Can tennis grow without losing its integrity?
Oxford Brookes academic examines the hidden ethical challenges facing the sport, from equal pay and match-fixing to sustainability and access.
Tennis is often presented as a sport built on fair play. At recreational level, players frequently call their own lines, relying on an opponent’s honesty and judgement. But as tennis has grown into a global commercial industry, questions about fairness, power and integrity have become increasingly difficult to resolve.
In a new episode of Oxford Brookes Unscripted, Dr Rocco Porreca, Senior Lecturer in Marketing at Oxford Brookes University, examines the ethical tensions shaping modern tennis. His forthcoming book, The Ethics of Tennis, explores six key issues facing the sport, including equal pay, governance, sponsorship, match-fixing, accessibility and environmental sustainability.
“Tennis is one of these unique sports where there’s been this element of integrity embedded into the sport from the very beginning,” says Rocco. “But now you can see, as tennis has grown into this massive business, that integrity is perhaps coming apart a little bit.”
Equal pay is only part of the picture
Tennis is often praised for its progress on equal pay. The four Grand Slam tournaments now offer equal prize money to male and female players, following campaigns led by figures including Billie Jean King. Equality has also begun to extend to other major tournaments.
But Rocco argues that looking only at the most visible events can obscure the wider economics of the sport. Professional tennis contains a vast network of tournaments and players, many of whom operate far from the financial rewards associated with Wimbledon or the US Open.
At the lower levels, players may earn very little even when they win. Travel, coaching, accommodation, equipment and tournament entry fees can quickly outweigh prize money. That financial insecurity can create vulnerabilities, including the risk of match-fixing.
“The winner does not take home the whole amount,” Rocco explains. “They’re going to take home a portion of that because it’s being split out amongst the various rounds.”
The contrast between the top and lower levels of the sport is stark. A player winning a lower-tier professional tournament may earn only a few thousand dollars, while a Grand Slam champion can receive millions.The cost of reaching the top
The financial barriers begin long before a player reaches the professional circuit. For young people hoping to progress, costs can include private coaching, court time, equipment, travel and tournament fees.
Rocco describes tennis as a sport in which the ability to pay can determine how far a player is able to go. He recalls speaking to the parent of a player who had invested around half a million dollars in their child’s career before they turned professional.
That kind of investment is beyond the reach of most families. Although community and charitable programmes offer lower-cost or free opportunities, these organisations are often dependent on fundraising.
The result is a sport in which talent alone may not be enough. Access to money, facilities and support can shape who gets the chance to develop.
Sponsorship and difficult compromises
Commercial investment has helped tennis expand, fund tournaments and increase prize money. It has also created difficult ethical questions.
Rocco points to the example of maternity provision for professional players. Tennis has historically lacked the clearly defined maternity arrangements seen in some other sports. Recent provision has been supported by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, raising questions about whether a positive development can be separated from the ethical concerns surrounding its source of funding.
This is part of a wider tension in sport: governing organisations need revenue, but the sources of that revenue may not always align with the values they claim to represent.
Similar questions arise around betting sponsorship. The sport can have an official betting partner, while individual players are prohibited from accepting betting sponsorship themselves because of concerns about match-fixing.
For Rocco, the apparent contradiction raises questions about who has the power to profit from commercial relationships and who is expected to bear the risks.
A complicated governing structure
Unlike sports with a more clearly defined hierarchy, tennis is governed by a network of organisations. The International Tennis Federation, the ATP, the WTA and the four Grand Slam tournaments each have distinct responsibilities and powers. Players, meanwhile, are independent contractors rather than employees of a single league or club.
This fragmented structure can make accountability difficult.
“You have a number of independent bodies which are tasked with governing,” says Rocco. “It’s much more of a network of governing bodies, as opposed to one main one.”
The structure affects decisions about prize money, player welfare, sponsorship, anti-doping and tournament organisation. It can also leave players with limited collective power, contributing to calls for greater representation and unionisation.
Match-fixing and financial vulnerability
Match-fixing remains a persistent concern, particularly at the lower levels of professional tennis. The sport offers many opportunities for betting, with a large number of matches taking place across the global tournament calendar.
Players facing financial insecurity may be vulnerable to approaches from those seeking to manipulate individual games, sets or points. Fixing does not necessarily require a player to lose an entire match. A player may be offered money to lose a set, drop a few games or deliberately underperform at a particular moment.
The problem is difficult to detect because poor performance can have many explanations. A player may be injured, exhausted, discouraged or using a tactical approach sometimes known as “tanking”.
Tennis has an integrity agency responsible for addressing corruption and match-fixing, but Rocco argues that the wider financial structure of the sport also needs attention.
Greater financial security would not eliminate corruption, but it could reduce the incentives that make lower-ranked players vulnerable.
Doping and transparency
Doping presents another test for tennis’s governance systems. Rocco discusses recent cases involving high-profile players and contrasts their treatment with the experience of lower-ranked athletes.
The issue is not only whether a banned substance was taken deliberately. It is also whether the rules and processes are applied consistently, transparently and fairly.
When high-profile players continue competing while cases are investigated or are able to negotiate shorter bans, while less prominent players face longer periods away from the sport, questions arise about whether status influences outcomes.
“Are there set rules that apply to all players on the same basis?” asks Rocco. “I think that is where this doping element comes in to be a bit frustrating.”
For him, transparency is central to good governance. Sporting organisations need to explain how decisions are made, why they are made and how they serve the interests of athletes and other stakeholders.
The environmental cost of tennis
Tennis also has a significant environmental footprint. The largest contributor is travel. Players, coaches, support staff and spectators may cross the world repeatedly during a season.
Rocco notes that around 90% of professional tennis’s carbon footprint comes from travel. In 2023, an ATP carbon-tracking app was used by 201 players, whose journeys collectively amounted to circling the globe several times per player.
Tracking travel can make the problem more visible, but it does not necessarily solve it. Carbon offsets may also raise questions about what is being funded and whether offsetting distracts from reducing emissions at source.
There is waste in the equipment used by the sport, too. Tennis balls lose their pressure quickly, particularly at elite level, and major tournaments can use hundreds of thousands of balls over a fortnight.
Meanwhile, the expansion of major venues can bring tennis into conflict with local residents and environmental concerns. Plans to expand the Wimbledon grounds, for example, have generated opposition from people concerned about the loss of green space and natural areas.
Is an ethical model possible?
For Rocco, the difficulty is that every proposed solution may create a new problem.
Reducing the number of tournaments could lower travel emissions and improve player welfare, but it could also remove opportunities for emerging players and make professional tennis less accessible to fans. Restricting sponsorship could protect the sport’s values, but reduce the money available for prize funds and player support. Removing lower-level events might improve the economics of the remaining tournaments, but deny players the chance to develop.
“There always seems to be this element of it negatively impacting someone,” he says.
Rather than offering a simple blueprint, Rocco argues for continued scrutiny, transparency and discussion. An ethical sport may not be a perfect or final state, but a process of asking who benefits, who bears the costs and whose voices are missing from decisions.
“Tennis can be changed,” he says, but progress will require the sport to confront the tensions built into its commercial model.
Dr Rocco Porreca’s book, The Ethics of Tennis, is due to be published by Routledge on 30 November.