The ATP calendar is once again under scrutiny: How can we prevent another exodus like the one in Canada?

The absences of Jannik Sinner, Novak Djokovic, and Carlos Alcaraz at the Masters 1000 in Canada raise questions about the sustainability of the ATP calendar. Andrea Petkovic and Ben Shelton have raised perfectly compatible reflections on an excessively long season, the proliferation of extended Masters 1000, and a system that pushes the top players to select tournaments to protect their health.

Canada is now the major victim, but the debate goes much further. The ATP aims to enhance its Masters 1000 and increase the revenue generated by the circuit, but the obligation to compete in certain events and the significant economic bonuses linked to participation can lead some players to compete without being physically prepared. With the possibility of a profound restructuring of the calendar in 2028 and the project to incorporate a tenth Masters 1000 in Saudi Arabia, the feeling grows that commercial interests are advancing faster than the measures intended to protect the true protagonists.

Petkovic points out a structural problem in the ATP calendar

Andrea Petkovic offered a particularly interesting reflection on The Big T Podcast, as she believes it is misguided to reduce the problem to Canada's position immediately after Wimbledon. For the German player, one must consider the overall length of the men's season.

"I don't think it's just their position in the calendar. Men play three to four weeks longer. Women finish after the first week of November, which is already an absurdly long season when you compare it to other sports," she reflected.

Petkovic finds it unusual that there is hardly any extended period in which a professional tennis player can completely disconnect from their work.

"There is no sport that doesn't have six or eight weeks of rest at some point. Sometimes tennis doesn't have that. Somehow, you have to find time for your vacation and then immediately start preparing for the next season," she noted.

The problem intensifies for those competing in the ATP Finals and having commitments afterwards. The actual rest ends up being minimal when you also have to fit in a preseason to meet the physical demands of the following year.

"Montreal and Cincinnati back-to-back as two-week tournaments is too much"

The expansion of numerous Masters 1000 constitutes another fundamental element. Petkovic does not believe that all of them necessarily need to regain their former duration, but she does question the logic of linking extended events during particularly sensitive moments in the calendar.

"I don't think all two-week tournaments are problematic. But if you have Cincinnati and Montreal back-to-back as two-week events, it's too much. It's too much," she concluded.

Here lies one of the explanations for what happened in Canada. A player who has gone far in Roland Garros and Wimbledon needs to recover their body before facing the US Open. If the two preceding Masters 1000 practically occupy the entire transition period to New York, opting out of one becomes a logical solution.

"The top players, like Jannik and Novak, will think: where are all the tennis players I need to play against to check my level before the US Open? In Cincinnati. So they make a decision. It's unfortunate for Canada because it's a fantastic place. Montreal has always been one of my favorite tournaments," Petkovic explained.

Shelton defends Sinner and Djokovic: "They don't skip a tournament without a reason"

Ben Shelton reaches a similar conclusion from the perspective of someone who faces the demands of the tour every week. The American identifies injuries as his biggest concern and considers it impossible to demand the same schedule from all players.

"I'm not sure how sustainable the current structure of the tour is. For me, the biggest concern is injuries. Sinner knows his body better than anyone, like all players," he pointed out.

Shelton also does not accept the idea that the big stars arbitrarily skip tournaments of enormous importance.

"If Jannik and Novak feel physically and mentally ready, they will play. In my opinion, they don't skip a tournament without a reason," he stated.

His example with Sinner is particularly illustrative because success generates its own overload. "Jannik is winning practically every match he plays; his number of matches is extremely high. How is he going to compete in all the tournaments? I don't think it's sustainable," he warned.

A player who consistently reaches finals can accumulate five, six, or seven matches every week he competes. The nominal schedule may be identical for everyone, but the actual workload is far from it.

Mandatory Participation and Economic Bonuses: To What Extent Does the Player Decide Freely?

This equation must include a particularly sensitive aspect. The Masters 1000 are part of a system with participation obligations, while the economic incentives linked to performance and presence throughout the season can further influence the creation of the calendar.

