Consequently, “the quality (of the game, Editor’s note) has dropped,” he judged.
“The biggest bullshit”
In October, French tennis No. 1 Ugo Humbert had already accused the ATP, organizer of most of the tournaments on the calendar, of “never” going in the direction of the players.
“The biggest bullshit is having put the Masters 1000 over two weeks,” said the recent finalist of the Masters 1000 in Paris, one of the rare ones to be played over a week, in an interview with the Tennis Majors media.
“They tell us that we earn more money but that is not true, we have twice as many costs” due to the longer stay on site. And “there are a lot more guys who get injured”, according to the left-hander from Metz.
Organized in March, the first two Masters 1000 of the season (Indian Wells and Miami) have long been spread over two weeks.
But what was an exception is becoming the norm, with the extension to 12 days of competition of the Masters 1000 in Rome, Madrid and Shanghai since 2023 and that planned for 2025 of the Masters 1000 in Cincinnati and Canada.
” Consistency “
Among the nine Masters 1000 of the 2025 season, only those of Monte-Carlo in the spring and Paris in the fall will retain the historic format of a week of competition.
In an assessment of these developments presented at the beginning of October, the ATP assured that the extension of these tournaments made it possible to bring more players into the tables (96 instead of 56), to increase their remuneration and to improve the “experience” of the spectators.
In 2023, the Masters 1000 prize pools jumped to exceed $70 million compared to $55.6 million in 2022, an increase “driven by the extension of the tables in Madrid, Rome and Shanghai”, according to the ATP.
“Larger draws bring more money to more players, in line with the ATP’s objective of increasing the number of players who can make a decent living from tennis,” the body further argued.
For world No.1 Jannik Sinner, each player also remains free to play certain tournaments or not.
“You have to make choices (…) These last two years, I skipped tournaments because I wanted to train,” he said in September.
An argument contested by former world No.1 Andy Roddick, now retired from the courts.
“We’re desperately trying to find space in the schedule and what do we do? We are extending (almost, Editor’s note) all the Masters 1000 to two weeks,” the American regretted Wednesday in a podcast.
However, the ATP is not the only one responsible for the embolism of the calendar.
Like the Six Kings Slam, a lucrative unofficial tournament which brought together six stars of the circuit in mid-October in Saudi Arabia (including world No. 1 and 3 Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz), exhibitions are multiplying.
A few days after the exhibition in Saudi Arabia, the title holder Novak Djokovic then Jannik Sinner withdrew from the Masters 1000 in Paris.
For tournament director Cédric Pioline, “everyone must have consistency. On the one hand we complain that there are a lot of tournaments and on the other we do even more,” underlines the former world No.5.
The Masters 1000: A Comedy of Errors or Just Bad Scheduling?
Well, here we are! Gather around, tennis enthusiasts and casual viewers alike, as we dive into this juicy saga of the ever-dramatic ATP Tour. Ugo Humbert, the French tennis darling and recent finalist at the Masters 1000 in Paris, has decided to crank up the drama for all of us. “The biggest bullshit,” he exclaimed regarding the decision to stretch the Masters 1000 tournaments over two whole weeks. And honestly, we can’t help but agree—who wouldn’t mind a little less ‘bull’ and a little more ‘serve’?
Short and Sweet vs. Long and Boring
Picture this: you’re a player at an elite level, just trying to smash your way through a match, but no, instead, you’re stuck on site longer than a bad date that just won’t end! Ugo’s hitting the nail on the head here, folks. The idea that extending tournaments breaks the bank (more costs, folks!) while claiming you’re filling players’ pockets with cash is like saying a tennis ball is an infallible GPS device: simply not true!
“We earn more money,” they tell these players, followed by cackles unseen since Gervais himself unleashed an eye-rolling punchline. Meanwhile, all Humbert can see is his bank account resembling his trophy cabinet—trophy-less, and his expenses ballooning faster than Lee Evans’ physical comedy in a too-small suit!
