Weighing the pros and cons of tennis’s ambitious new summer schedule

Indianapolis, Atlanta, Newport, New Haven, San Diego, Stanford, San Jose, Los Angeles. How about little Commack, out on Long Island, or equally tiny Mahwah at the top of New Jersey? If you’ve followed tennis in the U.S. for the past few decades, the cities in that list may ring a few bells, and jog a few pleasant spectating memories.

For me, some of them happened in person. I watched Rod Laver, not that long after he had suffered a stroke, flash some of his old brilliance on the doubles court in Newport. I felt the heat of a Pete Sampras serve from up close in a small arena on the UCLA campus. I braved the summer humidity and New York traffic to watch Lleyton Hewitt grind down some unfortunate soul in Commack.

I’m even old enough to remember going to Mahwah to see peak, 1989 Steffi Graf sweep the leg—and the forehand—on the rest of the draw. Now, when I pass the Mahwah exit on Route 17 in exurban Jersey, I wonder: Where did the 22-time Slam champ stay?

Today’s top players don’t have to worry as much about finding lodgings in out-of-the-way locations. All of those U.S. tournaments have vanished from the summer schedule. The winnowing was gradual. First went Indy, then L.A., then San Diego, then New Haven, then Stanford/San Jose. In 2025, Newport and Atlanta joined them in tennis-tournament heaven.

It wasn’t until this summer that I really felt the difference, and the relative dearth of events. Most of us are used to following what was once called the US Open Series, a leisurely—but also steamy—two-month ramp-up that took us from 250s to 500s to 1000s and finally to the Open itself. Now we bring both tours together right away, and jump in at the 500 level in Washington, D.C. The more startling change happens next week, when we move straight into the 1000s at the National Bank Open in Canada, which finish with Thursday finals on August 7.

Of course, the economics of tennis have always been precarious, and smaller tournaments are in danger of disappearing at any moment. Once upon a time, US Open tune-ups were held on green clay, in places like North Conway, N.H., and South Orange, N.J. But the most recent reduction is also the product of a few (reasonable) ideas. First, dual-gender events have proven popular. Second, streamlining the tours makes them easier for general sports fans to follow. Third, the biggest tournaments—the 1000s and the Slams—should be expanded to raise their profiles and maximize their revenues.

To that end, the upcoming 1000s in Canada and Cincinnati have grown from nine days to 12, and their fields from 56 players to 96. The US Open has added a day to its main draw, and an entire week to the event as a whole; this year, many of the sport’s stars will be in New York to play mixed doubles just a couple of days after Cincinnati ends. All of that expansion obviously leaves less room for smaller, single-gender tournaments. Even the ones that are left, in Winston-Salem (ATP) and Cleveland and Monterrey (WTA) in late August, will have to deal with competition from the mixed event at Flushing Meadows.

The players have had relatively negative reactions to all of this. They like the idea of increased prize money from expanded tournaments, but don’t love having to spend more time at them to get it. Unfortunately for the National Bank Open, that latter fact will become glaringly apparent next week. Jannik Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz, Novak Djokovic, Aryna Sabalenka and Jack Draper, among others, have already withdrawn from the Canadian tournaments. For those European stars, the prospect of spending six to seven weeks in North America isn’t appealing. Better for them to start their US Open preparations in Cincy.

As a fan, I’ve been of two minds about the expansions as well. I prefer dual-gender tournaments, and I agree with the idea of making big, popular events even bigger and more popular. At the same time, you can’t make them so long that the stars don’t want to play them. From a spectating perspective, the expanded 1000s in Madrid and Rome—which began last spring—have made me miss the turbo-charged one-week versions of old. We’ll see if that’s the case in Canada and Cincy.

This week, the new, leaner summer hard-court system has worked as planned. The Mubadala Citi Open has garnered more attention, and seemingly packed in more fans, than ever before. The tournament—which is the only dual-gender 500 in the sport—no longer has competition from the women’s event in Stanford or San Jose. It’s in a media-heavy location. It took advantage of a rising core of American players led by Taylor Fritz, Ben Shelton, Frances Tiafoe, Jessica Pegula, and Emma Navarro. It has also been blessed with two pleasant surprises: No rain, and Venus Williams winning a match at 45 years of age.

From the perspective of TV, revenue and attention, that’s how the new, streamlined system is supposed to go. But from the perspective of fans on the ground, it leaves people in Atlanta, New England and all of California out. No more seeing the pros up close in those places. Ideally, this is where ATP Challenger Tour and Futures events can fill some of the gaps. Newport held a combined ATP Challenger/WTA 125 during the second week of Wimbledon. In the coming weeks there will be others in Lexington, Chicago, and Sumter, S.C.

We’ll need more than a week, or even a summer, to see how these changes play out, and how they affect the sport. Growth is good, but it can come at a cost. If you want to have big events, you need to have stars willing to play them. And if you want to get people interested in tennis, it helps to give them a chance to see it at its best, in person, right in front of their faces.