More Than a Match: Pay Inequalities Between Women and Men in Tennis
The debate over equal prize money for men and women has been raging for many years. Often cited as a leading example of progress, professional tennis has seen some tournaments introduce identical prize money for female and male players.
However, this equality is neither total nor uniform across competitions and levels. Tennis therefore offers an interesting field of analysis for understanding the progress made, but also the inequalities that persist between men and women in terms of pay.
A HISTORIC BATTLE PARTIALLY WON
In 2005, the Williams sisters fought alongside the Billie Jean King Cup to demand equal pay between men and women in tennis. Two years later, in 2007, they scored an initial victory: Wimbledon and Roland-Garros announced they would award the same prize money to men and women.
The other two Grand Slams, the US Open and the Australian Open, had already done so much earlier, in 1973 and 2001 respectively. Eighteen years later, this principle of fairness seems entrenched at the highest level: the four Grand Slam tournaments pay their male and female champions identically.
Persistent inequalities within ATP and WTA tournaments
However, as soon as you move away from the spotlight of the Majors, the reality becomes more nuanced. On the ATP and WTA tours, prize money gaps persist in the majority of tournaments. In Rome, Indian Wells or Madrid, prize money is gradually being aligned, but in lower-category tournaments, the differences are still sometimes substantial.
In 2024, a player ranked in the world’s top 100 earns on average significantly more than a woman of the same ranking. This disparity regularly rekindles the debate: can tennis really claim to be the most egalitarian sport in the world while maintaining such differences? Between economic arguments, sporting considerations and the fight for fairness, the issue of pay equality in tennis is more topical than ever.
A CONTROVERSY THAT WON’T GO AWAY
Year after year, the debate over equal prize money in tennis persists. Defenders of total equality put forward arguments that are hard to dispute: female players do the same work, train with the same intensity and generate comparable media exposure, as evidenced by the record audiences for women’s Grand Slam finals.
For them, the principle of sporting fairness should take precedence over all other considerations. Conversely, some opponents continue to invoke the difference in format, particularly at Grand Slams where men play best-of-five sets compared with best-of-three for women, which they say represents greater physical effort and longer playing time. They also point out that television audiences still vary depending on the tournament and that revenues generated by the men’s tour remain generally higher, which in their view justifies different prize money.
Diverging positions among the players
The players themselves regularly take part in the debate: while some, like Serena Williams or Iga Swiatek, strongly advocate full equality, certain male players, echoing past statements by Novak Djokovic or Gilles Simon, have argued for pay proportional to the revenue generated.
In 2012, the Frenchman told France Info: “We often talk about equal pay. I don’t think that’s something that works in sport. We’re the only ones to practice parity in prize money even though we provide a more attractive spectacle.”
In 2016, Djokovic added: “Statistics show that there are more spectators for men’s tennis matches. I think that’s one of the reasons why we should earn more.”
‘We play half as much as they do’
Alizé Cornet, for her part, made more nuanced comments, particularly about Grand Slam pay: “It’s not normal that we get paid like the boys at the Grand Slams when we play half as much as they do. I understand that it annoys them. We should rather be paid as much as them at the other tournaments where we all play best-of-three sets.”
These internal divisions, far from fading, illustrate the complexity of a debate in which economic, sporting and ideological considerations are all intertwined.
OBSTACLES TO FULL EQUALITY
The fact that prize money equality between the sexes is still not complete is due in particular to economic realities. Nowadays, tournament earnings are mainly linked to sponsors, who provide the bulk of a competition’s budget.
Faced with this constraint, combined tournaments – which host men’s and women’s events simultaneously, as in Indian Wells or Miami – appear to be a promising solution.
Mixed tournaments as a possible solution
They make it possible to pool organizational costs, attract bigger sponsors and offer the public a richer entertainment package. However, this model also has drawbacks: greater logistical complexity, the risk of relegating women’s matches to outside courts or having very different attendance levels on the main courts depending on the line-up, and above all, the difficulty of rolling this format out across the entire calendar.
Separate tournaments, which still make up the majority of the tour, retain their management autonomy but perpetuate prize money gaps. Between the ideal of equality and economic constraints, tennis is still searching for balance.
Male dominance among sponsors
When it comes to sponsors, men are once again at an advantage. In the top 10 highest-paid players according to Sportico, only four women feature. The top two spots are held by Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner. From August 2024 to August 2025, the Italian earned around 25 million dollars from sponsors, while the Spaniard reached 36 million.
The highest-ranked woman is Coco Gauff, in 3rd place, with 23 million dollars earned from endorsements.
FUTURE PROSPECTS
In the face of these persistent roadblocks, several avenues for change are emerging to speed up the march toward pay equality. The idea of unifying the ATP and WTA tours, discussed for years, has resurfaced as a radical solution: by merging the two governing bodies, tennis could impose common pay standards and pool resources more effectively.
Organizational complexity despite good intentions
This ambitious prospect runs up against powerful vested interests and significant institutional inertia, given the organizational upheaval it would entail.
More concretely, experimenting with new formats could also change the game: some propose standardizing matches by adopting best-of-three sets for everyone at Grand Slams, or conversely best-of-five for all, an approach that would put an end to debates over match length and, by extension, working time.
But it may well be the growing pressure from sponsors and public opinion that proves the most effective lever. Major brands, keen to project a positive image on gender equality, could increasingly make their partnerships conditional on concrete commitments regarding prize money.
At the same time, social media amplifies every controversy about pay gaps, sometimes forcing tournament organizers to justify their decisions. This dual economic and reputational pressure could ultimately prove more decisive than principled speeches in advancing equality in world tennis.
Tennis is progressing, but there is still a long way to go
Today, tennis embodies the ambivalence of a sport that is arguably a pioneer in matters of equality, but still unable to extend its progress to its entire ecosystem. While symbolic victories such as those at Wimbledon and Roland-Garros in 2007, or the courageous stances taken by the Williams sisters, have marked history, they should not obscure a more nuanced reality: equal prize money remains largely confined to the Grand Slam showcases, while the ATP and WTA tours continue to display sometimes significant disparities.
Between very real economic constraints and persistent ideological resistance, the road to full equality still looks long. Yet the levers do exist: increased media pressure, growing demands from sponsors, and evolving attitudes among the public. In a sporting world where inequalities between men and women remain glaring, tennis has a historic opportunity to show the way. The question is whether it will truly commit the necessary means to do so.
More Than a Match: Pay Inequalities Between Women and Men in Tennis 
Changing coach or reinventing yourself: the off-season, time for big decisions 
The Rafa Nadal Academy: a model of expertise and professionalism for tennis’s future stars 
Davis Cup: between reforms, criticism and national culture