##HTML_TAG_##Tennis##HTML_TAG##: Is Doubles Really Unpopular? — Players and Fans Push Back Against Reduction Proposal

In the world of men's professional tennis, a reform proposal has emerged that could significantly impact the future of the sport.

The ATP is considering a major reduction in the number of spots available for men's doubles in tour tournaments from 2028 onwards, along with a decrease in the percentage of prize money allocated to doubles.

According to the reported proposal, the ATP Masters 1000 doubles draw would be reduced from the current 32 teams to 16, and the ATP 500 and ATP 250 events would see their doubles draws halved from 16 teams to 8. The proportion of tournament prize money allocated to doubles is also being considered for reduction from approximately 20% to around 10%.

This is not yet a final decision. However, the impact is too significant to dismiss as merely a change in tournament format.

It's not just the number of matches that would be lost. Opportunities to compete, ranking points, prize money, sponsorship connections, jobs for coaches and trainers, and pathways for young players aspiring to turn professional would all be narrowed. Reducing the scope of doubles as an event could ultimately diminish the sport of tennis as a whole. This is the crux of the current debate.

Why the ATP Wants to Downsize Doubles

There is a certain business rationale behind the ATP's thinking.

In the current men's tour, singles is overwhelmingly the commercial centerpiece. Tournament promotions, television broadcasts, video views, and sponsor exposure are largely built around top singles players.

When general sports fans hear the name of a tournament, they almost always think of the singles champion. Only dedicated tennis fans could name multiple doubles specialists.

There are also challenges in tournament operations. When players compete in both singles and doubles, scheduling becomes complicated. Issues arise, such as wanting to schedule a popular singles player for a night session but being unable to do so because they are still in the doubles draw.

Additionally, the financial struggles faced by lower-ranked singles players cannot be ignored. In an individual sport where players bear the costs of travel, accommodation, coaching, and training, it is difficult to earn a stable income without being ranked among the world's top players. The ATP has indicated that it plans to redirect the funds reduced from doubles to early-round singles losers, allowing more players to sustain their professional careers.

Given that tournaments are run with limited time, courts, prize money, and broadcast slots, prioritizing events that are more likely to generate revenue is understandable. From a market principle perspective of "investing more in what people want to see," the proposal to downsize doubles is not unnatural.

However, sports cannot be valued solely based on current sales figures.

Is it "Unpopular" or "Not Visible"?

The strongest counterargument from the doubles side is that the lack of popularity is not due to lack of interest, but rather because it is not visible enough to cultivate interest.

Even when looking at official tournament websites and social media, the majority of posts are dominated by singles. Doubles matches are sometimes not broadcasted, and even when they are, they are hard to find. Exciting matches are often assigned to small courts or scheduled at times with fewer spectators, and even finals can be treated as an afterthought to singles.

The backgrounds of players, the formation of pairs, strategies, and rivalries are rarely introduced. This leaves new fans with little opportunity to learn players' names and stories.

Matches involving unknown players are not watched. Because there are few viewers, broadcasts and promotions decrease further. Seeing these results, organizers conclude there is "no demand." This cycle has continued for years.

Doubles players are concerned not just about profitability but also about being evaluated as a "weak product" without sufficient effort to sell it.

In fact, when well-known singles players participate in doubles, it is not uncommon for crowds to gather. In the Olympics and national team competitions, doubles matches that decide victories draw significant attention. Thus, it is not that the doubles format itself lacks appeal.

The fast pace, net play reactions, teamwork, and positioning tactics offer a different kind of excitement than singles. There is tension that cannot be measured by the length of rallies alone.

The problem is that there are too few entry points for audiences to encounter this excitement.

Players Fear the "Disappearance of a Profession"

If the draw is halved, the number of pairs that can participate in tournaments will also be halved.

With 16 teams in Masters 1000 and only 8 in ATP 500 and 250, it is likely that the majority of spots will be filled by a limited number of top teams. Mid-level and young players trying to improve their rankings will lose the opportunity to compete in major tournaments.

