Sinner questions 12-day Masters 1000 expansion as players push back on ATP overhaul

By Siyabonga

Sinner’s blunt message: the calendar has lost its rhythm

Finals on a Monday, semifinals on a Saturday, and a rolling confusion about who plays when—Jannik Sinner says the tour’s biggest week-to-week showcases have lost their shape. After booking his spot in the Cincinnati final, the world No. 1 didn’t dance around it: he prefers the old-school, one-week Masters that built tension cleanly from Monday to a Sunday finish.

The Italian’s gripe wasn’t just nostalgia. He singled out Monte Carlo as the model—tight, intense, and easy to follow. In a one-week layout, the first round already feels premium, seeded upsets pop early, and fans know exactly what they’re buying when they pick a day. The path is familiar: quarters Friday, semis Saturday, final Sunday. Simple. Predictable. Easy to sell and easier to live with for players trying to plan their bodies and travel.

This season’s new reality is different. The ATP’s expanded schedule means several Masters now run 12 days with a 96-player main draw. That stretches the opening rounds across more sessions and leads to uneven rest gaps: a player might sit for two days early in the week, then face a crush of matches late. And that finish day? It isn’t always Sunday anymore. Cincinnati’s championship is Monday. In Canada, the decisive rounds can spill into midweek. Sinner put it plainly: even players are losing track of the days.

The change is part of chairman Andrea Gaudenzi’s OneVision plan to grow events, add session inventory, and create bigger platforms for stars. Indian Wells and Miami were already long; Madrid and Rome joined the club; Shanghai is there too. For 2025, Canada and Cincinnati moved into the 12-day bracket as well, making this North American swing a different beast. Only two stops—Monte Carlo and Paris—still run the classic single-week format, and their clarity now stands out even more.

If this were just one champion venting after a tough week, it might fade. But Sinner is not alone. Several top seeds have publicly questioned the direction, and the tone sounds similar: the show feels stretched, the narrative blurs, and the calendar’s logic is wobbling. When finals float away from Sunday, fans who travel or tune in around weekend rituals lose that anchor. For broadcasters, Sunday is prime real estate; Monday is not. For players, Monday finals into Tuesday travel can ripple into the next event or the build-up to a Slam.

On court, the long format changes the match rhythm. Early rounds can feel like a slow burn, especially when stars are spread thin across more days. Yes, there’s more opportunity for lower-ranked players to get in, earn money, and collect points. But the everyday product can get diluted if the marquee names don’t cluster into must-watch sequences. The compact one-week Masters used to deliver that “every day matters” jolt. The 12-day version aims for scale over compression—and not everyone is convinced the trade-off works.

Players also talk about the body-clock side of it. Tennis is about routine, timing, and knowing when the big days hit. A semifinal on Saturday with a final on Sunday is a clean, learned cadence. Shift the final to Monday and you nudge everything: practice day, travel, next-week scouting, even sleep. Over a long season, that friction adds up. And when you chain two 12-day events back-to-back, like Canada and Cincinnati right before New York, the management of load and recovery becomes trickier.

Fans have their own issues. If you buy a midweek day session months in advance, you want a fair shot at seeing big names. In longer events, top seeds sometimes have byes and delayed starts, which can push star power into night sessions or later days. That’s not a deal-breaker if communicated clearly, but it can leave casual attendees guessing. The iron rule of the old Masters—book Friday or Saturday, see the best—gets fuzzier when formats vary and finals land on odd days.

From the business side, the ATP and tournament owners see a different calculus. More days mean more tickets to sell, more sponsor activations, more on-site spending, and longer windows for TV and streaming exposure. Weather disruptions are easier to absorb across a 12-day slate. A 96-player draw opens the door for more local wildcards and rising talents, which can help domestic interest and pathways. In theory, a bigger stage also means more chances for fans to get in at varied price points—weekday mornings, weeknight primes, and premium weekends.

There’s also alignment to consider. The men’s and women’s tours have been working toward combined events with harmonized schedules in several cities. Larger, longer tournaments simplify some operations, from court usage to media planning, and help venues build a festival vibe—think practice court viewing, concerts, kids’ days, and sponsor zones. The argument is that this is where major tennis should be heading: fewer, bigger tentpoles.

Still, the sport’s heartbeat is the cadence. When the weekly story becomes hard to follow, star power loses its punch. One of the strengths of the traditional Masters week was the promise: if you tune in after work Friday, you hit a quarterfinal; Saturday and Sunday are crescendo days. You don’t need a schedule chart. This season, even hardcore fans found themselves checking apps to remember if a final was Sunday, Monday, or something else entirely.

Inside locker rooms, coaches and physios raise another point: the early-week gaps can mess with competitive rhythm. Tennis players like repetition—playing every other day, keeping a tempo. Long waits in week one followed by a sprint in week two can feel jarring. Add in travel changes, different time zones, and late-night finishes under lights, and recovery windows shrink when it matters most.

