Greg Rusedski has dismissed the players’ boycott over prize money as “a little bit ridiculous” after Wimbledon increased its total purse by 20% for 2026. The former world number four believes the sport’s top players need to understand how the event is funded before pushing for more.
The dispute grew out of a wider tension in the spring, when Roland Garros confirmed a 9.5% increase compared with 2025 and around 20 elite players, led by Aryna Sabalenka and Jannik Sinner, asked for a different distribution of the pie to be heard. In London in the days before Wimbledon, some players limited their media obligations to 15 minutes, although the protest ended before the tournament after constructive meetings with the All England Club.
Why Rusedski pushed back
Rusedski, a 15-time ATP title winner and the 1997 US Open finalist, did not hide his view on the issue. “They increased the prize money again. So from my point of view, it’s a little bit ridiculous,” he said.
That is the heart of the argument. Wimbledon is not a standalone exhibition; it is a major business operation with heavy costs, and Rusedski says players often focus only on the prize pool rather than the wider picture. He pointed out that the All England Club has to pay for the event itself, including TV and upgrades, before any profit is shared.
The numbers behind the argument
Rusedski also contrasted the modern game with his own career. He retired in 2006 and said his first-round prize money then was £10,000, compared with £80,000 now. In his words, inflation has not gone anywhere near that level in twenty years, which is why he sees the increase as so significant.
He added that Wimbledon generates around £100 million in profit, with £50 million going to the LTA to develop tennis in Britain and the other £50 million effectively returning to players through prize money. For him, that makes the boycott hard to justify.
Players, pressure and education
Rusedski said he had discussed the issue with two top agents, both of whom represented Grand Slam champions. One backed the boycott, but the other agreed with his view that the protest was over the top.
He also questioned the players’ media stance. “Fifteen minutes to the press — do you want the journalists against you? What is this gonna do? I think you need to educate the players,” he said.
His broader point is that elite players do have leverage, but it needs to be used carefully. He argued that players who are seeded and play on Centre Court already receive 40 tickets for their team, which helps their sponsorship arrangements as well. In his view, that is another example of how the system works beyond the prize cheque alone.
Wimbledon’s record increase
There is no doubt Wimbledon has still delivered a major boost to players in 2026. Sally Bolton said it was the largest prize money increase in the event’s history, and the tournament’s total pot has risen by 20% compared with last year’s edition.
That leaves the sport in a familiar position: players will keep pushing for a bigger share, tournaments will point to the costs of staging elite events, and the debate over prize money by round will continue. But for now, Wimbledon has made its statement, and Rusedski has made his verdict just as clearly.
