Wimbledon organizers said Wednesday they were surprised and disappointed that leading players intend to continue their protest over prize money and revenue sharing despite the tournament announcing a record increase in its financial rewards for competitors.
The dispute centers on growing demands from players for a larger share of Grand Slam revenues. Earlier this month, the All England Club unveiled a record total prize fund of £64.2 million ($87 million), representing a 20% increase from the previous year. While the increase was one of the largest in tournament history, it still fell short of the approximately £70 million sought by player representatives.
A group of leading players, advised by former WTA chief executive Larry Scott, has argued that Grand Slam events should distribute a greater percentage of tournament revenues to competitors, similar to the revenue-sharing models used at ATP and WTA Tour events.
In a statement released Wednesday, the All England Club defended its position and emphasized the investments it continues to make in both players and the broader sport.
“Wimbledon puts the players at the heart of all our decisions and we invest significantly in them every year,” the organization said.
Tournament officials also pointed to hundreds of millions of pounds spent on upgrading player facilities as part of a multi-year redevelopment project designed to create what they described as a world-class performance environment.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate within professional tennis about how revenues generated by the sport’s most prestigious events should be distributed.
Under the current structure, Wimbledon’s prize fund represents roughly 15% of tournament revenues. Player representatives have reportedly requested that figure rise to at least 16%, arguing that athletes should receive a greater share of the financial benefits generated by Grand Slam tournaments.
Wimbledon chair Debbie Jevans addressed the issue earlier this month, saying she had discussed the matter directly with Scott during the French Open.
Jevans argued that using revenue alone as the basis for calculating player compensation fails to account for the tournament’s broader commitments.
“Using revenue to determine prize money makes no sense and we have said that to Larry Scott,” Jevans said. “Revenue does not take into account the investment that we give.”
She also noted that Wimbledon operates differently from many other major tournaments because the All England Club is a not-for-profit organization and reinvests much of its surplus into British tennis development programs.
According to Jevans, approximately 90% of Wimbledon’s surplus revenue is distributed back into the sport across Britain, supporting grassroots initiatives, facilities and future player development.
The dispute first became highly visible during the French Open earlier this month when several top-ranked players reduced their mandatory media obligations as a form of protest.
Women’s world No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka notably cut short her pre-tournament press conference, while leading stars including Jannik Sinner and Iga Świątek also limited their media appearances.
Reports have suggested that some players have even discussed the possibility of a future boycott if negotiations over revenue sharing fail to progress.
The latest plans indicate that the protest could continue at Wimbledon. Saturday traditionally serves as the tournament’s pre-event media day, but several players are expected to limit their media sessions to 15 minutes.
According to multiple reports, players are also considering restricting post-match press conferences to the same duration throughout the opening week of the Championships.
The 15-minute limit is symbolic. Players are using the figure to highlight what they say is the approximately 15% share of Wimbledon’s revenue currently allocated to prize money.
Despite the growing tension, neither side has indicated a willingness to escalate the dispute beyond symbolic actions at this stage. Tournament organizers maintain that the record prize fund demonstrates their commitment to players, while athletes continue to argue that compensation has not kept pace with the commercial growth of the sport.
With Wimbledon set to begin next week, the issue is likely to remain a prominent storyline alongside the on-court competition. The dispute comes at a time when tennis is enjoying strong commercial growth, rising media revenues and increased global audiences, intensifying scrutiny over how those financial gains are shared among the sport’s stakeholders.
For now, both organizers and players appear determined to hold their positions, setting the stage for further discussions over the future economics of professional tennis even as the world’s most famous grass-court tournament gets underway.
