While the public faces of professional tennis—World No. 1s Aryna Sabalenka and Jannik Sinner—have dominated headlines with talk of boycotts and a perceived lack of respect from organizers, the strategic engine of the movement is operating behind the scenes. Jessica Pegula, the No. 5-ranked player and 2024 US Open runner-up, has emerged as the primary architect rallying tennis stars in a revenue fight against the four Grand Slams.
The dispute centers on a fundamental disagreement over how much of the massive revenue generated by the sport’s most prestigious events should be returned to the athletes in the form of prize money. For Pegula, the fight is not just about the bottom line, but about updating a business model she describes as “old-school” in an era of modern professional sports.
The drive for leadership comes naturally to Pegula. Raised in a family deeply embedded in sports ownership and management—her parents own the NFL’s Buffalo Bills and the NHL’s Buffalo Sabres—she possesses a perspective on revenue sharing that is rare among professional tennis players. In the NFL and NHL, athletes typically take home approximately 50% of the revenues, a benchmark that Pegula views as a stark contrast to the current state of tennis.
“I think it maybe does (come naturally) just because I feel like I’ve taken on a bit of a leadership role with it,” Pegula said. “I’m not afraid to go up to any type of player and go like, ‘Hey, are you interested in this or not?'”
The Disparity in Revenue Sharing
The core of the players’ grievance is the “insane difference” between the revenue sharing models of the Grand Slams and other major professional sports leagues. While the overall prize pots for the majors have seen nominal increases, players argue that these figures mask a decline in the actual percentage of tournament revenue being shared with the athletes.
The upcoming French Open serves as a primary flashpoint. Although organizers recently announced a 10% increase in the total prize pot to $72.1 million, a protest statement issued by players last week alleges that the event is devoting under 14.9% of its revenue to the players—a drop from 15.5% in 2024.
This trend is not isolated to Roland Garros. Players point out that the Grand Slams consistently fail to match the 22% revenue sharing rate found at regular ATP and WTA Tour events. This discrepancy has led to accusations that the majors are leveraging their prestige to keep player payouts disproportionately low.
| Tournament | Reported Pot Increase | Player Grievance |
|---|---|---|
| French Open | ~10% | Alleged share under 14.9% |
| US Open | 20% | Below ATP/WTA 22% standard |
| Australian Open | 16% | Below ATP/WTA 22% standard |
| Wimbledon | 7% (2025) | Below ATP/WTA 22% standard |
“It’s crazy. It’s an insane difference,” Pegula said when comparing the tennis model to the NFL. “Obviously they’re different sports. They’re run differently. But tennis has been a very old-school sport. I think it’s one of the things that needs to change. Sometimes change is quality. Sometimes that means fighting for things.”
Overcoming a Fragmented Governance
The path to a resolution is complicated by the unique and often confusing structure of tennis governance. Unlike the centralized ownership of the NFL or NBA, professional tennis is managed by seven different organizing bodies: the four Grand Slams, the ATP, the WTA, and the International Tennis Federation (ITF).
This fragmentation makes it difficult for players to negotiate a unified contract or standard revenue share. Because the sport is highly individualistic, players have historically struggled to form a cohesive front, often lacking the financial safety net of a guaranteed salary that allows athletes in team sports to strike or boycott without immediate financial ruin.
“The slams have kind of just gotten away with paying not that much because we’re a very individual sport,” Pegula said. “It’s hard to get players to come together. We’re not on a salary where football players or basketball players can afford not to play.”
To combat this, Pegula has been leveraging her growing influence within the sport. Earlier this year, she was appointed to lead a 13-person panel tasked with suggesting structural changes to the women’s tennis calendar, ranking points rules, and competition requirements. She is now applying that same organizational rigor to the prize money dispute, reaching out to top players on both the men’s and women’s sides to build a coalition.
The Power of the World No. 1s
While Pegula handles the organizing, the movement relies on the visibility of the sport’s biggest stars to force the hand of the governing bodies. The recent outspokenness of Aryna Sabalenka, who suggested a potential boycott, and Jannik Sinner, who highlighted a lack of respect from organizers, has provided the necessary leverage.
According to Pegula, the vocal support of the top-ranked players is the only way to ensure the administration listens. “At the end of the day, the players are the ones that have the considerable voices,” she said. “It’s been nice to see Aryna and Jannik kind of step out. I know a lot of other players feel the same way. But to have the two No. 1s very outspoken about it, that’s kind of what it takes to get them to listen.”
The players’ efforts are not new; a group of top athletes sent a formal letter to the heads of the four Grand Slams a year ago seeking both higher prize money and a greater say in the decision-making processes of the sport. However, the response has been largely insufficient in the eyes of the players.
As of now, organizers at the French Open have not responded to requests for comment regarding the alleged revenue share decline. Similarly, Pegula noted that the players have yet to receive a response from the All England Club regarding the upcoming Wimbledon announcement.
The next critical checkpoint for the movement will occur next month, when Wimbledon is scheduled to announce its prize money for the upcoming season. This announcement will likely determine whether the current tension escalates into the boycott threatened by the world’s top-ranked players.
We want to hear from you. Do you think professional tennis should adopt a revenue-sharing model similar to the NFL or NBA? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
