- Unlock more of the best of our tennis coverage with a DailyMail+ subscription – brilliant exclusives, in-depth insight and the writers you love every day
The news that tennis’s wannabe player union is proposing a new ‘Pinnacle Tour’ evokes two contrasting reactions. One: this all sounds brilliant. Two: for the love of God, no.
Tennis needs to change, and change along the lines the Professional Tennis Players Association are suggesting.
But what it needs like a double fault on match point is yet another organisation muscling its way into an already crowded room; another jumble of letters dropped into the alphabet soup.
The ATP, WTA, ITF, the ITIA. The AELTC, FFT, USTA and TA. Do we really want to add the PTPA’s PT? And of course, this raises the spectre of the most dreaded acronym in all of sport: LIV.
Ever since their bombshell lawsuit against the tennis powerbrokers in March of last year, the PTPA have been demanding reformation of the existing tours.
In sending a proposal for the Pinnacle Tour to a suite of banking firms, they appear to have changed tack, raising the potential for outside investment and therefore the foundation of a rival tour.
Novak Djokovic co-founded the Professional Tennis Players Association in 2019 – the body want tennis to be radically reformed with a slimmed-down calendar and equal pay for men and women, and have sent their proposals to a suite of banking firms
Djokovic stepped away from the PTPA just before the Australian Open. Did he know a rival tour was in the works and want no part of it?
That would be a disaster. Tennis has enough of a problem getting its biggest stars together consistently as it is, imagine if the star names had even more choice. Imagine the doomsday scenario of Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz operating on different tours.
One must only have read the coverage in these pages of the LIV golf/DP World Tour row which is threatening to rip the heart from our Ryder Cup team to despair of anything similar being inflicted upon tennis.
This news puts an interesting angle on Novak Djokovic’s decision to step away from the PTPA – which he co-founded in 2019 – just before the Australian Open. Did he know this was in the works (surely he must have done) and want no part of it?
But the meat of the idea is enticing. It is very similar, in fact, to the Premium Tour proposed in 2024, an idea to which the Grand Slams still cling.
There would be a slimmed-down calendar, with the leading players competing in only 16 events per season, something more akin to the Formula One schedule. There would be two tiers below this, presumably with some form of promotion and relegation, or a tour-card system like in golf.
There are various other promises including a minimum earning per year and a commitment to equal pay for men and women within three years – if we’re ripping it up and starting again there is no excuse for there not being equal pay from the outset – but the key is the structure of the tour.
As a sport, tennis simply has to get its top players competing at the same events and at peak physical condition more frequently.
Last season, even discounting the events Sinner missed for his anti-doping ban, there were six events which either he or Alcaraz played without the other. That is unacceptable.
The situation is marginally better on the women’s side, but the WTA keeps its players on court with a restrictive system of mandatory events, a straitjacket with which many players are deeply unhappy. They feel they are being pressured into overplaying and risking injury.
There were admittedly too many events where one of Jannik Sinner (left) or Carlos Alcaraz was absent last season
Britain’s Jack Draper is one of many players to have suffered from being overworked on the current calendar
And the players are indeed being collectively run into the ground, across both tours. Just look at this Australian Open – five retirements across the first three days, and big names Zheng Qinwen, Matteo Berrettini, Arthur Fils, Holger Rune and our own Jack Draper not fit for the start line.
So, how will this all shake out? The key question is how serious the PTPA are about setting up a rival tour. The reality, as with many of their actions, is this is more about leverage.
While always publicly insisting they are ready to litigate their lawsuit through to a bloody conclusion, the PTPA have always privately briefed that all they want is to bring the parties to the table and thrash out a suite of reforms. This would have to include a genuine seat at the table for the union itself – which has been basically ignored by the ATP and WTA since its inception.
This move is another step in that direction. If the tours can be shown there is a realistic alternative to their monopolistic operation – with, say, a billion dollars of funding behind it – they may have to relent. The Grand Slams could then resuscitate their Premium Tour idea and a new world order could be established.
That is the nirvana scenario. The more likely one is more years of talk and no change, with no one happy apart from the lawyers. But the possibility of a breakaway tour might be the worst outcome of the lot.