The US Open reignites the controversy over scheduling: how to find the perfect balance?

Carlos Navarro - 5 Sep 2026 | 20:30
US Open 2026 ATP WTA Horarios debate

The American tournament is once again in the spotlight for its late finishes, with matches going past midnight. Is there a remedy for this trend?

Go to comments section Preferir Puntodebreak en Google
Night sessions are once again a source of controversy at the US Open.

How difficult it is to arrange a good schedule for a Grand Slam. The huge number of matches in the first few days and the endless pursuit of profit by the tournaments turns each major event into the central stage of a debate that regularly resurfaces. What would be the perfect schedule to ensure players do not finish too late? Which Major employs the best formula? An old question with a multitude of answers, in which the US Open certainly does not have the advantage.

The New York tournament has never been averse to late finishes. Quite the opposite: New York embraces the show, welcoming matches that stretch into the early morning, leaving the stands filled only with those fans willing to sacrifice everything to watch tennis. They perhaps do not consider the thousands of ordinary workers that enable such a large-scale event to function: they are also affected by archaic schedules, forced to go to bed after three in the morning before another never-ending workday.

Because tennis seems to be the only sport that "punishes" its stars with schedules that extend into the early hours, disregarding the players' well-being and forcing them to undertake a savage physical effort at times when their bodies are practically screaming to sleep. This has been an atypical US Open, and it is true that we are witnessing more lengthy and closely contested matches than usual... but a couple of exceptions cannot hide the cold facts: of the six days we have had in the tournament, only one concluded before midnight, while three (half of them) extended beyond two in the morning.

What is the perfect schedule? What problem do Grand Slams have?

In a sport that has modernized so much in recent seasons and in which players invest meticulously in technology, nutrition, and extensive equipment to cover all their pillars, it does not seem that many of the tournaments are keeping up with this evolution, putting obstacles in the path of maximizing every possible cent.

Thus, the trend we see at the US Open is not unfamiliar to other Slams since the introduction of night sessions. In Australia, we are also accustomed to these situations, with days consisting of two matches starting at 7:00 PM: increasingly slower courts, abrasive hard courts, very high temperatures, and days where time stretches into the early hours. The result, in the current climate of the circuit, is unavoidable.

How to put an end to this? What is the solution? Do the other Grand Slams do it better? With Wimbledon, we have a contrasting case, but at the same time unique and surprising: the curfew imposed by local law (matches can only be played until 11:00 PM local time) prevents these situations, which could be a magnificent trigger for experiencing a full day on Centre Court, without night sessions and pure tennis... but the tournament turns it into a deadly trap, starting its days at noon (instead of at 11:00 AM like other Slams), and often resulting in cases where, if one of the scheduled matches goes to five sets, the last one may be postponed until the next day.

Perhaps Roland Garros is the one that comes closest to a proper balance: the introduction of the night session was done smoothly, putting barely one match in that slot, thus avoiding matches piling up beyond midnight. This led to another type of debate (it never rains to everyone's liking, of course), demanding, for example, that more women's matches occupy this prime time slot: alternative debates that do, however, stray from the main issue.

Finding the balance is exceedingly complicated. Three matches in the daytime session or just two? Two in the night session or just one? Ideally, in my opinion, it would be a less radical, more continuity-based proposal: to move the night session earlier (the issue, of course, is that 6:00 PM feels anything but nighttime... but only this way can you counteract the risk of lengthy matches and, in turn, maintain a different session that provides a new revenue source for the tournaments) to gain an hour against the clock, and schedule only two matches in the daytime session, starting at 11:00 AM, to ensure that in both sessions you will see many hours of tennis.

There is no ideal roadmap or an idea that pleases everyone, as Ivan Ljubicic argued in a debate that even led to the proposal from Carlos Moyá, who calls for the elimination of night sessions and a day that runs continuously, without breaks between matches and taking advantage of daylight. Which proposal will the viewer favor? Are we facing a problem with an easy solution? Will the tournaments tackle this issue someday? We pass the ball to you in the comments.

This is an automatic translation. You can read the original news, El US Open reaviva la polémica de los horarios: ¿cómo encontrar el equilibrio perfecto?