Without tournament participation, players cannot earn points, and without points, they cannot enter subsequent tournaments. In tennis's ranking system, the narrower the entry point, the more likely top players are to remain fixed.

In a joint statement by doubles players, issues were raised not only about prize money but also about transparency in decision-making and lack of communication with players. There is concern that reforms are proceeding without adequate explanation or consultation with those most affected.

Bob and Mike Bryan, who built an era as doubles masters, also criticized the move, arguing that the focus should be on growing the sport rather than reducing opportunities.

Doubles is not a "fallback" for players who couldn't succeed in singles. It is an independent competition requiring specialized skills such as serving, returning, volleying, reflexes, anticipation, and communication with a partner.

However, if opportunities to compete and prize money decrease simultaneously, the professional model of honing these skills to make a living becomes untenable. All but the top few teams may not be able to cover travel expenses and may be forced to retire.

This is not just an issue for the players themselves. Coaches, physiotherapists, trainers, and agents who accompany them will also be affected. The accumulated knowledge of doubles coaching at tournaments and clubs worldwide will gradually weaken if the professional pathway is lost.

Social Media Divided

The debate on social media over this issue reflects the current state of doubles.

A common opinion among opponents is that it is unfair to claim a sport is unpopular when it has not been promoted. Official social media accounts are filled with posts about singles, with very few highlights or player introductions for doubles.

There are also voices saying, "If prize money is reduced, top players will not choose doubles, and attention will further decline," and "It's backward to cut a product because it hasn't been nurtured."

There are concerns that reducing the number of spots will leave only the same top pairs, leaving no room for new teams to grow. If young players perceive the sport as one where few can succeed, they may give up on tennis early.

On the other hand, some accept the downsizing proposal as a realistic choice.

Opinions include, "Few spectators watch doubles at tournament venues," "Doubles only gets attention when famous singles players participate," and "There's no need to suppress other players' prize money to maintain a non-revenue-generating division."

Some fans believe that redirecting funds to players ranked in the hundreds in singles will help maintain the overall player base. Considering the costs of accommodation, travel, meals, vehicles, and practice courts involved in tournament operations, reducing the number of participants is seen as unavoidable.

Furthermore, there are reform suggestions such as "Doubles is more fun to play than to watch," "Frequent team changes make it hard to support," and "There needs to be more long-term teams to brand as teams."

Social media reactions are not statistical public opinion surveys. Nonetheless, they clearly reflect two realities facing current doubles.

One is that there are certainly passionate fans who want to protect doubles. The other is that it is not yet fully established as a product that reaches the general public.

Doubles is Not a "Supporting Role" for Japan

From Japan's perspective, this issue cannot be reduced to just prize distribution in professional tours.

In Japan, doubles is enjoyed at all levels of the sport, including school clubs, community tournaments, tennis schools, corporate teams, and regional clubs.

Because four people can use a limited court, it is easier to increase participants even in urban areas where facilities are often lacking. With a smaller defensive range than singles, it is easier to continue playing according to age and physical ability, making it important as a lifelong sport.

For beginners, being able to play while communicating with a partner supports continuity. Despite being an individual sport, the enjoyment of team sports is a major factor.

In school team competitions, the outcome of doubles matches can determine the overall team result. Many students learn teamwork and responsibility there and come to love the sport. If professional doubles diminishes, the stage for these players to aim for also shrinks.

According to a survey published by the Japan Tennis Association in March 2026, there were 54,682 junior registered players in 2025. Although this was an increase from the previous year, it had not returned to the 2023 level.

High school tennis club members numbered 67,396, a significant decrease from about 96,000 in 2018. Junior high school students also numbered 33,697 in 2025, below the approximately 45,000 around 2016. The number of affiliated and registered schools is also decreasing, and along with the impact of declining birth rates, the entry point to the sport itself is narrowing.

Of course, the ATP's proposal to reduce doubles does not immediately decrease the number of participants in Japan's school activities.

