Doubles deserves better than the ATP’s proposed cull

Over their storied career, Bob and Mike Bryan won 16 major titles and spent 438 weeks as the world’s top ranked pair. The identical twins produced magnetic performances, drawing in huge audiences to their sparkling brand of play. The Bryans retired in 2020 as among the most recognisable ambassadors of the sport. Six years on, the brothers are emerging as steadfast allies in a fight against the sport’s governing body that has proposed radical changes to the doubles circuit from 2028. If these proposals, that will be voted on at next month’s ATP Finals in Turin, are greenlit, the doubles circuit will be fundamentally reshaped.

The ATP is considering a significant culling. Masters 1000 draws would be reduced from 32 teams to 16, while ATP 500 and ATP 250 fields would shrink from 16 pairs to eight. The share of doubles in the prize money pool would fall from approximately 20% to 10%, with savings redirected towards singles qualifying and early-round payments. Estimates suggest that around US$20 million would shift from doubles to singles.

The ATP’s argument is premised on doubles rapidly losing audiences, both at tournaments and on television. They argue this restructuring would create a more sustainable model while preserving doubles’ place on the tour. However, for the players this is simply glib corporate talk. A group of 137 current players, 28 legends and 20 national federations have shot off an angry letter, in a unionised attempt to force the ATP to take a U-turn.


Dutch player Sem Verbeek, among the signatories, told BBC Sport: “We’re at risk of losing a discipline of tennis which is historic — but has a big future. These proposals would destroy careers, livelihoods and dreams.” The Bryan brothers, who led a lawsuit in 2005 against the ATP when a similar proposal was mooted, have provided unflinching support, with Mike calling the proposed changes “anti-competitive”.\

The players assert that waning interest in doubles is not down to the fading attraction of the format, but because of a lack of promotion and marketing. This argument undoubtedly has merit because watching doubles reveals tennis at its most inventive. The court becomes a canvas of angles, with four players constantly creating space, closing gaps and anticipating the next exchange. On the doubles court, movement is a shared language. When one partner advances, the other covers and quite often, a sudden interception transforms the point. At the net, hand speed produces breathtaking reflex volleys, an aspect that has reduced significantly from the singles court in this modern age of back-court power. When watching doubles, it is fascinating to observe instinctive blocks and exchanges that seem almost too quick to follow. Singles often builds through baseline patterns while doubles compresses the drama into splitsecond decisions. Its beauty lies in collaboration — two minds reading the same moment, two bodies moving together, turning individual skill into something thrillingly collective. There is a gasp-evoking quality to doubles play.

However, the ATP’s proposals are premised on fewer and fewer fans appreciating this nuance and skill, although detailed viewership figures confirming a sustained decline have not been made publicly available. The unwillingness of singles stars to play doubles over the last couple of decades has also been a factor, with interest in the sport soaring on the back of epic singles rivalries featuring Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, leaving little room for anything else. Current superstars Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner have shown little enthusiasm for doubles, focusing entirely on building their singles legacy.

Quite clearly, this is an inflection point. Doubles needs better marketing, tournament promotion and television coverage. There are rich storytelling opportunities in its thrilling rallies, compelling personalities and shifting partnerships. Cosmetic rule changes or trying to convince singles stars to play is unlikely to move the needle. An entire professional pursuit is confronting a brutal reality check. And for no fault of its own.