ATP chairman Andrea Gaudenzi has released bold proposals that will try to grow tennis and alter prize money distribution, reduce the pressure to “overplay”, and give players the choice of where and when to compete.
The tennis body has unveiled plans for OneVision, which is mooted to be in place for the 2028 season, subject to further consultation and approval.
2026 has been a year dominated by injuries, most notably to world No 1 Jannik Sinner and the youngest-ever player to complete the career Grand Slam, Carlos Alcaraz. Now, it seems like tennis authorities want to try to do something to fix that.
So, what has Gaudenzi got in store for the sport, and who are the winners and losers from all this? Tennis365 dug a little deeper to try and find out.
More ATP Tour News
Want more from Tennis365? Add us as a preferred source on Google to your favourites list for tennis coverage you can trust.
1) Bonus Pool more than doubles
According to a Q&A with Gaudenzi, the Bonus Pool of today rewards players who commit to the ATP Tour‘s biggest events.
The top 30 players at Masters 1000 events and the ATP Finals currently share $21.5million between them. However, stars only get their full share if they compete across the eight mandatory Masters 1000s (Monte Carlo is the sole optional one).
The new reforms would see that $21.5m pot rise to $50m – a 133% increase. But the big difference is that payments would be linked to players’ rankings at each Mandatory Masters 1000, rather than their end-of-season position.
Players would need to compete in at least four mandatory Masters 1000s to qualify, and higher-ranked players in each event’s draw would receive larger payments.
The example they use is: “The outcome of an ATP 500 final could decide who receives the top Bonus Pool payment at the ATP Masters 1000 event the following week. The whole Tour will benefit with more at stake at our biggest events.”
So, ranking higher at the right time becomes more financially viable. Results at smaller tournaments, such as ATP 250s, could indirectly affect the bonus a player gets at a Masters.
This seems to be an incentive for players not to skip Masters events, with Alcaraz (wrist), Sinner (knee), and Novak Djokovic all missing this year’s Canadian Open, for example.
2) More ranking points for deep runs at the biggest tournaments
Gaudenzi states that welfare is one of the reasons for a rankings reform, rather than a “side effect of it”.
An excerpt reads, “The demands of the season fall hardest on the players who go deepest at the biggest events. Many players, including those in the mid-rankings, find it hard to protect time for recovery when the system rewards them for adding one more tournament.
“We are proposing to evolve our rankings system so that results at our biggest events carry greater weight across the season while reducing the incentive for players to overplay after an early exit.”
If these plans are approved, the ATP will review how ranking points are distributed at tournaments, with more points set to be on offer for those who reach semi-finals and a final, for example.
The ATP is proposing to remove the ability to replace up to three weaker Masters 1000 results with better results from 500s and 250s. Moreover, the number of ATP 250s that count towards a top player’s ranking could be limited. This may be subject to the final reform package.
In practice, this is to encourage a less-is-more approach. This could influence scheduling, battles for ranking points, and which tournaments a top player prioritises.
READ MORE: ‘Wash it for me’ – Iga Swiatek under fire as ex-world No 5 reveals surprise Madrid Open requests
3) Huge injection of cash
As laid out in this Q&A, the ATP plans to invest $105m annually in central player compensation and support from 2028. In addition to the $50m Bonus Pool, $25m will ostensibly go to career support for year-end top 250 players.
For many players outside the top 100, it can be difficult to sustain a profitable existence, especially when you take into account expenses like travel, paying for coaches, and more.
Therefore, introducing a safety net of sorts for the top 250 will be welcomed by many. Finally, $30m will go towards player pension contributions, helping professionals have a bit more stability when their careers come to an end.
Gaudenzi adds, “Including all central compensation components, on-site prize money and tournament-level profit-sharing, total ATP player compensation (excluding Grand Slams) is estimated to reach $350 million from 2028.”
One key question is, can the ATP sustain these high levels of player compensation through continued commercial growth and revenue generation? $350m is an awful lot of money. Can they keep that up for the long term?
It is also not entirely clear how the $25m would be distributed among the top 250.
GO DEEPER: Novak Djokovic’s final dream may fall through unless he makes a big change
4) Changes to the calendar?
The ATP is looking to stop situations where tournaments, such as 500s and 250s, are competing directly for players. At these events, stars can command large appearance fees, something that isn’t the case at the Masters 1000 level.
Going forward, the tennis body wants dedicated weeks for different tournament levels. This, in theory, may give players clearer choices on where to compete; tournaments should have less competition for the same stars, and fans should get a more coherent season with clearer build-ups to the biggest events.
However, the ATP is cognisant that the full calendar changes won’t be in place by 2028, but it expects significant progress by then.
This also incorporates the 10th ATP Masters 1000 event, which will be in Saudi Arabia from 2028. Does this mean ATP 250s will fade away? The ATP says no.
Gaudenzi states, “Any limit on ATP 250 results would apply only to top players and would be about workload. ATP 250 results would continue to count, and ATP 250 events remain the foundation of the Tour, where players build their careers, and future stars emerge. A stronger Tour as a whole grows the commercial value of every event within it.”
Will every event retain its current position as the calendar evolves? That remains uncertain.
5) Doubles uncertainty
In July, the ATP Tour proposed changes which could include halving the size of doubles draws from 2028, meaning only 16 teams would compete at the Masters, and just eight at smaller tournaments.
The percentage of prize money that goes to doubles players could drop from 20% to 10%, with that money then going to singles players. This has, largely, not gone down well with doubles stars, with a group of players arguing they aren’t a “carnival sideshow”.
So, what’s the latest? The ATP is still “reviewing” the long-term structure of doubles draw sizes and player compensation distribution, with the aim of creating a “more sustainable” model in the long term.
Doubles will continue to be a “core” part of the ATP Tour, says Gaudenzi, and the reallocated money would be reinvested into singles qualifying and early rounds.
Ultimately, this could put lots of doubles players out of work. This latest update does not confirm any specific cuts, draw sizes, or prize-money changes.
6) Changing incentives
Gaudenzi repeatedly talks about players being free to choose their schedules, with these proposals designed to make the biggest events the most attractive choices financially and competitively.
The intended result is:
- More frequent matchups between the top players
- Greater incentives to perform well at the Masters and ATP Finals
- Less pressure to play extra tournaments purely to improve rankings
- More support for players outside the elite
One important distinction is that the ATP is changing incentives, rather than announcing a blanket requirement that players need to compete in more events.
Conclusion
In summary, the game’s elite stand to benefit the most from this with the larger Bonus Pool. Plus, there may also be greater value in protecting their ranking before each tournament.
The proposed $25m career-support fund would target players finishing the season inside the top 250, potentially offering valuable financial security to those who don’t earn nearly as much as the game’s best. But the ATP has not clarified exactly how it would distribute the money among eligible players.
Incidentally, tennis players who rely on playing more competitions may benefit from not having as much pressure to overplay but removing their ability to replace weaker Masters results could make a bad result harder to compensate for.
And, once again, it doesn’t bode too well for doubles players.
The ATP wants more high-profile matches, bigger stakes, and a season that is easier to follow. But the ATP wants to reduce overplaying, yet it also wants the best players at its biggest events more often.
It is good that Gaudenzi is being so open with this, as there is a lot of work to be done. However, you can’t please everyone.
WHAT NEXT? Rafael Jodar criticism ‘too harsh’, says former world No 8
