Why Tennis Scheduling Remains a Challenge: The Impact of Late-Night Matches

The Financial Logic Behind Late-Night Matches

Three of the four Grand Slam tournaments—the Australian Open, Roland Garros, and the US Open—use a split schedule that separates matches into day and night sessions. This approach allows organizers to sell tickets for two separate sessions in the same stadium seat, effectively doubling ticket revenue.

At the US Open, night sessions typically start at 7pm and feature high-profile men's and women's matches. These sessions attract fans who prefer attending after work hours, and tickets for night matches often command higher prices. Additionally, broadcasters benefit from scheduling matches during primetime hours, enabling them to charge premium advertising rates.

For example, ESPN’s domestic broadcast rights for the US Open are valued at $2.04 billion through 2037, averaging $170 million annually. The network’s ability to air matches during primetime, when viewership is highest, is a key factor in this lucrative deal.

In contrast, Wimbledon operates without a split day-night schedule. Matches at SW19 start at 11am and generally conclude by 11pm, with unfinished matches postponed to the following day. This approach limits late finishes but also reduces opportunities for additional ticket sales and primetime broadcasting revenue.

The Drawbacks of Late Starts for Players and Fans

While late-night matches generate significant revenue, they pose challenges for players and spectators alike. Matches that start at 7pm can easily extend past midnight, especially when preceding matches run long. For example, a five-set men’s match can last over four or five hours, pushing subsequent matches into the early hours of the morning.

Venus Williams’ recent US Open match against Sofia Kenin began just after midnight and ended shortly after 2am. Williams described the scheduling as "not ideal," highlighting the difficulty of maintaining conditioning and focus under such conditions. Similarly, top players like Taylor Fritz and Coco Gauff have spoken about the negative impact of late finishes on sleep, recovery, and overall health.

For fans, late finishes reduce the appeal of attending night sessions, especially for those who need to work the next day or rely on public transportation. Sparse crowds in the early morning hours have been noted at Arthur Ashe Stadium during these late matches, diminishing the atmosphere for players and viewers.

Tournament organizers acknowledge these concerns but emphasize the unpredictability of match lengths. Unlike sports with fixed time slots, tennis matches can vary widely in duration, making it difficult to guarantee start and end times.

Player Concerns and the Push for Change

The scheduling challenges are part of a broader dispute between players and Grand Slam organizers concerning working conditions, prize money, and player welfare. Players have raised issues including late-night scheduling, insufficient recovery time, increased media obligations, and pension contributions.

In recent years, prominent players such as Coco Gauff, Aryna Sabalenka, and Jannik Sinner have protested by limiting media duties during tournaments, signaling dissatisfaction with current conditions.

These tensions have led to some positive developments: Wimbledon and the US Open announced prize money increases for 2026 and the establishment of a Grand Slam players advisory council. This council, launching after the current US Open, aims to give players a stronger voice in tournament operations.

However, it remains unclear whether the council will successfully advocate for changes to late-night scheduling. Organizers face a delicate balancing act—reducing late finishes could decrease broadcast revenue and, consequently, prize money. The financial stakes involved make any scheduling overhaul complex.

How Different Grand Slams Handle Scheduling

Wimbledon’s approach contrasts sharply with the US Open’s split sessions. By starting matches no earlier than 11am and ending play by 11pm, Wimbledon avoids the issue of matches finishing in the early morning. This policy provides certainty for players and fans but limits the number of matches that can be played in a day.

The Australian Open and Roland Garros also use split schedules with night sessions, similar to the US Open. These tournaments face the same challenges balancing financial incentives and player welfare.

Broadcasting models also influence scheduling decisions. Wimbledon’s primary broadcaster, the BBC, does not rely heavily on advertising revenue, reducing the pressure to schedule matches during primetime. In contrast, ESPN’s commercial model for the US Open incentivizes maximizing viewership during evening hours.

The differences highlight how commercial considerations shape tournament operations and player experiences.

Potential Solutions and Future Outlook

Several ideas have been proposed to address late-night scheduling issues. Suggestions include starting evening sessions earlier, reducing the number of night matches, or implementing stricter curfews to prevent matches from running too late.

US Open organizers considered starting evening sessions at 6pm instead of 7pm but found logistical challenges for fans traveling to the venue. Reducing night matches could affect ticket sales and broadcast revenues, making it a less attractive option for organizers.

The creation of the Grand Slam players advisory council may lead to more collaborative scheduling decisions in the future, balancing player health with commercial interests.

Ultimately, any significant changes will require negotiation among players, organizers, broadcasters, and sponsors. Until then, late finishes will likely remain a feature of tennis Grand Slams, with players and fans adapting as best they can.

What this means

The scheduling headaches in tennis Grand Slams reflect a complex interplay between financial imperatives and the well-being of players and fans. While late-night matches generate substantial revenue and attract prime-time viewers, they also disrupt players’ routines and challenge fan engagement. Efforts to reform scheduling practices are underway, but meaningful change will require balancing diverse interests. As the sport evolves, the dialogue between players and organizers will be crucial in shaping a schedule that supports both the business and the integrity of tennis.