All eyes are on Wimbledon, but in the background there is yet another war brewing and this time it involves the world’s best doubles players.
As it has been reported by media outlets such as Spazio Tennis and Bounces, the ATP wants to overhall the current doubles structure with a goal of doing so in 2028. Their proposal, outlined in a meeting earlier this week, involves changing the prize money share between singles and doubles from 80-20 to 90-10. As a result, the draw sizes will be reduced to 16 teams at Masters 1000s and to eight teams at other events. This will also have an inevitable impact on the ranking system.
Calvin Betton is a renowned British doubles coach who trains Henry Patten, the world No.1 in men’s doubles and two-time Grand Slam champion. He also coaches world No. 51 Luke Johnson, who lost his opening match at Wimbledon on Wednesday.
As doubles face an uncertain future in men’s tennis, Betton spoke with Ubitennis about the current situation in an extraordinary interview.
UBITENNIS: So the rumoured proposals for doubles are less prize money, reduced draws and a small share of the prize money distribution. What is your reaction to this?
BETTON: I think it’s quite disgusting, to be honest, for numerous reasons. For starters, We’ve had no real indication as to what the motivation behind it is, who exactly benefits from it, other than a few singles players who are already the richest in the world, which are the ones in the Top 70s or so. Therefore, I find it quite contemptuous. There are three major problems I have with it.
One is that it’s been brought about by the ATP, the Association of Tennis Professionals, who are supposed to represent tennis professionals, and it’s not the Association of Singles Players.
They’re supposed to represent doubles players as well. They’re actively trying to take livelihoods away from a load of tennis players here. I think that, in particular, it is disgusting.
At the same time, we keep hearing that not enough people make a living out of tennis. Compared to all of the major sports, there are way fewer people who make a living out of tennis. If you take just the men’s side of the game, there’s only about, I’m going to say, 150 singles players who make a living, but it’s probably about 50 doubles players who make a living independently of anything like sponsorships. If we take this away, if this happens, we’re not adding any people who make a living; we’re taking away 50.
Because you’re not creating any more single players who make a living, because this money would be going to the single players who already make a fortune. And I find that, again, I find it just a bizarre thing to do.
The public is still going to pay the same amount of money for tickets. Yesterday I was in Wimbledon, on the outside courts from the third day, about 50% of the matches were doubles. Once you get into the fifth day, it’s around 80% of the matches are doubles. The same in the Masters Series. If you lose these tennis matches on the court, people are still paying this money.
I find it utterly contemptuous of the fans and the paying public that these people are going to charge them the same amount of money, and offer them fewer products and expect them to be happy with it (if the changes happen).
UBITENNIS: If this does happen, what will happen with the ranking system?
BETTON: There just wouldn’t be any doubles because there wouldn’t be any tournaments for people to play. There will be probably be 20 doubles players at the most. Then nobody else would be able to break in because they are going to take the draws down to eight teams, and hardly anybody is going to get in. The preference is going to go to the singles ranking. There will be no doubles players, and I find that utterly bizarre.
They are saying things like the doubles players have got too good. So we need to get rid of them. The doubles specialists have got too good at what they do and that means the singles players are not winning enough doubles matches.
This happens in no other sport.
UBITENNIS: One argument is the doubles is too expensive and needs to be more cost-effective.
BETTON: It’s nonsense. They keep saying that doubles doesn’t generate any revenue. There is no way of determining that. What I do know is that if you’re going to sell grounds passes for tennis tournaments, after the first couple of days, most of the tennis is doubles on the outside courts.
When they say doubles doesn’t sell tickets. There are two tennis players in the world that sell tickets – Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz. With all due respect to Ben Shelton, Alexander Zverev etc, no one buys tickets to watch those two. The public buys a ticket to watch tennis because they like tennis.
If you want to sell merchandise or food and drink, you have to have tennis on the outside courts. people on Center court are just there to watch tennis.
UBITENNIS: It is a tricky situation.
BETTON: The ATP has not only refused to promote doubles, they have prevented doubles promoting their own product.They won’t let them use their own videos on Instagram because you can only use videos Tennis TV shows. About two years ago doubles players asked the ATP to run their own doubles Instgram account and the ATP flat out refused to let them do that. They even said they would pay for it themselves and have a professional come in to run their social media account. They didn’t ask for any money.
UBITENNIS: But why would they do this, it doesn’t seem very logical?
BETTON: They want to get rid of it. All of this stuff about it doesn’t generate revenue is because they want to pay those singles players more money and that is what I find particular disgusting.
We were told yesterday in one of the meetings that the 70th best tennis player in singles shouldn’t be earning less than the top doubles players. I don’t know why 70 is the reason but Jenson Brooksby is ranked 77th in the world. Going into this week, he has won six tennis matches and earned $550,000. Are we saying that this isn’t enough for somebody who has won six tennis matches in six months? This is just an example.
UBITENNIS: What about the future in doubles at Grand Slams such as Wimbledon?
BETTON: I think Grand Slam still wants doubles, they still want tennis on. I’m not as worried but you can’t just have doubles at Grand Slams because there will be no doubles players if the ATP gets rid of it. They are not going to play just four tournaments a year.
When people say doubles is unattainable, in what respect is it unstaintainable? If everything carries on as the same, what doesn’t sustain? To say something is unattainable it has to break down eventually.
UBITENNIS: So what happens now?
BETTON: The doubles players are discussing this and a statement will be coming out. They don’t want to make it singles players versus doubles players. They think both can co-exits, which they can as they co-exist at the moment.
I think it probably has to go down a legal route with the ATP because they keep trying this kind of thing. Nobody knows what the motivation is. Who does this benefit?
It’s doesn’t benefit the fans and that should be who we are looking at.
They want to take the prize money between singles and doubles from 80-20 to 90-10 with the extra 10 going towards the first round of the Masters.
You’re doing to get rid of the livelihood of a load of tennis players to give extra money to somebody who loses in the first round of a Masters.
I think there is an ulterior motive and some people just don’t like doubles. There are certain singles players who are already multi-millionaires that are complaining that the slams aren’t giving them enough money. They argue about revenue share and when you put it into a percentage they get some sympathy. But they never put it into an actual number.
Editor’s note: This interview outlines the views of Betton and others may have a different perspective. The ATP have increased their financial support to players in recent years through its ‘One Vision’ initiative, which has resulted in prize money increases across all levels of the Tour. In 2025, a record 88 players earned more than $1M in prize money. During this same season, the Masters 1000 profit-sharing model delivered $18.3 million to 186 players.
