both players and fans.

For now, the talks are at a standstill. The Grand Slams have made it clear: unless there’s serious commitment to structural reform, they’re not moving forward.