During the first week of the French Open in Paris, concerns grew for player wellbeing as many competitors struggled with the extreme heat.

World No.1 Jannik Sinner wilted in his second-round match, while Jakub Mensik collapsed for nearly five minutes after playing in the heat.

But these concerns extend beyond this year’s French Open.

Several players criticised conditions at the 2025 Shanghai Masters. Denmark’s Holger Rune summed up frustrations when he asked: “do you want a player to die on court?”

It is also a perennial topic raised during the Australian and US Opens, played during peak summer periods in those countries.

This is compounded by tennis’s almost year-round season.

Together, these pressures raise questions about whether player welfare is being prioritised in modern tennis.

What exactly is tennis’ heat policy?

In recent years, various tennis tournaments have introduced measures to help players cope with extreme heat:

• 10-minute cooling breaks in between sets
• Ice towels
• Courtside fans
• Medical monitoring
• Additional hydration opportunities.

All four grand slam tournaments also have stadium courts with retractable roofs. But each tournament has its own heat policy.

At the French Open, officials use a measurement called the “Wet Bulb Global Temperature (WBGT)” to monitor extreme heat. It combines air temperature, humidity, solar exposure and wind speed to estimate how stressful conditions are for the body.

When the WBGT reaches 30.1 degrees at the French Open, players receive a 10-minute cooling break. If it reaches 32.3 degrees – roughly equivalent to an air temperature of 38 degrees – play can be suspended.

But the French Open has never suspended play due to extreme heat. This contrasts with the Australian Open.

The Australian Open’s heat policy more frequently allows play to be suspended in extreme conditions and allows stadium roof closures – a provision not used at the French Open.

Inconsistent heat policies extend beyond the grand slams. The Association of Tennis Professionals introduced a formal heat policy only in 2026. By contrast, the Women’s Tennis Association has had a heat policy for the best part of 30 years.

What more could tennis do?

Unlike most sports, tennis is not governed by a single international body.

Instead, it is governed by the ATP, the WTA, the International Tennis Federation and the four grand slam tournaments. As a result, tournament schedules, competition rules, heat management measures and player welfare policies are often set by different organisations.

This governance structure has also contributed to the expansion of the tennis season.

In recent years, players have raised concerns about an increasingly crowded schedule, and the limited opportunities for rest and recovery.

In response to these concerns, the Professional Tennis Players Association was founded in 2019. The organisation seeks to give professional players a stronger voice in decisions that affect their career and wellbeing.

In 2025, the association launched legal action against tennis’s governing bodies. The organisation argued the sport’s governance structure contributes to excessive scheduling demands and fails to adequately protect player health, safety and wellbeing.

The legal case is still before the courts and its outcome remains unclear. What is clear, however, is tennis’s fragmented governance structure has contributed to inconsistent player welfare protections.

This all compounds during events that feature five-set matches, which can extend beyond four, or even five hours of play.

In isolation, elite tennis players are well equipped to cope with the stress of long matches. However, five-set matches are not held in isolation. When combined with a congested schedule, extreme heat and inconsistent player welfare policies, they can place additional strain on athletes.

What are some possible solutions?

Tennis needs a more consistent approach to governance and player welfare.

To better protect players, tennis should adopt a standardised heat policy. This would ensure consistent safeguards regardless of where a tournament is played.

A second suggested change is reducing the season length. Decreasing the number of tournaments would give players more time to recover, create greater flexibility to schedule matches at night or postpone play during extreme heat.

Players can rest during the season and not play every tournament, but few do so because of the pressures to retain and improve their ranking points.

Any efforts to shorten the tennis calendar would also face significant financial barriers. Fewer tournaments would likely reduce broadcasting, ticketing, and advertising revenues, making reform difficult under the sport’s current governance agreements.

Therefore, greater cooperation between tennis’s governing bodies and more unified leadership across the sport is urgently needed.

Maintaining the status quo risks exposing players to greater harm and may prove more costly for tennis in the long-term.

Paul Bowell is a lecturer of sport management and sociology at Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article