Tennis icon and former British number one Tim Henman has delivered a scathing assessment of the US Open's newly revamped mixed doubles tournament, branding its structure and enormous prize fund as profoundly 'disrespectful' to the sport's biggest singles stars.
The historic Grand Slam event has introduced a radical new 32-team draw with a staggering $1.2 million (£1 million) prize purse, a move designed to attract the game's elite. However, Henman argues the format does a great disservice to singles specialists like Emma Raducanu or Andy Murray, who would risk a demoralising first-round defeat against dedicated doubles experts.
A Lopsided Battle on the Court
'If you are a singles player and you go and play mixed doubles, the likelihood is you are going to get beaten by the specialists who play doubles all the time,' Henman stated emphatically. He painted a vivid picture of the mismatch: a top-10 singles player partnering another elite athlete would still be 'hands-down' defeated by a specialist duo, describing the potential outcome as a 'double bagel'—a humiliating 6-0, 6-0 loss.
His criticism centres on the perceived inequity. For a singles star, an early exit would be a blow to confidence and a poor use of energy and recovery time during a gruelling major. For the specialists, it's a golden opportunity to claim a huge payday by exploiting a format that favours their specific skill set.
Prize Money and Prestige: A Clash of Values
The heart of the issue lies in the prize money allocation. The winners of the revamped mixed doubles event will pocket a cool $160,000 (£125,000) each. To put this in perspective, a singles player must reach the third round—winning two matches—to earn a comparable sum.
'I think it is really disrespectful to the singles players… I think it is an insult,' Henman declared, questioning the logic behind rewarding a potentially short campaign in a secondary event on par with significant success in the premier singles draw.
This bold move by the USTA appears to be a direct strategy to boost the profile of mixed doubles, perhaps hoping to lure star power. Yet, according to Henman's analysis, it may achieve the opposite, creating a financial incentive that primarily benefits doubles specialists at the perceived expense of the singles game's prestige.
