No, the new Masters 1000 tournaments do not work

Streaming ATP Rome live tennis

🎾 Karen Khachanov vs Dino Prizmic

1. Sign up with Bet365 here
2. Make your first deposit of at least €5
3. Go to the “Live” section and watch every match

Watch the match on Bet365

 PUBLICIDAD

Register at bet365, deposit €5 or more into your account and you will receive 100% of your eligible deposit in Bet Credits (up to €100). New customers only. Terms apply. Winnings do not include the value of Bet Credits. Maximum prizes, game restrictions, time limits and terms apply. Registration required.

The ATP plan to enhance its product, structured under the motto of 'One Vision' and largely conceived by its president, Andrea Gaudenzi, was based on pillars that promised to completely change the professional circuit's structure as we knew it. A package of measures aimed at adapting racket sports to global demand... but above all, increasing significantly the value of tournaments under the ATP umbrella, strengthening its position against the Grand Slams, which are governed by different entities. This is when the Masters 1000 come into play... protagonists of a change that, as of August 2025, we can confirm has fallen apart.

Because Gaudenzi and company sought to maximize the golden goose to the point where the product is in an extremely fragile state. The initial premise seemed clear: the ATP's best tournaments, the much-desired 'premium' product, were going to be revalued: more matches, more days, more competition, more business opportunities, more ticket sales. More, more, and more... at the expense, of course, of the players' health and rest time. The calendar? No breaks. The smaller tournaments? Forgotten and left to their fate: after all, it's the big ones that sell, right?

And I won't lie: at first, I wasn't as skeptical about this formula as many others. There were two aspects that, in my view, represented some improvement in that more global and more opportunities-filled tennis that I so strongly defend. Firstly, these tournaments expanded their draws and allowed top-150 players easier access to Masters 1000, enabling them to progress in tournaments whose entry barrier was previously insurmountable and, of course, earn along the way an economic incentive that would allow them to pursue their professional career more comfortably. Secondly, more rest days could help players not arrive exhausted at the final stages of Masters 1000 and, above all, better manage their schedule in the latter rounds (we've seen too many times, particularly due to rain, players play quarters, semis, and finals back-to-back in tournaments like Rome or Cincinnati).

AN ABSOLUTE DISASTER

None of that has materialized. Opinions were mixed regarding this already worn-out debate until this August, but when the change directly affected the North American tour, the flaws were fully exposed. No, the two-week Masters 1000 don't work. Who in their right mind can stay physically and mentally fresh for the US Open when they've played and performed relatively well in Washington, Canada, and Cincinnati? Which player can handle the current level of demand for four consecutive weeks and still compete at 100% in a Grand Slam?

As the answer is clear, the product suffers. The product loses quality. Withdrawals abound in those Masters 1000 that the ATP sought to boost; much lower tennis quality in the final rounds due to fatigue and exhaustion, including retirements. Moreover, the extended duration of these tournaments leads to scheduling becoming an unsolvable Tetris puzzle, resulting in finals in the middle of the week at times inconvenient for half the world (placing a final at noon on a workday would be suicidal), with formerly highly anticipated days (remember those Fridays with four quarterfinals in the summer; now they're split across two less accessible days with much less appealing schedules). 

Are more tickets being sold this way? Maybe tournament directors want to claim it's a complete success. What's clear is that the anticipation for these tournaments has dropped significantly. The attempt to 'premiumize' each of these events has led to a harsh loss of essence and a widespread detachment from tournaments that, I remember, used to generate great excitement (days in midsummer with quarterfinals and semifinals between true champions starting at night and ending early in the morning; now you're unsure if two matches are quarterfinals or semis, and you don't understand why they start so late). 

Players themselves are increasingly voicing opposition to a grueling calendar that creates apathy among fans and, simultaneously, increased stress on players' bodies. They're not perfect, and perhaps they make conflicting decisions at times, but they grew up enjoying the Torontos or Cincinnatis full of action... and now they find themselves trapped for over a week in events that become marathons, leaving no room for rest before the next challenge. The worst part? This is a pivotal concept of a plan that promised long-term continuity, which could now become a significant issue for the ATP. Will they reverse course? I highly doubt it... so they better pray for the top players' superhuman health; otherwise, their product will become even less appealing compared to the Grand Slams.

This news is an automatic translation. You can read the original news, No, los nuevos Masters 1000 no funcionan