Doubles always has been, is and will continue to be an integral part of this sport. The ATP proposal to implement Product 28 by 2028 has caused an uproar in the tennis fraternity. The proposal was presented to the ATP Player Council during the ATP-WTA 1000 Rome on 11 May, 2026. This proposal has received a considerable amount of opposition and negative remarks, arguing that this directly threatens the viability of a doubles player’s career along with showing favoritism. The main question that arises is that can a sports governing body restructure the functioning of its own even though it threatens the livelihood of a category of athletes that fall within it. The ATP has justified these by measures of commercial grounds and that singles gain more attraction of audiences and doubles on the other hand have a significantly lesser return on investment.

What is Product 28 Initiative?

This initiative is mainly focused on the benefit of singles players. There are two structural and financial changes that are proposed by the ATP. They are:

1. Change in the tournament draw size: This means that the draws will be directly reduced by 50% i.e. For ATP 1000 masters the draw will reduce from 32 to 16 pairs, for ATP 500 & 250 events the draws will reduce from 16 to merely 8 pairs and at the challenger level, the entry is prioritised based on singles players rankings. This automatically reduces approximately 50% of the available chance for doubles players and also makes it considerably more difficult for them to get an entry into a challenger even though they are more skilled
2. Change in prize money distribution: The ATP is planning to allocate a sum of the doubles category to the singles category. The revenue split would change from a 80/20 split to a 90/10 split singles to doubles respectively. The 10% extra that has been taken will be used to invest in the singles draws. The goal is to help lower-ranked singles players with financial stability and professional sustainability. Under this split, the pair would be left with splitting only 5% of the prize money, while the rest goes to the singles players. If the math is done then it will be an uphill battle for anyone outside the top 30 to make a living.

What is the commercial justification?

In professional sports and the way they generate income is commonly based on audience engagement, ticketing, broadcasting, and sponsorship revenues. According to ATP data, doubles matches have a very low rate of viewers compared to singles (The First Serve, 2026). This means that the ATP’s attempt to reinvest the resources could help the careers of singles players outside of top 100 to sustain longer on tour, and also give the audience what they want. This would directly benefit the longevity of the sport, so this is a win-win for both parties, but what about the doubles players? Is commercial benefit alone a good enough reason to make decisions that could put a certain category of players careers in jeopardy? There were many prominent figures in the tennis industry that argued that the ATP did a bad job at marketing the doubles matches. Seven-time Grand Slam winner Jamie Murray says he feels like tennis is “trying to kill” doubles tennis and he fears for its future (Michael Graham, 2024). Critics argue that the ATP devoted significantly greater broadcast coverage and promotional efforts to singles players like Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner, while doubles matches and players are treated as an unadvertised afterthought.

ATP is the dominant governing body in professional men’s tennis. It has principal duties that need to be carried out regarding governance and is responsible for regulating tournaments, ranking, entry for players in tournaments, etc. Given the ATP's regulatory powers, it has a corresponding responsibility to make decisions affecting players' livelihoods in accordance with the principles of transparency, procedural fairness and good governance. Sports requires uniform rules and a centralised regulation to function at an optimum rate , so now the central question is whether the restrictions are proportionate? Is halving the doubles draw the least restrictive means of achieving financial sustainability or is there any other way out to improve efficiency.

Legal and Policy Concerns

In a 2024 survey, it was found that nearly 70% of tennis players participate in doubles (Will Boucek, 2024). Major recreational leagues such as USTA Adult Leagues are also structured primarily around doubles matches. This suggests that doubles is the most played format in tennis. Doubles has a longer and sustainable career. Players such as Marcel Granollers, Rohan Bopanna, Leander Paes, etc played till their early 40’s, so according to the ATP statistics, is the doubles format truly not beneficial to tennis?

Critics argue that Product 28 is a serious threat to the livelihood of a certain class of players. It has been formulated without any consultation of doubles players, despite it directly affecting their careers. They should engage in a transparent consultation before implementing such

a radical change that materially alters an athlete's career. The abuse of dominance may attract scrutiny under competition law. In the case of National Collegiate Athletic Association v Shawne Alston, the plaintiffs challenged the NCAA’s rules regarding amateurism before the Northern District Court of California. The court ruled that these restrictions violated the competition laws under the Sherman Act, and unanimously ruled against the NCAA’s restrictions on athlete compensation. This legal defeat permanently altered the NCAA's regulatory authority and accelerated the adoption of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals (Harvard Law Review, 2021).

It also emphasized that although sports governing bodies may regulate their competitions, their rules must not be disproportionate restrictions on the rights of the athletes. This case emphasizes that sports governing bodies don't have blanket protection and are subject to competition laws where they significantly affect the athletes professional rights. Similarly in this case, the Product 28 initiative substantially limits the professional opportunities for the doubles players. It may be argued that a dominant organisation body is attempting to restructure a market in a manner that disproportionately disadvantages a particular group of players. Although the ATP is a private governing body, it exercises a significant amount of control over professional men’s tennis.

The proposal raises concerns regarding the principles of procedural fairness. The fundamental principles of natural justice require that the persons whose rights have been affected should be given an opportunity to be heard (Audi Alteram Partum) and that the deciding body must be neutral ( Nemo Judex In Causa Sua). Hence, any decision that substantially affects the athletes’s career should be made through a fair and transparent process following natural justice. This allows the affected category of people a right to representation and the opportunity to present their views before any reform is adopted. Failure to do so would risk the legitimacy of the decision making process.

