Aryna Sabalenka and Jannik Sinner have cut short Wimbledon media duties as protests over prize money and a players’ council extend into the first week. Wimbledon says it was surprised and disappointed after the tournament increased prize money by 20% to £64.2m
The message was clear even before the first ball was struck: at Wimbledon, the fight over money is now traveling with the players into the days when broadcasters most need them.
Two of tennis’ biggest stars. world No1 Jannik Sinner and Aryna Sabalenka. cut short their Wimbledon media duties as part of a protest tied to demands for a bigger share of prize money. The move will drag beyond a single pre-tournament appearance and spill into post-match commitments throughout the first week at the All England Club—exactly when interviews are supposed to flow.
Wimbledon’s broadcasting problem is most acute for the BBC. which pays more than £60m a year for the rights but may be left unable to speak to the world’s best players if they keep restricting access. It is a sharp contrast to a prize-money increase Wimbledon already put on the table: Wimbledon has bumped up its prize money by 20%—the biggest rise in its history—to £64.2m. If Sinner or Sabalenka wins the singles title in a fortnight, each would take home £3.6m.
Wimbledon said publicly that it was “surprised and disappointed” by the decision from the players’ group led by former WTA chief Larry Scott, who is acting as chief negotiator. Behind the scenes, senior figures are understood to be furious.
The players’ approach was tested at the French Open just last month. There. top stars restricted their press conferences to just 15 minutes. a nod to the 15% of revenue they receive at Grand Slams. This time, the protest has been widened in time and in reach. Players’ demands are now being felt not only on media day, but during the tournament itself.
Sabalenka’s answers during Wimbledon’s media sessions made the tension tangible. When asked about prize money “over the last 10 years. ” she said it’s “kind of. like. stayed the same. ” before attempting to align with the players’ negotiating line from Scott’s group. But Wimbledon’s own numbers tell a different story: in 2016, overall prize money was £28.1m and the winner received £2m.
The players have framed their argument around revenue percentages. They say Wimbledon’s share of revenue allocated to prize money has fallen, from 14.9% a decade ago to a projected 14.4% now, and they want 16%. If they got their way, Wimbledon prize money would rise to around £71m.
When Wimbledon’s side points to progress—and to the idea that the dispute should not have to keep returning—Sabalenka offered the same kind of non-specific reassurance. She said the players are “very well informed. ” and that she hopes they will “sit at a table and going to negotiate something” so they never have to come back to “boycotting media” or “boycotting any tournament.” Again. details were thin.
She insisted the protest is not for personal gain, adding that she believes the crowd will understand. But the numbers show why it is also hard for the public—and broadcasters—to feel convinced. First-round losers receive £80,000, and Sabalenka and Sinner earned more than £25m between them in prize money in 2025.
For Sabalenka, the press conference itself didn’t last long. After eight minutes she cut it short, saying: “Last one, sorry, unfortunately, I have to go. I’m so sorry, guys.” In a set-up built around access, it landed like a refusal to open the door.
Sinner’s stance was even more blunt in its refusal to entertain debate. At his media theatre session. the moderator announced that this would be a shorter press conference and that “Jannik will be timing himself.” When questions tried to dig into the dispute. Sinner shut them down twice. admitting Wimbledon’s prize rise was an “improvement” while still blocking deeper discussion.
When asked why the players were not taking up Wimbledon’s offer of a player council. Sabalenka did not answer directly. Felix Auger-Aliassime instead pointed to longer-term structure. saying: “That is something we are looking to do in the future. for the players to have a voice at the table with the Grand Slams. I know Wimbledon is ready to do so. You don’t set that up in a day.” Wimbledon had proposed that council in December.
Sinner avoided the subject in a similar tone. “I think it’s better if we don’t discuss here,” he said when asked about the player council. He then dismissed why the boycott continued despite signs of progress, telling media: “I think we talked enough about this. The Grand Slams know what we ask, then we see how it goes. I’m here now to talk about tennis.”.
Daniil Medvedev did engage, but his message reinforced how far apart the sides appear. He said: “We’re not accountants, we can just process information that we’re getting from either Wimbledon or Larry. From what we are seeing. the percentage of the revenue is lower than it was 10 years ago. meaning we’re kind of getting even less money. At least that’s the info we’re getting so that’s why we’re pushing for just having something more fair that we think is fair.”.
Alexander Zverev and Alex De Minaur offered a visible split in the players’ camp. After being one of the strikers in Paris, Zverev spoke to the media for more than 30 minutes. De Minaur also did the same at Roland Garros but changed his stance at Wimbledon. “I thought that Wimbledon made a big step in the right direction and something that should be noted. ” De Minaur said. “It felt like it was a way for me to acknowledge their big step, right?. We’re still probably hoping as a whole that we eventually get to that number. but this is by no means a small step. right?”.
That contrast adds weight to the sense that the dispute is not simply about the numbers—it is about trust, timing, and how far players are willing to compromise when negotiations remain unresolved.
The argument has already overshadowed the start of the French Open, and it threatens to do the same at Wimbledon. It could also carry into the US Open, where top players consider boycotting the showcase mixed doubles event.
Wimbledon’s response keeps returning to what it sees as a flawed measuring stick. The tournament believes using revenue as the barometer is arbitrary because it ignores the hundreds of millions spent on development of player facilities. Wimbledon also says some revenue is ring-fenced for such things. It points out that. unlike regular tour events. Wimbledon gives the lion’s share of its profits to the LTA to help with grassroots tennis.
Tim Henman. a former British No1 and now an AELTC board member who was involved in the discussions. offered a blunt defence of the model. “Wimbledon gives 90 per cent of its profit away – there’s no one getting rich at Wimbledon. ” he told Daily Mail Sport. He added: “Wimbledon has been around for 150 years. and I think it’s safe to say they’ve done a pretty good job. It’s a business model that works, and I think willcontinue to work.”.
The problem for Wimbledon—and for the broadcasters paying for access—is that the players’ restrictions are now built into the rhythm of the tournament. When world No1s walk out early and conferences end after minutes. the dispute stops being a headline about negotiations and starts shaping what fans will actually hear. match after match. in the opening week.
Wimbledon Aryna Sabalenka Jannik Sinner BBC rights prize money Larry Scott player council protests French Open 15 minutes Tim Henman AELTC Medvedev De Minaur Zverev Auger-Aliassime