Wimbledon braces – Jamie Murray says top players feel underpaid and want a bigger share of Grand Slam revenue, after French Open protests over prize-money sparked a nervous wait for Wimbledon’s announced figures this week.
The timing is what makes Wimbledon uneasy: the row didn’t start in south-west London, but it feels like it’s walking there. All eyes turn to the All England Club on Thursday, when the prize-money for this year’s Championships is revealed — and when one recent flashpoint can’t be ignored.
Jamie Murray, 40, is in a rare position to talk about both sides. A seven-time Grand Slam doubles champion. he has not been competing since April and now runs tournaments rather than playing them. Since 2024. he has also been tournament director of the men’s HSBC Championships at Queen’s Club. giving him a close view of how the sport pays athletes across different levels.
Murray’s instinct is clear: he says he will “always” fall on players’ side — but he also understands why this debate has become so sharp. He points to the effort it takes to get through the early rounds at the Slams. For many players, the work runs long enough to reach the main draw, then ends quickly. Even when the run is brief, the earning still doesn’t match what they argue they should receive.
“For eight weeks’ work — it’s not even that for many because they lose in the first round — for four days’ work they’re earning pretty much half their prize-money for the year,” Murray said. “That’s a lot!”
The numbers he cites underscore why the anger has gained momentum. Last year, Wimbledon paid out £3million each for the men’s and women’s champions, and £66,000 to first-round losers. In total, Murray notes that a player who lost in the first round of all four Grand Slams would have earned £285,500.
Murray also argues that players’ sense of value is difficult to translate into a single figure. “For a long time the players were underpaid by the Slams and the tours,” he said. “But in the 20 years I’ve been on tour it’s night and day what they earn today. It’s hard to put a number on what their value is to the tournament.”.
He is still prepared to defend the wider investment that has lifted the players’ experience. “What I would also say is, since I started playing in 2006, the amount of investment that has gone into these tournaments — it’s such a better experience now for the players.”
The pressure point, though, is tied to the same moment that brought the protest energy back into public view. At the French Open. several players — including world No 1s Jannik Sinner and Aryna Sabalenka — restricted their pre-tournament press conferences to 15 minutes. It was done in protest at the 15 per cent of revenue given in prize-money.
Wimbledon, meanwhile, is working from a different starting point. Wimbledon’s prize-money last year worked out as 13 per cent of total revenue. After talks in Paris. the All England Club are confident there will be no repeat of the player protests — but the issue has already proved it can spill over beyond one venue.
Murray links the backlash at Roland Garros to the gap between revenue growth and player earnings. “The French Open were getting a lot of grief because they didn’t increase their prize-money in line with revenue. ” he said. The players’ claim is that French Open revenue increased by 14 per cent, while player prize-money only went up 5.4 per cent.
What the top players want now is specific. They are demanding the Slams increase prize-money to match the 22 per cent of revenue awarded by the regular-tour events. The main difference is the business model behind each pot of money: those events are run as businesses. for profit. while the Grand Slams finance grass-roots tennis.
Wimbledon’s own structure sits at the centre of this dispute. Murray points out that Wimbledon gives 90 per cent of its profit to the LTA, who run the sport in Britain. Last year, that split worked out as £48.1m to the LTA and £53.5m in prize-money.
Put simply. Wimbledon is now heading into its Thursday announcement knowing what happened at the French Open wasn’t just about one press conference or one tournament. It was about the shared belief among top players that the prize-money percentage doesn’t match the revenue they say the sport generates—an argument Jamie Murray admits he understands. even as he hopes it doesn’t turn into another public standoff at Wimbledon.
Wimbledon tennis civil war Jamie Murray prize money French Open protest Jannik Sinner Aryna Sabalenka All England Club LTA HSBC Championships Queen's Club
So they want more money but Wimbledon is already rich as hell.
I don’t even watch tennis like that but the headline sounds like the players are shocked they don’t get paid like they’re champions the whole time. If they lose first round, do they just get nothing? Seems backwards though.
Jamie Murray saying “always” side with players is kinda rich considering he’s a former champion and now in tournament director stuff. Also like… if the tournament pays first-round losers 66k, that’s not nothing. But then again I’m not sure what the article means by the half their prize-money for the year part so whatever.
Wimbledon bracing makes it sound like there’s gonna be chaos again like the French Open protests. Tennis people protest and then Wimbledon gets nervous, okay. But aren’t the sponsors the ones getting the real money? I just don’t get why players can’t negotiate before all this, because timing is “walking there”??