French Open prize money model under fire: Why players are unhappy and how it compares with other Grand Slams

French Open 2026 will have an overall prize pot of €61.7 million, 10% more than last year, but it's still facing criticism and threats of boycott!

First, top players, including Jannik Sinner and Coco Gauff, released a statement criticising the low prize money pool, and now Aryna Sabalenka has threatened a possible boycott.

French Open prize pot row explained

The French Open has often been criticised for offering the smallest prize purse among the four Grand Slams, but the growing discontent among players is less about absolute figures and more about how revenues are shared.

On the surface, Roland Garros remains one of tennis’ most prestigious events, generating strong commercial returns. Tournament officials revealed that the French Open brought in €395 million in revenue in 2025, marking a 14% year-on-year increase. However, prize money rose by just 5.4%, which effectively reduced the players’ share of total revenue to 14.3%.

More from Tennis News

With revenues expected to cross €400 million in 2026, distribution to players is projected to remain below 15%, a key sticking point in the ongoing debate between players and organisers.

While Roland Garros has improved its infrastructure, introduced night sessions and expanded its global reach in recent years, players argue that these commercial gains are not being fairly passed on. Leading voices in the sport, including Sabalenka, have backed calls for a more equitable model, with players seeking a revenue share closer to 22%, in line with ATP and WTA 1000 events.

The concern is particularly very serious for lower-ranked players, who rely heavily on Grand Slam earnings to sustain their careers amid rising travel, coaching and medical costs.

Tennis' broken economic model

The disparity becomes even more pronounced when Roland Garros is compared to the other three majors. The US Open leads the way, distributing roughly 18–20% of its revenue as prize money, supported by lucrative broadcasting deals and prime-time scheduling in the United States.

The Australian Open follows closely, typically allocating around 18% or more, aided by strong government backing and aggressive commercial expansion. Even the traditionally conservative Wimbledon has moved towards a more player-friendly structure, with estimates placing its distribution in the 16–18% range in recent years.

In contrast, the French Open remains firmly below 15%, making it not only the lowest-paying Slam overall but also the least generous in terms of revenue distribution.

This imbalance also underlines the poor economics of tennis. Unlike team sports leagues, where athletes often receive close to 50% of total revenues, tennis players operate in a broken system with weaker bargaining power against Grand Slam organisers.

While Roland Garros will defend its model by pointing to operational costs and long-term investments, players see the declining percentage share as evidence of a system that undervalues their role while the revenue grows.