The Australian Open men’s and women’s singles champions this weekend will each pocket a cool $3.5 million.
Their vanquished final opponents will console themselves with a $1.9 million reward, while even first-round “losers” took home $132,000.
Total prizemoney for the Melbourne-based grand slam increased by almost 12 per cent from last year’s event to $96.5 million. That figure was only $44 million in 2016, but spiked by 36 per cent across the past five editions.
Madison Keys finally broke through to win her first major at this year’s Australian Open.Credit: Eddie Jim
There is an arms race across the four majors – Roland-Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open being the others – to position themselves as the biggest, best and most lucrative, so record prizemoney is an annual headline.
On a global tour, with seven governing bodies, that effectively runs all year round, the slams are where the overwhelming majority of revenue is generated.
It is also part of why tennis’ revenue model, and how much is distributed to the stars of the show – the players – is such a complicated topic.
Novak Djokovic’s Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) placed player revenue share at 17.5 per cent in 2021, behind the likes of golf (22.6 per cent), Major League Baseball and NFL (both 47 per cent), and the National Hockey League and NBA (both 50 per cent).
The AFL (32 per cent) and NRL (41 per cent) fit somewhere in between.
The WTA disputes that PTPA player revenue percentage, at least in the current environment, saying it is actually higher than that – but did not offer an alternate figure.
Tennis Australia did not respond to this masthead’s questions, including what the Australian Open’s player revenue share is; where the tournament’s revenue goes; whether the organisation’s lead-in events make a profit; and if there were plans or strategies in place to increase player revenue share.
The widely accepted view is that the player revenue share at the grand slams sits below, or at about, 20 per cent.
The players’ share
This masthead asked Djokovic about tennis’ player revenue share ahead of the Australian Open, and his stance on the topic has not budged.
However, just like the ATP and WTA, Djokovic accepts that his sport’s situation is “quite different” and “fragmented” compared to, say, American sports for various reasons, including because it is played internationally.
Having so many governing bodies – the tours, plus the ITF and the four majors – adds complexity, as does tournament ownership.
The ATP and WTA – which are in negotiations about merging – govern their respective events, but they are owned by different parties, from federations to management companies and businessmen.
“The revenue share is quite different in grand slams and a 250 [level] event, for example, which is quite different than the major American sports, where it’s all under USA law and legislation,” Djokovic said.
“You have a player union there. They can, obviously, under their regulations and laws, negotiate the terms. It’s quite different with us.
“It actually was one of the reasons why PTPA was formed; to represent better players’ rights and voices, because I don’t think that’s been done to the level that is satisfactory with ATP and WTA over the years.”
Serbian superstar Novak Djokovic bowed out of the Australian Open at the semi-final stage in 2025.Credit: AP
Three of the four grand slams are owned by federations, while the All England Lawn Tennis Club gave the country’s Lawn Tennis Association £61 million (more than $120 million) after record financial figures at Wimbledon last year.
As federations, they have a responsibility to develop the game, so that is a significant factor in how the profits from grand slams are distributed.
Both the ATP and WTA, which this masthead contacted for comment, highlighted that tennis players were “independent contractors” with greater control and freedom to commercialise their assets, grow their brands and largely choose their schedule than team sport athletes.
What are the tours doing?
There are initiatives underway, or committed to, at ATP and WTA level to try and improve players’ position.
The ongoing merger talks could also buoy player fortunes, particularly on the women’s side.
The ATP’s OneVision strategy includes the new Baseline program, which guarantees an annual minimum income for the top 250 players for the first time.
The men’s tour announced in December that it paid $1.3 million to 26 players in the program’s inaugural year, and will raise the guaranteed minimum thresholds in 2025 for singles players ranked 101-175 to $US200,000, and 176-250 to $US100,000, if they contest a minimum of 15 events.
The threshold for top-100 players is $US300,000. Trying to find ways for more tennis players to make a genuine living is a long-time challenge.
The WTA assessed having a Baseline equivalent, but determined it did not align with its needs or make the required impact. But the women’s tour has committed to equal prizemoney with male peers for all WTA 1000 and 500 combined tournaments by 2027, and single-week WTA 1000 and 500 events by 2033.
As part of the ATP’s strategy, the tour also moved to a 50-50 profit-sharing model three years ago for its nine Masters 1000s. The split involves all profits except data revenue.
The plan is to eventually do this across all ATP events.
Are there solutions?
Melbourne-based tournament director Peter Johnston, who oversees an ATP-WTA event in Hong Kong, an ATP tournament in Hangzhou, and the Kooyong Classic, which returns next year, believes the grand slams hold the key to increasing players’ revenue.
Johnston would like to see each major slash up to 10 per cent off its budgeted prizemoney that can instead be redistributed to create more Challenger-level tournaments and opportunities for players.
In his view, this would be of greater benefit to more players than select individuals earning extra money for a first-round defeat at a grand slam.
“The missing link is the slams collaborating on the year-round revenue raising,” Johnston told this masthead.
“The overall problem in tennis is that there’s not enough revenue year-round for tournaments. Women are too often competing for between $200,000-$275,000, and the Challengers are low, and the Futures even lower.
“How do you combat that? One of the roadblocks is that everyone is, to a large degree, protecting their own interests. It is really complex, but the only way forward is a collaborative approach from the slams.”
Watch the Australian Open live & free on the 9Network & 9Now. Stan Sport is the only place to watch every match ad-free, live & on demand.
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport are sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.
