The nostalgia for the one-week Masters 1000 emerges in the ATP circuit

Longing for what is lost is one of the most human feelings that exist, and the ATP's inexorable tendency to break the usual format of Masters 1000 tournaments has sparked a movement of vindication among players and fans. The spectacular display seen in Montecarlo raises the question of whether extending the duration of 7 out of the 9 Masters 1000 events of the year to two weeks could have been a mistake.

A reduced field with 56 players in 64 slots, with only the top eight exempt from the first round, entails maximum demand from the first match. The need to compete on consecutive days, days filled with interesting matches, and a total concentration of spectacle in a week where tennis fans put all their senses into the tournament. That is what has always characterized the Masters 1000, but everything has changed now.

Until just a few years ago, Indian Wells and Miami vied for the honorary title of the fifth Grand Slam, with extended draws and lasting a few days longer than usual. It was seen as a tribute to two events with larger-than-usual facilities, special historical prestige, and located at a point in the calendar where the time between two Grand Slams is longer. This has now become the common practice, resulting in the first direct consequence being the diminishing prestige and genuine character of the two initial Masters 1000 events of the year.

- The historical differentiation of Indian Wells and Miami has been lost

The overload of the ATP calendar is becoming more blatant, and extending almost 7 out of the 9 Masters 1000 events of the year to almost two weeks has not contributed to improving the situation. Even though the top 32 are exempt from the first round and do not start competing until Friday or Saturday, they have to be present at the tournament venue from Monday, fulfilling promotional and sponsorship commitments, participating in press conferences, and training hard to acclimate to the tournament conditions.

More time away from home, more time with competition routines, and more difficulties for tennis fans to stay attuned to everything happening in a world full of entertainment options. Introducing rest days between matches does not seem to make much sense, as this is part of the ATP's strategy to enhance the larger events that generate more revenue, gradually overshadowing ATP 250 tournaments, the major losers in this trend.

- The world's best tennis players see a significant increase in their competition time

Quantity is not usually associated with quality, and that seems to be what is happening in tennis. The first-round demands for favorites are weakened, there are many matches every day, making it hard to follow each tournament, while the coffers of all events continue to fill up by selling more tickets.

The best aspect of this format is the democratization it brings to tennis's middle class. With extended draws, more players are included in the final draw, allowing lower-ranked players to compete in the qualifying rounds, resulting in an increasingly higher prize money in both the qualifying and final tournament rounds. This is the pillar on which the ATP defends a decision that does not convince players or fans.

- The great advantage of extended draw Masters 1000 events is providing opportunities for lower-ranked players and democratizing tennis

Rune, Giron, Pegula, or Tsitsipas have been the most outspoken lately in favor of the one-week Masters 1000 tournaments, while on social media, the overall sentiment among fans seems to deeply long for the times when all Masters 1000 events lasted that long. Montecarlo and Paris remain relics of the past on a tour moving in another direction.

Many may wonder if these two events could also expand at some point, but there is no indication that they will. Montecarlo has a special non-obligatory participation rule for the top players, and its presence on the calendar is tied to its history and tradition, aspects that are hardly violable in its case.

The Monte Carlo Masters a nice and welcome reminder that you don’t need two-week schedules and late-night finishes to put on an entertaining tennis tournament.

— Stuart Fraser (@stu_fraser) April 13, 2025

- Why do Montecarlo and Paris continue to be one-week events?

It is a unique event in the world; the Montecarlo Country Club does not have the necessary facilities to accommodate a parallel women's tournament or an extended men's draw, and there is scarcely any room left in the calendar. A similar situation occurs with the final Masters 1000 event of the year, Paris, which recently changed venues to meet quality standards and avoid jeopardizing its continuity on the calendar.

What is clear is that the main victims of this trend to extend the Masters 1000 are the players who often reach the finals and see their time in competition prolonged throughout the year, while the main beneficiaries are players whose rankings fluctuate between 60 and 100 in the world, giving them the opportunity to compete in these events, either in the final draw or in the qualifying rounds. Additionally, tournaments can sell more tickets and generate more business, aiming to attract new fans, but many followers are showing signs of weariness at the decline in the level of extended draw tournaments and the difficulty of maintaining enthusiasm and comprehensive interest for such a long time. What do you think? Which duration of Masters 1000 events do you prefer?

This is an automatic translation. You can read the original news, La nostalgia por los Masters 1000 de una semana se abre paso en el circuito ATP