Tennis Players Get 15% of Revenue. NBA Players Get 50%. The Sport That Looks Richest Pays Worst.

The $23 Cocktail and the Player Who Can't Afford Dinner

The 2026 US Open is underway at Flushing Meadows. The average ticket costs over $500. The signature cocktail — the Honey Deuce, a Grey Goose-based melon-garnished status drink — costs $23 and generated $17 million in 2025. That is $7 million more than the combined winner's prize for both singles champions.

This is a sport where the spectators' bar tab exceeds the champion's paycheque.

And yet tennis is widely perceived as a sport of wealth — Rolex sponsorships, white linen, members' clubs, and athletes who look like they've never worried about money. That perception has masked an economic reality that the Professional Tennis Players Association's anti-trust lawsuit has now forced into the open: tennis is one of the worst-paying major sports in the world relative to its revenue.

The Revenue Share: 15% vs 50%

Here is the number that explains everything:

In every major team sport, the athletes receive approximately half of the league's total revenue through collectively bargained agreements. In tennis — the sport that looks richest — players receive approximately one-seventh of Grand Slam revenue.

The difference is not marginal. It is structural. A sport generating billions in broadcast rights, ticket sales, sponsorships, and hospitality gives its athletes 15 cents of every dollar — while the tournaments, federations, and governing bodies keep 85.

The Gender Gap: Equal at the Top, Exploitative Below

Tennis is rightly celebrated as the first sport to achieve equal prize money for men and women at its most prestigious events. This did not happen voluntarily. It was fought for — by Billie Jean King in 1973 (US Open equal pay) and Venus Williams in 2006 (Wimbledon equal pay) — against institutional resistance at every step.

Since 2007, all four Grand Slams have paid men and women identically. This is real progress.

But below the Grand Slams, the gap persists — and the numbers are stark.

The WTA's media rights fees are reportedly approximately one-seventh of the ATP's. This disparity flows directly into tournament prize pools, sponsorship values, and ultimately player earnings.

The result: even in a year where a female player wins more titles, compiles a longer win streak, and loses fewer matches than her male counterpart — the man earns more. In 2022, Iga Świątek won two Grand Slams, compiled a 37-match win streak, won eight titles, and lost just nine matches across the entire season. Carlos Alcaraz won one major and lost more matches than Świątek. Alcaraz earned $10.1 million in prize money. Świątek earned $9.9 million.

The gap between the top-10 highest-earning men and women was 1.44x in 2007. By 2023, it had narrowed to 1.36x. At that rate of progress, pay parity across all events — not just Grand Slams — is decades away.

Below the Top 50: Where Tennis Becomes Unaffordable

The gender gap is significant. The gap between the top of the men's tour and the rest is catastrophic.

The cost of being a professional tennis player:

Former World No. 24 Sam Groth estimated that maintaining a career on tour costs approximately $200,000 per year — covering airfare (30–35 weeks of travel, often international and last-minute), lodging, coaching, physiotherapy, equipment, food, and tournament entry.

What most players actually earn:

An estimated 80% of players ranked in the top 1,000 do not earn enough prize money to cover their touring expenses. They are, in financial terms, paying to work.

In 2013 — a year studied in detail — nearly half of the men who competed in professional tournaments did not earn a single dollar in prize money.

The economics are inverted: the lower-ranked you are, the more you need to travel to earn ranking points, the more it costs to travel, and the less you earn from the tournaments you enter. The system requires players to spend their way into profitability — which most never reach.

What this produces:

Players compete injured to secure prize money at big events. Players accept appearance fees at lower-tier tournaments that barely cover costs. Players have resorted to match-fixing in exchange for payments that exceed their legitimate earnings. Players have slept in their cars between tournaments because hotel rooms would consume the prize money they came to win.

This is not a developing sport. This is the sport of the US Open, Wimbledon, Roland-Garros, and the Australian Open — events that collectively generate billions in revenue while paying their athletes 15%.

The PTPA Lawsuit: 'Cartel'

The Professional Tennis Players Association — co-founded by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil in 2020 — has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against tennis's governing bodies, describing them as operating a "cartel" that suppresses player compensation.

