Heatwaves and Hardship: Is Player Welfare Truly a Priority in Modern Tennis?
The hallowed clay courts of Roland Garros have, in recent times, become a stark reminder of the physical toll elite athletes endure. During the opening week of the French Open, as temperatures soared, concerns for player wellbeing escalated significantly. We witnessed the world’s number one, Jannik Sinner, visibly struggling in his second-round encounter, while young gun Jakub Mensik suffered a concerning collapse, remaining on court for nearly five minutes in the oppressive heat.
However, these alarming incidents are far from isolated. The challenges posed by extreme weather are a recurring theme in professional tennis, extending beyond the Parisian clay. Players have voiced significant frustrations with playing conditions at other major events. Holger Rune, the Danish star, articulated a sentiment shared by many when he posed a chilling question: “Do you want a player to die on court?” This sentiment echoes concerns frequently raised during the Australian and US Opens, tournaments notoriously held during the peak of summer in their respective hemispheres. Compounding these issues is the sport’s demanding, near year-round schedule, leaving little respite for athletes. This confluence of factors inevitably prompts a critical question: is player welfare truly being prioritised in the modern era of professional tennis?
Navigating the Heat: Tennis’s Evolving Policies
In response to the growing awareness of heat-related risks, various tennis tournaments have implemented measures to assist players in coping with extreme temperatures. These interventions include:
- Ten-minute cooling breaks: Introduced between sets to allow players a crucial period to recover and rehydrate.
- Ice towels: Provided by support staff to help players lower their body temperature.
- Courtside fans: Strategically placed to create airflow and offer some relief on court.
- Medical monitoring: Enhanced medical presence and assessment to identify and address heat-related issues promptly.
- Additional hydration opportunities: Ensuring readily available access to water and electrolyte drinks.
Furthermore, all four Grand Slam tournaments now boast stadium courts equipped with retractable roofs. This technological advancement offers a vital safeguard against the most extreme weather conditions, allowing play to continue under controlled environments.
A Patchwork of Protection: Inconsistencies in Heat Policies
Despite these advancements, a significant challenge lies in the lack of a unified approach. Each tournament operates under its own distinct heat policy, leading to considerable variation in how player welfare is managed.
At the French Open, officials employ the “Wet Bulb Global Temperature (WBGT)” metric to gauge extreme heat. This comprehensive measurement takes into account air temperature, humidity, solar exposure, and wind speed to provide an estimate of the physiological stress placed upon the body. When the WBGT reaches 30.1°C (86°F) at Roland Garros, players are granted a ten-minute cooling break. Should the WBGT climb to 32.3°C (90°F) – a level roughly equivalent to an ambient air temperature of 38°C (100°F) – play has the option to be suspended. However, it is noteworthy that the French Open has yet to suspend play due to extreme heat.
This contrasts sharply with the Australian Open, whose heat policy demonstrates a more proactive approach, frequently allowing for the suspension of play in severe conditions and utilising the provision for stadium roof closures – a feature not deployed at the French Open.
The inconsistency in heat management extends beyond the Grand Slams. The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), the governing body for men’s tennis, only introduced a formal heat policy in 2026. In stark contrast, the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) has maintained a heat policy for approximately three decades, highlighting a significant disparity in the establishment of these crucial safeguards.
The Governance Conundrum: A Fragmented Landscape
The inherent complexities of tennis’s governance structure contribute significantly to the challenges in establishing consistent player welfare standards. Unlike many other global sports, tennis is not overseen by a single, overarching international body. Instead, the sport’s administration is divided among several key organisations:
- The ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals)
- The WTA (Women’s Tennis Association)
- The International Tennis Federation (ITF)
- The four Grand Slam tournaments
This fragmented governance model means that crucial aspects such as tournament scheduling, competition rules, heat management protocols, and player welfare policies are often determined by different entities, leading to a lack of synchronisation and a patchwork of protections.
This diffused authority has also played a role in the relentless expansion of the tennis season. In recent years, players have voiced increasing concerns about an overly congested schedule, with limited opportunities for essential rest and recovery.
Players Unite: The Rise of the PTPA
In response to these mounting pressures, the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) was established in 2019. This organisation was formed with the explicit aim of empowering professional players with a stronger collective voice in decisions that directly impact their careers and overall wellbeing.
In 2025, the PTPA took a significant step by launching legal action against tennis’s governing bodies. The association’s core argument centres on the contention that the sport’s fragmented governance structure fosters excessive scheduling demands and, consequently, fails to adequately protect the health, safety, and welfare of its athletes. The outcome of this ongoing legal battle remains uncertain. However, what is unequivocally clear is that tennis’s fractured governance system has been a significant contributor to the inconsistent application of player welfare protections across the sport.
This issue is further exacerbated during tournaments that feature five-set matches, which can prolong play for four, or even five hours. While elite tennis players are undoubtedly conditioned to withstand the rigours of extended matches, these contests do not occur in a vacuum. When compounded by a packed schedule, extreme weather conditions, and inconsistent player welfare policies, the cumulative strain on athletes can become immense.
Charting a Course for Change: Potential Solutions
To effectively address the critical issues surrounding player welfare, tennis requires a more unified and consistent approach to governance and policy implementation. Several key recommendations emerge as vital steps forward:
Standardised Heat Policy: A universally adopted heat policy across all professional tournaments is paramount. This would ensure that all players receive consistent safeguards and protections, irrespective of the geographical location or specific tournament they are competing in. Such a policy would provide a clear and equitable framework for managing the risks associated with extreme heat.
Season Length Reduction: A significant reduction in the overall length of the tennis calendar is another crucial suggestion. Decreasing the number of tournaments would afford players more dedicated time for rest and recovery, a vital component of maintaining long-term physical and mental health. Furthermore, a shorter season would create greater flexibility to schedule matches during cooler parts of the day, such as evenings, or to postpone play entirely during periods of extreme heat, thereby mitigating risks.
While players do have the option to rest during the season and skip certain tournaments, the immense pressure to maintain and improve their ranking points often discourages them from doing so. This creates a cycle where players feel compelled to compete even when they are not at their peak physical condition.
- Addressing Financial Barriers: Any efforts to reform and shorten the tennis calendar would undoubtedly encounter substantial financial hurdles. A reduced number of tournaments would likely lead to a decrease in broadcasting rights, ticket sales, and advertising revenue, making significant reform challenging under the existing governance agreements that are heavily reliant on these income streams.
Therefore, a more collaborative and unified leadership across all of tennis’s governing bodies is not just desirable but urgently needed. Maintaining the status quo carries a significant risk of exposing players to greater physical harm and could ultimately prove to be a more costly approach for the sport in the long run, both in terms of player health and its broader reputation.
