Pegula has voiced her concerns about the changes to the mixed doubles format at the US Open.

This year, the US Open implemented a significant reform in its mixed doubles event: the eligibility criteria shifted from the traditional doubles rankings to prioritizing invitations for high-ranked singles players, retaining only eight wildcard spots for doubles competitors. This adjustment has led to many top doubles teams missing out on participation, including the world number one doubles player, Katerina Siniakova, and ATP doubles number one, Marcelo Arévalo. Despite the organizers arguing that this move aims to enhance the entertainment value of mixed doubles, the lack of prior communication regarding the decision has sparked widespread criticism.

American singles star Pegula recently expressed her dissatisfaction with this change in an interview: “I’m honored they invited me to participate in mixed doubles. It will be fun, and the fans will enjoy it. But at the same time, their handling of the situation wasn’t great. They changed the rules without notifying the players, which is certainly not a good thing.” She pointed out that mixed doubles was originally an important source of income for doubles players, and the new regulations effectively deprive them of opportunities. Wimbledon mixed doubles champion Siniakova even needs to rely on a wildcard to compete, highlighting the unfairness of the new format towards professional doubles players.

The wildcard list released by the US Open further intensified the controversy, with only one pair of professional doubles players, French Open mixed doubles champions Errani/Vavassori, making the cut. This arrangement clearly aims to leverage star power to attract ticket sales and broadcasting traffic, but at the cost of sacrificing the rights of doubles specialists.

The protests from doubles players are not without merit; this yearthe mixed doubles championship prize of $1 million represents a significant income for top doubles players;mixed doubles was originally a platform for doubles players to showcase their skills, but now it has become a showcase for singles stars;The US Open has not disclosed the specific criteria for awarding wildcards, leading to suspicions of a “traffic-first” bias.

From a commercial perspective, the reforms at the US Open are understandable. The mixed doubles event has long faced issues of insufficient attention, and the participation of stars like Alcaraz and Djokovic can significantly boost viewership. The viewership for the 2024 US Open mixed doubles final plummeted by 37% compared to the previous year, which may have been a direct reason for the organizers to seek change.

However, whether this star-driven model can be sustained remains questionable. On one hand, top singles players typically invest limited effort in mixed doubles due to energy allocation issues; on the other hand, if doubles players are marginalized for too long, it may undermine the competitive professionalism of the event. As Pegula stated, “The matches will be fun, but the communication needs to improve.”

To resolve the controversy, the US Open may need to adjust in the following areas:

Transparent wildcard criteria: Clearly define the weight of singles rankings versus doubles rankings to avoid allegations of opaque operations.

Protecting the rights of doubles players: For example, adding direct entry spots for professional doubles players.

Mixed doubles, being the only co-gender collaboration event in tennis, deserves to be preserved for its uniqueness, but reforms should not come at the expense of some players’ interests. The recent changes at the US Open serve as a mirror reflecting the eternal struggle between commercialization and competitive fairness in professional tennis. Finding a balance between “star power” and “ecological health” will be a common challenge faced by all Grand Slam events.(Source: Tennis Home, Author: Mei )