By Richard Pagliaro | Thursday, November 13, 2025
Photo credit: Clive Brunskill/Getty
An age-old question fires the feud between ATP executives and elite players: Is bigger better for tennis?
The ATP Tour and players continue to clash over expanded Masters 1000 tournaments featuring Sunday starts, 96-player draws and two week turns in the crammed calendar.
ATP Chairman Andrea Gaudenzi asserts the Masters tournaments are the Tour’s “premium product” serving as the economic engine driving the Tour, while stars ranging from Novak Djokovic to Jack Draper to Alex de Minaur say two-week Masters tournaments deliver body blows that punish players. The Tour, some stars say, is simply ignoring the health hazards of extended play.
Meeting the media in Turin today, Gaudenzi said the ATP continues to prioritize the Masters 1000 tournaments because they are the elite events on the calendar, they draw the most fans after the four Grand Slams, are the most lucrative events and 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 that is very simple: we need to provide the best possible experience to the fans,” Gaudenzi told the media in Turin. “The fans love to watch the best players in the world playing against each other in the best events.
“Those moments, the four Grand Slams, the Masters and the Finals is the moment we all get to see the best players playing against each other.
“Then obviously you have the 500 and 250 [level tournaments] that for those players that play less matches in the Grand Slam and the Masters, they need to play down and play to continue to keep their level up and improve.”
Grand Slam king Djokovic, who opposes two-week Masters, has said the growth of 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 the calendar—and contributed to player injury—by essentially creating 12 major-length tournaments over an 11-month season, which he believes is unsustainable.
“To be quite frank with you, I don’t enjoy the two-week Masters events anymore. It’s just way too long for me. My focus is mostly on the slams, and I have said that before,” Djokovic said during the US Open.
“But I also like other tournaments. I’d like to play more of the other tournaments, but I just, we have currently informally, unofficially, 12 Grand Slams a year, you know, when you think about it. I mean, Grand Slam is two weeks and the other Masters events are almost two weeks, as well.”
Some stars object to two-week Masters 1000 events pointing out they require players to arrive on site earlier to acclimate to conditions, are more physically punishing, and, if a player suffers an early-round loss, they are stuck in a black hole in the schedule unable to play another event while the Masters 1000 is ongoing.
Alex de Minaur, who leads the ATP Tour in hard-court wins this season, opposes the expanded Masters schedule asserting “something needs to change.”
Pointing to nearly a month players commit to Indian Wells and Miami back-to-back, de Minaur says the potential payoff doesn’t justify the time commitment.
“What a lot of people don’t understand is, yes, you might have a day off in between, but it’s not a full day off. You’re practicing, you’re going to the courts, warming up, doing gym, this, that, the other,” de Minaur told the media in Turin today. “For us players, we have at the start of the year Indian Wells, Miami. That was the first one to be the 12 days. You spend a month to play two tournaments.
“The toughest thing as a player is you’re seeded and you make fourth round. You play fourth round in Indian Wells, fourth round in Miami. You could potentially 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, and you’re only playing six matches, right.”
Today, Gaudenzi tried shooting down those suggestions stating his full support for expanded two-weeks Masters 1000 tournaments.
The ATP chairman said expanded 96-player, two-week Masters events are good for fans because they put the best players—often the best men and women—in the same event at the same time, provide more job opportunities for more players to compete in the most lucrative Tour tournaments with the most prize money on the line and address a basic inequity.
Reflecting on his own playing days, former world No. 18 Gaudenzi said a primary frustration was when his ranking hovered around No. 50 it was 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 expanding the Masters 1000 tournaments to 96-player draws is a win-win-win for players, fans and the tournaments themselves.
“I was really frustrated by the fact that, even when I was ranked 50, 55, I could only play in main draw in two Masters,” Gaudenzi said. “I could play main draw in the Grand Slams, but only Indian Wells and Miami were at the time with current format.
“You end up being 50 in the world, you couldn’t access Monte-Carlo, Rome, Madrid and the premium tier. I said, Why can I play in a Grand Slam main draw and why can I not play in a Masters main draw? If we have this, we want all the top players playing.”
Expanding the Masters tournaments provide players with 11 opportunities—the four Grand Slams and Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Rome, Toronto/Montreal, Cincinnati and Shanghai—to play for for the most lucrative prize money and largest ranking points. Gaudenzi says it comes down to job opportunity.
“I think the job availability, it was really closed, too restricted,” Gaudenzi said. “Hence why I think it’s very important to go what we’ve done, to go to the 96 draw.
“You provide top 100 players with the possibility to play main draw in Grand Slams and Masters, at least in seven occasions now, in our case, out of nine. The exceptions are Paris, Monte-Carlo, and Saudi will be the same.”
Some stars say those demands Masters scheduling demands are simply too punishing and point to several stars either suffering season-ending injuries or pulling the plug on their seasons early as clear signs the expanded events are “not helping.”
“I think you ask any of the players out there, they will all rather the one-week events because you go out there, you play, once you’re done, you’re done,” de Minaur said. “Yeah, it allows for us players to switch off.
“I think we’ve seen this year the amount of injuries. It’s been the highest it’s ever been on tour, right? Those are not great numbers for our sport. We need to be looking after the players and their bodies. Obviously what’s happening at the moment is not really helping that.”
Gaudenzi counters the scheduling ball is in the players’ court. If players truly feel overwhelmed by the schedule then don’t accept guaranteed money to player lower-tier tournaments, Gaudenzi said. The ATP Chairman suggests some players self-sabotage by taking the easy money from tournament guarantees or stacking lucrative exhibitions.
“I don’t think players should schedule with the guaranteed money as a priority,” Gaudenzi said. “Players should be playing for ranking points and titles, especially if you are a top-50, top-100 player.
‘Unfortunately I go back to this system which is an open system where there is temptations everywhere. There is the fear of missing out. It’s really being in control of your own behavior.”
Former ATP Player Council President Djokovic, co-founder of the PTPA, said though most top players want to condense Masters tournaments back to one week it’s highly unlikely it will happen.
Contractual obligations, the Tour’s unwavering commitment to two-week Masters and their cash infusion—and the fact players didn’t make a united stand when the initial change was made—means they’re likely stuck with the status quo, said Djokovic.
“Unless all the Masters events come together and the ATP board on the tournament side is supportive of the idea of going back, which I really doubt,” Djokovic said. “But I have noticed that a lot of top players have been quite opposing the new change of the almost two-week events, the Masters level.
“Yeah, I support the players. But in the end of the day, when the players needed to be active and when there was a time of negotiations and decision-making, players weren’t participating enough.
“This is an ongoing story of the players, particularly top players. They express their feelings, but then when you really need to put in the time and the energy into conversations, meetings, which I know it’s very difficult. I have been there, trust me, many times.
“But it’s necessary because then, you know, you’re doing something not only for yourself but future generations, and you’re making the right moves, the right steps, and contributing.”
Ultimately, it’s money that matters, and Djokovic asserts rising revenue is the main reason you won’t see any change to the Masters schedule.
“Let’s see what happens,” Djokovic said. “I just doubt anything will change in the foreseeable future when it comes to these contracts that are quite solid and bring a lot of revenue to the tournaments.”