The problem arises when a player finds themselves in that gray area so common in professional sports: they are not injured to the point of being unable to compete, but they do experience discomfort, fatigue, or signs of overuse. Opting out of a tournament can have sporting and economic consequences, while playing entails taking a physical risk.

It is here that the system can generate perverse incentives. A tennis player may end up competing with discomfort not because they believe it is best for their body but because withdrawing from the event impacts economic goals or commitments made during the season.

Shelton's words gain even more value from this perspective. If each player knows their body better than anyone else, they should have sufficient leeway to manage it without feeling penalized for doing so. The ATP needs big names in its tournaments, but directly or indirectly forcing competition will hardly solve the underlying problem.

Is business taking precedence over players' health?

The expansion of the Masters 1000 is an evident strategy for product growth. More days mean more sessions, tickets, broadcasts, and business opportunities. From a business perspective, there are reasons to bet on this model.

The question is how far the calendar can grow without deteriorating what it aims to sell.

If a tournament lasts longer but loses some of the top players due to fatigue; if players accumulate more injuries; or if stars must increasingly choose when to appear, quantitative growth may end up reducing the quality of the show.

This generates the perception that the interests of the ATP and the tournaments are taking priority over the needs of the players. And it is impossible to forget that it is the players who sustain the product. There is no sustainable commercial expansion if the top stars arrive exhausted, injured, or absent from a good portion of the major events.

2028 could provoke an even greater revolution in the calendar

All this debate takes on a particularly interesting dimension when looking towards 2028. The calendar for that season will already be deeply conditioned by the Los Angeles Olympic Games, and there is also the possibility of a broader restructuring of the circuit.

Among the scenarios that have been proposed is the creation of a tenth Masters 1000 in Saudi Arabia. If this were to materialize, the ATP would need to find space for another massive event within a season that the participants themselves already consider excessively congested.

The issue is not only about where to place it. It would be necessary to decide what happens with the other tournaments, how many Masters 1000 maintain extended formats, what actual rest periods are guaranteed, and how all of this fits in with Grand Slams, ATP Finals, Davis Cup, and Olympic Games.

Simply adding another major event without reducing demands in other areas would mean increasing an existing problem. A potential revolution in 2028 should serve to redesign the calendar, not just to find a slot for another economically attractive tournament.

The debate inevitably recalls the battle for prize money

There is also a parallel with another of the major demands from the players: their participation in the distribution of revenues generated by the main tournaments.

The background is similar. Tennis generates increasing amounts of money, and events seek to enhance their commercial value, but players argue that their influence in decision-making and the distribution of that wealth should be proportional to their status as key figures.

The calendar and prize money end up being part of the same discussion about who decides how professional tennis moves forward.

It is not simply about asking for more money or more rest. Players want to have real power to intervene in decisions that directly affect their careers, their bodies, and the duration of their professional lives.

An increasingly favorable environment for major protests

The statements from Petkovic and Shelton do not come in a vacuum. They add to a recurring discontent among players regarding the length of the season, the format of some tournaments, the accumulation of commitments, and the distribution of revenues.

Individually, each demand may seem manageable. Together, they outline a much larger structural problem.

The ATP needs to protect its tournaments, and the organizers need certainty regarding the presence of stars. But players need to be able to rest, recover, and decide when their bodies are not prepared to compete without feeling pressured by obligations or economic incentives.

Canada serves as a perfect warning. If several of the best players in the world simultaneously conclude that the best choice for their careers is not to compete in a Masters 1000, perhaps the problem lies not with those who are absent, but with the system that forces them to choose.

And with a possible additional expansion starting in 2028, the tension may increase. Tennis players need to gain more influence in decisions that determine the future of the circuit. Otherwise, a scenario is being created that increasingly favors individual complaints turning into much more serious collective claims.

This is an automatic translation. You can read the original news, El calendario ATP vuelve a quedar en evidencia: ¿Cómo evitar otra desbandada como la de Canadá?