Top 3 Tennis Players Threatening to Boycott Grand Slams Over Prize Money Dispute

A simmering fight over money at the Grand Slams took a sharper turn this week when Aryna Sabalenka said players may eventually have no choice but to boycott the sport’s four biggest tournaments.

The warning came just weeks before the French Open and added real weight to a dispute that has been building for more than a year between top players and the events that define tennis.

The issue is bigger than one payout announcement. Players have made it clear that this is about how revenue is shared, how much say they have in decisions that affect their careers, and whether the sport’s biggest events are willing to seriously negotiate. With the French Open set to begin on May 24, the tension around the Grand Slams is no longer sitting quietly in the background.

Sabalenka’s comments were first reported from her Italian Open media session by multiple outlets. Her message was direct: players believe they deserve a larger share of Grand Slam revenue, and if talks continue to stall, a boycott could become their strongest lever.

1. Aryna Sabalenka

Aryna Sabalenka, the world No. 1, became the face of the latest escalation when she openly floated a boycott. Speaking ahead of the Italian Open, she argued that the players are the core product the Grand Slams sell. Sabalenka said she believes a boycott will happen “at some point” because that may be “the only way” for players to fight for their rights. “Without us, there wouldn’t be a tournament, and there wouldn’t be that entertainment. I feel like definitely we deserve to be paid more percentage. I think at some point we will boycott it. I feel like that’s going to be the only way to fight for our rights,”

2. Coco Gauff

If Sabalenka lit the fuse, Coco Gauff made clear she is not standing far behind. The American said she could “100%” see herself boycotting a Grand Slam if players moved together as a group. She framed it as a collective issue, one that would only work if players across the tours committed to the same goal. “It’s not about me,” Gauff said. “It’s about the future of our sport and the current players who aren’t getting as much benefits as even some of the top players are getting, when it comes to like sponsorship and things like that. We’re making money off court. When you look at the 50 to 100, 50 to 200, how much money each Slam makes, it’s kind of unfortunate where the 200 best tennis players are living paycheck to paycheck, whereas other sports it’s not even a discussion.” Gauff also widened the conversation beyond the superstars. Her focus was on players ranked deeper in the field, especially those in the 50-to-100 and 50-to-200 range, who often rely heavily on prize money just to fund their careers. That point gives the movement moral force. It is easier for critics to dismiss millionaire athletes asking for more. She also pointed to other sports in which collective action shifted the balance of power. Gauff referenced the value of union-style organization and suggested tennis players need to think more seriously about moving as one. That is a striking thing to hear in a sport built on independence. Tennis players are not employees of one league. They are contractors navigating tours, federations, and tournament operators. That fragmentation has long weakened player leverage. Gauff’s comments suggest the players know that.

3. Elena Rybakina

Elena Rybakina may not have driven the conversation, but her position added another important voice to the players’ side. The reigning Australian Open champion said she would support a boycott if most players did so. She also noted that the dispute is not only about raising prize money. Taxes, expenses, and the broader cost of staying on tour shape how much players actually keep, especially outside the very top tier. “It’s a tough question. There have been many situations in the past where players could have come together and boycotted, but it has never happened. Honestly, I don’t know. If the majority decides to boycott, then of course I would join, there would be no problem. I think the improvements we need are not only in the Grand Slams or just about prize money. Many people are not aware that there are very high taxes. You can earn more, but a large part goes into taxes. It’s another issue. It’s hard to say. As I said, for years there have been different problems, and we have never come together to make real changes.” That perspective adds depth to the fight around the Grand Slams. Even when headline prize pools rise, the day-to-day reality for many pros does not necessarily change enough. Travel, coaching, physio support, training blocks, and taxes eat into earnings fast. So when players see tournament revenues rising faster than their percentage share, the resentment builds. Rybakina’s stance also reinforced the central theme emerging from Rome: the willingness to act may depend on consensus, but the appetite for firmer pressure is growing. Not every player is equally outspoken. Not every player wants a showdown. But several major names are clearly moving in the same direction.

4. Why the Grand Slams prize money fight has become so heated

The numbers explain a lot of the emotion. According to reporting cited by Yahoo Sports and Firstpost, players argue their share of Roland Garros revenue has declined from 15.5% in 2024 to a projected figure below 15% in 2026. Some reports put that 2026 estimate at 14.9%, while other statements from the player group cited 14.3% depending on the revenue assumptions used. Either way, the players’ point is the same: even as revenue grows, their slice is not keeping pace. The French Open announced total prize money of €61.7 million for 2026, a jump of roughly 9.5% to 10% from the previous year, depending on the source. On the surface, that sounds generous. But players are comparing those payouts to tournament revenue that reportedly approached or exceeded €395 million last year and could top €400 million this year. Players want the Grand Slams to move closer to the 22% revenue share seen at some combined ATP and WTA 1000-level events. They are also pushing for more than money: better player welfare support, including health care and pension benefits, plus stronger consultation on issues such as scheduling and governance. From the tournament side, the French Tennis Federation has defended its approach. The FFT said Roland Garros has continued increasing prize money and has focused especially on players who lose in early rounds and qualifying, where those earnings can matter most. The federation also said revenue is reinvested into the tournament and into tennis development in France and internationally. That explanation may be true, but it has not cooled the dispute. For players, the central grievance remains unchanged: the Grand Slams make enormous money from their labor, their names, and their matches, yet the financial structure still leaves them feeling sidelined.

• Tags:
• Aryna Sabalenka
• Coco Gauff
• Elena Rybakina