Aryna Sabalenka says players may boycott if Grand Slam revenue sharing and benefits do not improve.
A top tennis voice is pushing the sport toward a showdown over money, with Aryna Sabalenka saying players may eventually choose a boycott.
World No 1 Sabalenka made the case alongside other leading figures as Misryoum reports that a group of top-ranked players issued a statement marked by “deep disappointment” about prize money at the French Open.. Sabalenka, speaking ahead of the Italian Open, argued that players drive the product fans watch and should be paid more.
The message is not just about one tournament. It also reflects a wider demand for better representation, improved health options and pension protections tied to tennis’ four Grand Slam events, including the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open.
In this context, the word “boycott” lands differently than a standard complaint: it signals that players are weighing whether collective action could outweigh the risks of staying in place.
Misryoum notes that French Open organizers previously announced an increase to overall prize money, including a rise in the total pot. However, the players’ statement said the underlying breakdown points to a smaller share for competitors, even as the headline figure grows.
The players also highlighted a specific decline in their projected share of Roland Garros revenue. That emphasis on percentages, rather than total amounts, helps explain why the group is framing the issue as a fairness problem, not merely a growth story.
For many athletes, these kinds of revenue details shape more than paychecks. They influence bargaining power, career planning and long-term security in a sport where expenses and health risks are constant.
Another key voice, Iga Swiatek, urged a more measured approach, stressing that communication with governing bodies and space to negotiate could be a better path. She described boycotting a tournament as an extreme step.
Still, Sabalenka’s view is clear: she believes the players should use pressure tactics if discussions do not lead to meaningful change. The statement, and the public disagreement on tactics, sets up a tense period ahead of major events.
Ultimately, this debate matters because it touches how tennis defines “value” and who gets to negotiate the terms. If players move from demands to coordinated action, the impact will extend far beyond the next paycheck at any single Grand Slam.