The Professional Tennis Players Association, renownedly known as PTPA, has already filed several lawsuits against tennis governing bodies, alleging that they collectively operate as a ‘cartel’ dictating their own terms and conditions without any transparency. The PTPA has recently had an internal leadership lawsuit filed in June, 2026 over a power struggle within the association itself in the D.C. Superior Court (PTPA Players, 2026). In 2005, the ATP had tried pulling off something similar, and immediately faced legal actions from several doubles players (Deepti, 2005). The ATP introduced reforms that would significantly alter the doubles entry requirements. It gave greater importance to singles ranking even then.

The rule change was that entry for doubles would be based off singles rankings. Many athletes that included the Bryan brothers, Mahesh Bhupathi, etc challenged this and immediately approached the US District Court, Houston. In this matter, an out of court settlement was conducted. They argued that the ATP was acting like an illegal cartel and was actively conspiring to restrain trade. The lawsuit further charged the ATP with the breach of fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty to its own athletes. The players also pointed out that the Players’ Council had voted 8-0 against this reform, but still the directors unilaterally forced the changes through.

For decades, the ATP has recognised doubles as a legitimate career and consequential to that many players have invested years of training, money, time, etc. Is it fair towards them after so many years to find that a decision substantially undermines years of professional investment? The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not prevent any governing body from making changes, but it requires that any significant change that's been made that affects a large group of people must be done fairly, transparently and with adequate consultation, along with keeping the abuse of power by public authorities in check. As per this doctrine, the public authorities are responsible to act according to the legitimate expectations borne out of their express promise or consistent past actions (Patel & Patel, 2021).

Indian perspective

Indian tennis has produced several doubles professionals such as Leander Paes, Rohan Bopanna, Mahesh Bhupathi, Yuki Bhambri, etc, and now the next generation stars are PC Anirudh, Niki Poonacha, Siddhant Banthia, Atharva Sharma, etc This reform will adversely affect the Indian presence at the professional level. Indians for years have consistently performed well in doubles and it has proved to be a realistic avenue for international success in India. Looking at the

Indian history, many athletes take up this sport professionally, and this sudden change could make the prospects of aspiring Indian doubles players. While India has had relatively few players that have been competing in singles at the highest level, doubles has always remained an integral part in which India has won Grand Slam titles. If this change is implemented, this would narrow one of India’s most successful pathways into elite professional tennis. This problem is not confined to this issue, since young players may view this as an unsustainable career option, with the national federation redirecting their resources away from doubles. This could potentially weaken India’s future in the Davis Cup, and the Olympics as well.

Conclusion

The ATP and WTA are two separate governing bodies. The WTA player Council and board have consistently prioritized protecting player livelihoods and hence have decided not to consider product 28. The product 28 debate extends beyond doubles itself. It raises a broader question of how much discretion can a sports governing body possess, and to what extent can they make decisions. For countries like India, doubles has been their major source of representation in international competition. Ultimately the controversy is not simply about reallocating the prize money or reducing the draw size. It is about defining the responsibilities of a dominant sports governing body, that controls access to an entire profession.

References

1. Fuller, R. (2026, July 3). Doubles tennis: Leading players fear cutbacks and accuse the ATP tour of trying to end the profession. BBC Sport. https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/articles/cy491rvxvgzo
2. Naessens, P. (2026, July 16). ATP product 28 initiative: What the numbers say about the future of Doubles. Crush and RUSH NEWS. https://www.crushrushnews.com/2026/07/16/atp-product-28-initiative-doubles-analysis/
3. Rothenberg, B. (2026, July). Breaking: ATP aims to reduce doubles on tour.

Benrothenberg.Com; Bounces.

https://www.benrothenberg.com/p/atp-doubles-rule-changes-draw-prize-money-product-2 8-specialists-wimbledon-mens-doubles

1. The First Serve. (2026, July 3). “Doubles isn’t a carnival sideshow. It is one of the most successful parts of tennis – integral to the amateur. The First Serve. https://www.thefirstserve.com.au/post/doubles-isn-t-a-carnival-sideshow-it-is-one-of-the-most-successful-parts-of-tennis-integral-to-t#google_vignette
2. Michael Graham. (2024, February 25). ‘They wanna kill us’ – Murray worried about future of tennis format. Tennishead. https://tennishead.net/they-wanna-kill-us-murray-worried-about-future-of-tennis-format/
3. Will Boucek. (2024). 1,292 tennis fans surveyed on pro doubles. In Tennis Tribe. https://thetennistribe.com/doubles-survey-2024/
4. PTPA Players. (2026, July 24). ptpa statement on d.c. superior court ruling. Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA). https://ptpaplayers.com/ptpa-statement-on-d-c-superior-court-ruling/
5. Deepti. (2005, September 2). Doubles specialists sue atp. Rediff; Rediff.com. https://www.rediff.com/sports/report/ten/20050902.htm
6. Patel, F., & Patel, R. (2021). The doctrine of legitimate expectation: From development in England to Indian scenario. ILI Law Review . https://ili.ac.in/pdf/win21_8.pdf
7. Conrad, M. (2021). NCAA v. Alston - Why the NCAA Lost & What the Future Holds - LawInSport. Lawinsport.Com. https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/ncaa-v-alston-why-the-ncaa-lost-what-the-future-holds
8. Harvard Law Review. (2021). NCAA v. Alston. In Harvard Law Review. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/ncaa-v-alston/

This article has been authored by Sharanya Shetty and co-authored by Tarsh Khanna.