By Richard Pagliaro | Thursday, November 13, 2025
Photo: Clive Brunskill/Getty
An age-old question fuels the feud between ATP executives and elite players: Is bigger better for tennis?
The ATP Tour and players continue to collide for the expanded Masters 1000 tournaments with Sunday starts, 96-player draws and two weeks of twists and turns in the busy calendar.
The president of ATP, Andrea Gaudenzi claims that the Masters tournaments are the tour’s “premium product” that serves as the economic engine that drives the tour, while stars ranging from Novak Djokovic to Jack Draper to Alex de Minaur say the two-week Masters tournaments deliver punishing body blows to players. The tournament, some stars say, is simply ignoring the health risks of extended play.
Meeting the media today in Turin, Gaudenzi said the ATP continues to prioritize the Masters 1000 tournaments because they are the elite events on the calendar, they attract more fans after the four Grand Slams, they are the most profitable events and they help grow the game.
“Overall I think our strategy has been clear to focus on the premium product, which is the Masters. The reason for this is very simple: we have to offer the best possible experience for the fans,” Gaudenzi told media in Turin. “Fans want to watch the best players in the world play against each other at the best events.
“Those moments, the four Grand Slams, the Masters and the Finals is when we all see the best players playing against each other.
“Then obviously you have the 500 and 250 (level tournaments) that for those players who play fewer matches in the Grand Slams and the Masters, they have to play down and continue to keep their level up and improve.”
Grand Slam king Djokovic, who opposes the two-week Masters, has said that increasing most Masters events from one week to two weeks (Monte-Carlo, Paris and the new Masters in Saudi Arabia are one-week tournaments) has clogged up the calendar – and contributed to player injury – by essentially creating 12 long tournaments that are believed to be irrelevant over a season.
“To be very honest with you, I don’t like the two-week Masters anymore. It’s too long for me. My focus is mainly on the slams, and I’ve said that before,” Djokovic said during the US Open.
“But I like the other tournaments, too. I’d like to play more of the other tournaments, but it’s just, we currently informally, unofficially, have 12 Grand Slams a year, you know, when you think about it. I mean, the Grand Slam is two weeks and the other Masters events are almost two weeks as well.”
Some stars oppose the two-week Masters 1000 events, pointing out that they require players to arrive on the grounds earlier to acclimatise to the conditions, are more physically punishing and, if a player suffers an early-round loss, they are stuck in a scheduling black hole unable to play another event while the Masters 1000 is underway.
Alex de Minaur, who leads the ATP Tour in hard-court wins this season, opposes the expanded Masters schedule, claiming “something has to change”.
Pointing to nearly a month’s worth of players’ commitment to Indian Wells and Miami, de Minaur says the potential payoff doesn’t justify the time commitment.
“What a lot of people don’t understand is, yes, you can have a day off in between, but it’s not a full day off. You’re practicing, you’re going to the courts, you’re warming up, you’re doing gym, this, that, the other,” de Minaur told media in Turin today. “For us players, we have at the beginning of the year Indian Wells, Miami. That was the first one that was 12 days. You spend a month playing two tournaments.
“The hardest thing as a player is being in the fourth round. You play the fourth round in Indian Wells, the fourth round in Miami. You can play six matches in a month, which is not enough. You’re spending the whole month away from home, practicing, in a hotel, living out of a suitcase, not really enjoying your time off, playing the matches.”
Today, Gaudenzi sought to quash those suggestions by stating his full support for the expanded two-week Masters 1000 tournaments.
The ATP chairman said the expanded 96-player, two-week Masters events are good for fans because they put the best players – often men and women – in the same event at the same time, provide more employment opportunities for more players to compete in the Tour’s most lucrative tournaments with the biggest prize money on the line and address a basic inequity.
