“It’s embarrassing compared to other sports”: Andy Roddick breaks down Roland Garros prize money controversy

Andy Roddick has addressed the growing dispute over prize money distribution at Roland Garros, as leading ATP and WTA players push for a higher share of tournament revenue under an internal initiative known as “Project Red Eye.”

The group includes top names such as Jannik Sinner, Aryna Sabalenka, Iga Swiatek, Coco Gauff, Novak Djokovic, Carlos Alcaraz, Alexander Zverev, Jasmine Paolini and Alexander Bublik. They have expressed collective dissatisfaction with the current revenue structure and projected distribution for 2026.

At the centre of the discussion is a demand for a 22% revenue share by 2030, a level already applied in ATP and WTA 1000 events. Roland Garros prize money stands at 72.3 million, up 9.5% from 2025, while the player share is projected to decline to 15% in 2026 from 15.5% in 2024.

Speaking on Served, Roddick provided a detailed breakdown of the issue and the structural imbalance he believes exists in tennis compared with other professional sports.

Roddick framed the dispute as a structural issue linked to how revenue is distributed in tennis compared with other sports leagues. He argued that the current model does not reflect proportional growth in the sport’s commercial success.

He referenced broader comparisons with other sports systems, stressing the gap in revenue participation despite rising tournament income. “If you’re the driver of revenue success and you’re not participating in that success on a year-to-year basis, if it’s not prorated based on growth and the comps to other sports is embarrassing in no uncertain terms, it’s embarrassing compared to other sports.”

He added that the financial reality of lower-ranked players is significantly different from that of top athletes, despite public perceptions of wealth across the tour. “So yes, they’re rich and we play a game. That’s not real life for someone 90 in the world. That’s traveling, paying, and you’re not pulling down athlete salaries.”

Roddick also directly addressed the 22% demand, situating it within broader professional sports comparisons. “Just so we’re clear, the players are begging for a 22% share of revenue from Slams. The NBA went on strike on a 53–47 split.”

“At minimum, prize money has to grow on a prorated basis with that growth, at the bare minimum.”

Roddick highlighted the role of top players such as Sinner, Sabalenka, Swiatek, Gauff, Djokovic and Alcaraz in shaping the public and institutional visibility of the issue.

The former world No. 1 stressed that their earnings structure is not primarily dependent on prize money. “The top players don’t make the lion’s share of their money in prize money anyway. It’s endorsements. It’s done behind the white line.”

Roddick argued that their participation in the debate is less about personal financial gain and more about systemic visibility.

“When Novak talks about it, it’s not because Novak needs more money. If Novak talks about it, it gets press. Press builds pressure. People need to know what’s happening,” the 2003 US open champion added. “When you hear Coco Gauff talking about it, it’s not because she needs money and it’s not because she’s greedy. She’s like the most mature human I’ve ever seen at that age.”

He also underlined the importance of top-player advocacy for lower-ranked competitors. “If she doesn’t talk about it, the person who is 90 in the world doesn’t get the benefit of it.”

“They’re advocating for someone who is 90 in the world who is still worried about the cost of expenses. Forget about going to 250 in the world where you’re not making a living at any scale at all.”

Beyond prize money, the “Project Red Eye” discussion includes broader welfare-related demands such as pensions, long-term health insurance and maternity leave provisions.

Roddick questioned the historical absence of such commitments within Grand Slam structures. “It’s welfare demands, right? You know, they want them to commit to pensions, long-term health insurance, and maternity leave. Have you heard that the Slams should contribute to healthcare before?”

He concluded that the debate is not primarily about elite earnings, but about structural sustainability across the sport. “These aren’t selfish, terrible people. They’re advocating for someone coming behind them. They’re advocating for a 15-year-old who is going to be 150 and actually be able to make a living hopefully in five or eight years.”