However, if opportunities at the pinnacle of the sport are reduced, it becomes difficult to answer the question, "What future awaits those who continue to strive?" If fewer players aim to become professionals, there will be long-term impacts on coaches, regional tournaments, schools, and the equipment market.

In a time when the number of participants naturally increased, new players might have been supplied even if the pinnacle was somewhat narrowed. In Japan, where the population is declining, both the entry and exit points must be protected, or the cycle of the sport will be broken.

Relying Solely on the Success of Kei Nishikori and Naomi Osaka is Not Enough

The popularity of tennis in Japan has long been influenced by the success of star players.

When Japanese players win at the top of the world, tennis receives significant coverage on TV and news, inspiring children to pick up rackets. However, there is no guarantee that the next national star will always emerge.

What supports the sport even in times without stars are regional tournaments, schools, coaches, dedicated fans, and diverse participation opportunities beyond singles.

Investing only in top players and cutting back on their surroundings may temporarily increase efficiency. However, it thins the soil from which stars are born.

The proposal to downsize doubles could further strengthen the current tennis structure, where interest and funds concentrate on a few famous players. While matches of top players become more luxurious, opportunities for other players to be known to audiences decrease.

For Japanese fans, if tennis becomes a sport where only famous overseas players are watched, the reasons to support domestic tournaments and Japanese mid-level players weaken.

Things to Try Before Cutting

It's not about maintaining doubles in its current form unconditionally.

If it is not reaching audiences, the sport must also change. However, the first step does not have to be halving the number of spots and prize money.

What is first needed is the disclosure of data used for decision-making. How many spectators, viewing hours, streaming contract values, and sponsor exposure does doubles generate at each tournament? In which time slots or courts do numbers increase? Is there a difference between tournaments that conducted sufficient promotion and those that did not?

If data is not shared with players, reforms will be perceived as mere cost-cutting.

Next, efforts to make players and teams memorable are necessary. Introduce long-term pairs as teams, conveying their formation history, personality differences, strategies, and communication through short videos. Just like singles, create stories behind the matches.

The placement of matches is also important. Demand should not be judged solely by results from late-night slots where spectators are unlikely to stay or small courts with little notice. Entry points for viewing can be created through tickets combined with good singles matches, special pairs involving local players, and tactical explanations for children.

A system that encourages participation of famous singles players while protecting spots for specialists can also be considered. Instead of a system where specialist pairs are excluded by singles rankings alone, there should be slots where both can coexist.

In Japan, fixed-team doubles tournaments representing regions or companies, events connecting school tournaments and professional tournaments, and clinics by top players can also be strengthened. If it becomes clear whom to support, doubles could attract a fan base different from singles.

The Value of Tennis is Not Determined by Efficiency Alone

The ATP's reform proposal poses a difficult question for sports.

To what extent should less profitable divisions be protected? How should limited prize money be distributed between doubles specialists and lower-ranked singles players? How can tradition and market demands be balanced?

There is no simple answer.

However, if competition opportunities are reduced first because current numbers are small, the potential for those numbers to grow in the future is also eliminated.

Doubles exist in every aspect of tennis culture, from Grand Slams, the Olympics, national team competitions, school clubs, to community tournaments. It is both a part of the professional tour and the event closest to the tennis that many people actually play.

Many people playing on public courts in Japan on weekends enjoy doubles rather than singles. Doubles connect the commercial pinnacle of the sport with everyday tennis culture.

Narrowing that bridge may reduce costs in the short term. However, in the long term, there is a risk that fewer players will aim to become professionals, fewer jobs will support matches, and fewer people will pick up rackets in the community.

The question is not just whether to keep doubles.

It is a choice of whether the tennis world will only retain the currently popular stars and tournaments or whether it will preserve the space for the next players, the next fans, and the next culture to emerge.

If the goal is to grow tennis, the first step should not be to shrink the sport. It should be to make unseen attractions visible, introduce unknown players, and increase places where people who want to participate can enter.