The lawsuit's core argument: tennis's structure — where tournaments set prize money unilaterally and players have no collectively bargained revenue-sharing agreement — violates competition law. In every major team sport, players' associations negotiate revenue shares through collective bargaining. In tennis, there is no equivalent mechanism. Players accept what tournaments offer or don't play.

Tennis Australia has already settled and been dropped from the lawsuit. The remaining defendants — the ATP, WTA, ITF, and the other Grand Slam organisers — are contesting.

Jannik Sinner has joined top players in pushing Grand Slams for a greater revenue share. The 2026 US Open responded with a record $108 million in total player compensation — and the four Grand Slams have agreed to establish a player council to give athletes a voice in decisions affecting them.

These are concessions. They are not structural reform. A player council is advisory, not binding. The $108 million is a record — but still represents approximately 15% of the US Open's total revenue ecosystem. The gap between what is generated and what is distributed remains vast.

The ATP Baseline Programme — and the WTA's Absence

In response to pressure from the PTPA and public scrutiny, the ATP launched the Baseline Programme — distributing over $1.3 million in its first year and now guaranteeing eligible top-250 players a minimum of $100,000 annually.

This is meaningful for the players it covers — a floor income that reduces the financial pressure of touring.

The WTA has no equivalent programme.

The sport that pioneered equal pay at Grand Slams has not created a financial safety net for its lower-ranked women. A WTA player ranked 200th — who faces the same touring costs as her ATP counterpart — has no guaranteed minimum income, no baseline support, and no institutional safety net.

The absence is not financial impossibility. It is institutional priority. The WTA has the resources to create a baseline programme. It has not done so.

What Would Fix This

The PTPA lawsuit identifies the problem. The fix requires three structural changes:

1. Collectively bargained revenue share. Tennis needs what the NBA, NFL, and NHL have — a negotiated agreement that guarantees players a defined percentage of total revenue. The current system, where tournaments set prize money unilaterally, produces the 15% share that no major sport would tolerate.

2. ATP-WTA commercial merger. A unified commercial structure — combined media rights, joint tournament sponsorships, shared broadcast packages — would increase the total revenue pool and accelerate pay parity between men and women. The merger has been discussed for years. It has not been executed.

3. WTA baseline programme. The WTA should match the ATP's guaranteed minimum income for lower-ranked players. If the sport that achieved equal pay at Grand Slams cannot create a financial safety net for its women, the equal-pay achievement is incomplete.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are women paid equally in tennis?

At Grand Slams, yes — since 2007. At all other events, no. The WTA's media rights are approximately one-seventh of the ATP's, producing a persistent earnings gap even when women win more titles.

How much of tennis revenue do players receive?

Approximately 15% at Grand Slam events — compared to ~50% in the NBA, NHL, NFL, and MLB.

Can most tennis players cover their touring costs?

No. An estimated 80% of players ranked in the top 1,000 do not earn enough prize money to cover touring expenses of approximately $200,000/year.

What is the PTPA lawsuit?

An anti-trust lawsuit filed by the Professional Tennis Players Association against tennis's governing bodies, alleging they operate a "cartel" that suppresses player compensation. Tennis Australia has settled. The case continues against the ATP, WTA, ITF, and Grand Slam organisers.

The Bottom Line

Tennis is the sport that sells $23 cocktails, charges $500 for tickets, distributes Rolex sponsorships, and is watched by millions in every country on earth. Its athletes receive 15% of Grand Slam revenue — less than one-third of what basketball, football, hockey, or baseball players receive.

The gender pay gap at Grand Slams was closed by Billie Jean King and Venus Williams. Below the Grand Slams, it persists. And the gap between the top of the tour and the rest is not a gap — it is a cliff: 80% of the top 1,000 cannot cover their expenses.

The PTPA lawsuit calls it a cartel. The revenue numbers suggest the word is not hyperbolic. And the sport that looks richest pays its athletes worse than any other major professional competition in the world.