Tennis’ New Normal: Stretching the Stretched
Now, let’s talk consistency—or rather, the glaring inconsistency in choosing which tournaments retain their one-week format. Come 2025, the ATP will be a veritable buffet of extended tournaments, while poor Monte-Carlo and Paris are left holding the short straw like they’re in some kind of strange celebrity poker game where nobody calls and all bets are off.
And with the prize pools soaring to over $70 million this year, we might ask ourselves if that money is going into the pockets of the players or merely toppling up the ATP’s champagne budget? I imagine a room full of ATP executives clinking glasses, declaring, “Don’t mind the players; we’ve added more seats to the free-for-all!” Ah yes, the glorious choice to play or not, as Jannik Sinner puts it. It’s a classic case of ‘Do I want the headache of injury participation or the blistering brilliance of training?’ Tough call, mate!
Exhibitions and the Calendar Chaos
And while we’re gossiping about the expanded tournaments, let’s not forget the exhibition events popping up like weeds after a rainy day. Who needs a structured calendar when you can have a convoluted circus of exhibition matches? It’s become as chaotic as a Lee Evans stand-up routine, and I can’t help but think: what’s next, a tennis match held on top of a moving bus? Oh wait, give it a sec; someone in the ATP is probably scribbling that down right now!
A Punchline in the Making
So what does all this mean for the future of tennis? Are we witnessing the slow descent into madness where players have to pick and choose their battles—like Roddick lamenting over the ‘embolism of the schedule’? Or will cooler heads prevail, leading to a glorious Renaissance where the ATP listens, aligns with Ugo Humbert, and perhaps lightens the load?
For now, the ATP stands at a crossroads, trying to balance the ‘more is merrier’ mantra against the fine line of player welfare. Tune in next week, folks, as we find out if the Masters 1000 evolves into a masterstroke of scheduling or merely a joke that’s gone too far!
Consequently, he assessed that the overall “quality of the game has dropped significantly.” This reflects concerns within the sport about the impact of scheduling and competition formats on performance.
“The biggest bullshit”
In October, French tennis No. 1 Ugo Humbert vocally accused the ATP, the governing body responsible for organizing the majority of professional tournaments, of “never” aligning its decisions with the interests of the players. This criticism emphasizes a growing frustration among athletes regarding the administrative decisions made by the ATP.
“The biggest bullshit is having put the Masters 1000 over two weeks,” declared Humbert, who was a recent finalist at the Masters 1000 in Paris, one of the rare events still held over a single week. He shared these sentiments during an interview with the Tennis Majors media, highlighting the disillusionment among players about the current tournament structure.
“They claim that we earn more money, but that is not true; we have twice as many costs” associated with the extended duration of tournaments due to accommodations and travel. Furthermore, he pointed out, “there are a lot more guys who get injured,” illustrating the complications players face with prolonged schedules.
Historically held in March, the first two Masters 1000 tournaments of the season—Indian Wells and Miami—have long operated over two weeks, setting a precedent for future events. However, this trend is expanding, with the Masters 1000 in Rome, Madrid, and Shanghai now also extending to 12 days of competition. The ATP has plans for a similar extension for the Masters 1000 in Cincinnati and Canada by 2025, signaling a shift in tournament scheduling.
“Consistency”
As it stands, among the nine Masters 1000 events scheduled for the 2025 season, only the tournaments in Monte-Carlo during the spring and Paris in the fall will maintain the traditional single-week format, showcasing a move towards a different competition milieu.
In a review of these changes presented in early October, the ATP emphasized that the longer tournament formats allow for a greater number of players—96 instead of 56—to participate, which ultimately increases their remuneration and enhances the overall “experience” for spectators attending the events.
The prize pools for Masters 1000 events dramatically surged in 2023, surpassing $70 million, an increase from $55.6 million in 2022. The ATP indicated that this financial growth was “driven by the extension of the tables in Madrid, Rome, and Shanghai,” which was part of a concerted effort to increase monetary rewards across the board.