None of this is arguing for the past just because it’s familiar. It’s a question of design. Can the ATP keep the commercial gains of the longer format while restoring the sporting clarity that made these events so compelling? Sinner’s view is that Monte Carlo shows the way: keep it tight, keep it premium, and protect the weekend finish.

What the ATP can fix—and what players want next

The friction points are solvable. They mostly come down to standardization, transparency, and balance across the calendar. The goal isn’t to blow up the 12-day model, but to make it work for players and fans without sacrificing the business case.

• Lock the finish: Set a hard rule that every 12-day event ends on Sunday. If that means starting main draw earlier or stacking more matches Thursday–Saturday, plan for it. Weekend finals are the sport’s anchor.
• Sync Canada and Cincinnati: These back-to-back August events should mirror each other—same day for quarters, same day for semis, same day for the final. Consistency helps viewers and eases player routine before the US Open.
• Protect match rhythm: Reduce early-week dead days for top seeds. If byes stay, use scheduling blocks that keep everyone playing at least every other day until the final weekend.
• Communicate star windows: If a top-10 player likely debuts on a certain session, label it in ticketing. Fans should know their odds of seeing a headline act on Tuesday day vs. Wednesday night.
• Limit back-to-back marathon swings: Two 12-day events in a row strain the field. Add rest buffers or allow optional entry protections so players aren’t punished for choosing recovery.
• Keep two “classic” Masters: Monte Carlo and Paris already do this. Preserving a couple of one-week stops gives the season variety and ensures at least some events deliver that compressed, high-drama feel.

There’s also a case for rethinking draw mechanics. A 96-player field is inclusive, but it drags the early rhythm. One idea floated in player circles: keep the 96, but front-load doubles play and qualifying to free up main-court space for singles clusters. Another: create two compressed “premier windows” inside the 12-day slate where the biggest names are guaranteed to feature, tightening the narrative for TV and attendees.

Broadcasters, who quietly carry a lot of weight in these calls, want predictability too. Weekend appointment viewing is easier to promote, and crossovers with other domestic sports get tricky midweek. A Monday final may avoid a Sunday clash in some markets, but it often dampens reach. Standardization gives networks a clear runway, which feeds back into rights fees and stability.

Tournament directors counter that longer events better withstand rain or extreme heat, especially on outdoor hard and clay. They can push back without killing the schedule, maintaining daily star billing across more sessions. That’s true, and 12-day events have clear upsides when weather turns. But the schedule still needs a fixed spine. Rain buffers shouldn’t result in viewers guessing when the trophy lift happens.

One misunderstanding in the public debate is that players oppose growth. They don’t. The locker room understands why the ATP is leaning into bigger events: more prize money, broader access for lower-ranked players, and stronger long-term value. The pushback is about coherence. If the show is bigger but feels less urgent, something’s off.

Monte Carlo and Paris keep coming up because they show what happens when the product is condensed: urgency spikes, upsets sting more, and the weekend sells itself. Those events are hardly perfect—weather in Monaco can bite—but they give a clean template. The takeaway from Sinner and others is not “copy-paste” everywhere. It’s to bring back the beats that make the story easy to follow.

Where does this go next? Expect player representatives to push for a schedule map that locks semis and finals on the same days across all expanded Masters. Event-by-event quirks will remain—local regulations, arena availabilities, and city calendars all matter—but a common template is doable. The ATP has room to tweak without reversing course.

There’s also likely to be a closer look at the summer hard-court stretch. Canada and Cincinnati are showcase weeks; they also sit right before New York. If those two stay 12 days, the tour can build in protections—either lighter mandatory commitments the week after or clearer rest windows—to avoid carrying fatigue into the Slam where the sport’s biggest audience sits.

Sinner’s criticism landed because it sounds like what many fans feel. Tennis has always thrived on ritual: Friday night quarters, Saturday semis, Sunday finals. Break that, and you need to offer something even more compelling in return. Right now, the longer Masters feel bigger, but not always better. That’s fixable. And the fix doesn’t require shrinking the events—just sharpening the design.

The ATP wants a large, global festival model. Players want a clear weekly story that respects how they perform at their best. Those aims aren’t mutually exclusive. Start by pinning the final back to Sunday and building out from there. Keep the extra access, the extra seats, and the wider draws. Then restore the simple promise that made these weeks sing.

As Sinner steps into yet another big final—on a Monday, no less—the message is simple: give the calendar its rhythm back. The stars will do the rest.

For now, two truths can live together. The expanded events have obvious commercial strengths. And the one-week Masters—Monte Carlo and Paris—keep proving how powerful a tight arc can be. The sweet spot sits between them. That’s where the next iteration of the Masters 1000 should land.