Reflecting on his playing days, former world number 18 Gaudenzi said a primary disappointment was when his ranking hovered around 50, good enough for him to play in all four Grand Slams, but only qualified him for two of the 56-draw Masters (then called Super Nine events). Gaudenzi insists that expanding the Masters 1000 tournaments to 96-player draws is a win-win for players, fans and the tournament itself.
“I was really frustrated by the fact that, even when I was ranked 50th, 55th, I could only play in the main draw in two Masters,” Gaudenzi said. “I could play in the main draw at the Grand Slams, but only Indian Wells and Miami were at that time with the current format.
“You end up being 50 in the world, you can’t get into Monte-Carlo, Rome, Madrid and the premium levels. I said, why can I play in the Grand Slam main draw and why can’t I play in the Masters main draw? If we have that, we want all the top players to play.”
The expansion of the Masters tournaments offers players 11 opportunities—the four Grand Slams and Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Rome, Toronto/Montreal, Cincinnati and Shanghai—to play for the most lucrative prizes and the biggest ranking points. Gaudenzi says it is about the possibility of employment.
“I think the availability of work, it was really closed, very limited,” Gaudenzi said. “That’s why I think it’s very important to go to what we did, to go to the 96 draw.
“You give the top 100 players the opportunity to play the main draw at the Grand Slams and the Masters, at least seven times now, in our case, out of nine. The exceptions are Paris, Monte-Carlo and Arabia will be the same.”
Some stars say these Masters scheduling requirements are simply too punitive and point to some stars either suffering season-ending injuries or pulling the plug on their season early as clear signs that the expanded events “aren’t helping.”
“I think you ask any of the players out there, they’ll all prefer the one-week events because you go out there, you play, once you’re done, you’re done,” de Minaur said. “Yes, it allows us players to switch off.
“I think we’ve seen the number of injuries this year. It’s been the highest it’s ever been in the tournament, hasn’t it? Those aren’t great numbers for our sport. We’ve got to look after the players and their bodies. Obviously what’s going on at the moment isn’t really helping that.”
Gaudenzi counters that the programming ball is in the players’ court. If players really feel overwhelmed by the schedule, then don’t accept guaranteed money for lower-level players’ tournaments, Gaudenzi said. The ATP chairman suggests some players self-sabotage by taking the easy money from tournament guarantees or racking up lucrative exhibitions.
“I don’t think players should plan on guaranteed money as a priority,” Gaudenzi said. “Players have to play for ranking points and titles, especially if you’re a top-50, top-100 player.
Unfortunately, I come back to this system, which is an open system where there are temptations everywhere. There is a fear of missing out. It’s really about controlling your behavior.”
Former ATP Players Council president Djokovic, co-founder of the PTPA, said that while most top players want to condense the Masters into one week, it is highly unlikely that will happen.
Contractual obligations, the tournament’s unwavering commitment to the two-week Masters and its infusion of cash – and the fact that the players did not make a united stand when the initial change was made – mean they are likely to be stuck with the status quo, Djokovic said.
“Unless all the Masters events come together and the ATP board on the tour side doesn’t support the idea of going back, which I really doubt,” Djokovic said. “But I’ve noticed that a lot of the top players have been quite against the new change of almost two-week, Masters-level events.
“Yes, I support the players, but at the end of the day, when the players had to be activated and when there was a time of negotiation and decision-making, the players didn’t get enough.
“This is an ongoing story of players, especially the main players. They express their feelings, but then when you really have to spend time and energy in conversations, meetings, which I know is very difficult. I’ve been there, believe me, many times.
“But it’s necessary because then, you know, you’re doing something not just for yourself, but for future generations, and you’re making the right moves, the right steps, and you’re contributing.”
At the end of the day, it’s the money that matters, and Djokovic maintains that increased income is the main reason you won’t see any changes to the Masters schedule.
“Let’s see what happens,” Djokovic said. “I just doubt that anything will change in the foreseeable future when it comes to these contracts that are pretty solid and bring a lot of income to the tournament.”