According to the ATP, “larger draws bring more money to more players,” which aligns with its objectives of ensuring a higher number of players can sustain a decent living through professional tennis.
For current world No.1 Jannik Sinner, he noted that every player has the autonomy to choose which tournaments to enter. “You have to make choices…These last two years, I skipped tournaments because I wanted to train,” he remarked in September, illustrating the strategic considerations that players must balance.
This viewpoint stands in contrast to that of former world No.1 Andy Roddick, who has since retired and passionately criticized the current scheduling. “We’re desperately trying to find space in the schedule and what do we do? We are extending almost all the Masters 1000 to two weeks,” he lamented in a recent podcast, reflecting the widespread concern about the congested tournament calendar.
However, the ATP cannot shoulder all the blame for the congested schedule. The rise of lucrative unofficial tournaments, such as the Six Kings Slam—an exhibition that featured top stars like Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz in mid-October in Saudi Arabia—illustrates how the calendar is further complicated by the proliferation of exhibition matches.
Just a few days after the exhibition in Saudi Arabia, title holder Novak Djokovic and Jannik Sinner withdrew from the Masters 1000 in Paris, raising questions about player availability amidst an overloaded calendar. In light of these developments, tournament director Cédric Pioline asserted that “everyone must have consistency.” He pointedly remarked that while there are ongoing complaints about the multitude of tournaments, the ATP continues to add more, emphasizing the need for balance and structure within the tennis season.
Ore players, in line with the ATP’s objective of increasing the number of players who can make a decent living from tennis.” This is a noble goal, but does it really translate into better experiences and incomes for the players involved?
### The Costs of Longer Tournaments
Ugo Humbert’s comments highlight a significant concern among tennis players regarding the costs associated with longer tournaments. While the ATP touts the benefits of larger draws and increased prize money, Humbert insists that for many players, especially those not consistently reaching the later rounds, the financial burden of prolonged stays—accommodation, food, travel—can quickly negate any potential earnings. This brings us to a critical point: is the ATP really looking out for player welfare, or is it just expanding its brand and revenue at the players’ expense?
### The Issue of Player Choices
Adding to the complexity of this situation is the notion of player choice. As world No. 1 Jannik Sinner pointed out, players have the freedom to select their tournaments. However, this idea of choice becomes fraught with complications in a packed schedule filled with elongated events. It often boils down to whether a player prioritizes potential earnings or their health and training. With injuries and burnout on the rise, the freedoms players are given can feel more like a double-edged sword than a blessing.
### The Bigger Picture: A Broken System?
The expansion of tournament durations and the simultaneous rise of exhibition matches has resulted in a convoluted calendar, leaving many players perplexed. As Andy Roddick pointedly criticized, extending events while trying to streamline a busy schedule seems contradictory. The concern is that the ATP is sacrificing the integrity and sustainability of the sport for immediate financial gains and visibility.
Additionally, while exhibition matches can be lucrative, they add to the fatigue players feel from an already grueling schedule. The increase in these unofficial events creates an overwhelming landscape where players must choose between potentially lucrative exhibitions and traditional tournaments, further complicating their professional choices.
### Looking Ahead: Finding Balance
The ATP and its stakeholders need to seriously evaluate the implications of these scheduling changes. It is crucial to strike a balance between financial incentives and player welfare. Failure to do so could lead to a situation where the quality of the sport deteriorates, as players are forced to sit out or withdraw due to injury or exhaustion.
So, what lies ahead for the ATP and its players? Will they heed the voices of discontent rising from the courts? Or will we witness a continuation of scheduling chaos that prioritizes profit over the well-being and longevity of the sport? As we continue to observe these developments, the hope is that a structured yet adaptable approach will emerge, ultimately benefiting both the players and the sport they love.
