The US Open's Mixed Doubles Pivot Exposes a Hard Truth About Pro Tennis

When the United States Tennis Association restructured mixed doubles at the US Open, it was framed as a modernizing tweak—a way to boost visibility, attract fans, and better showcase the sport. In reality, the change revealed something far more consequential: tennis no longer believes it can sustain a broad professional class. Instead, it has chosen to double down on star power—and, in doing so, quietly admitted that everyone else no longer fits the business model.

What Changed

Beginning in 2023, the USTA fundamentally redesigned the US Open mixed doubles event. The traditional draw—played across the tournament by doubles and mixed-doubles specialists—was moved to fan week, shortened in format, and reduced in size. Entry was no longer driven primarily by doubles rankings or mixed-doubles performance, but by singles profile and marketability.

The goal was explicit: feature recognizable singles stars, create faster matches, and present mixed doubles as a marquee attraction rather than a niche competition. In effect, the event was repositioned closer to an exhibition than a conventional Grand Slam championship.

What disappeared in the process was one of the few legitimate professional opportunities available to players outside elite singles—a pathway that, while modest, provided prize money, ranking points, exposure, and a reason to stay in the sport.

The logic behind the change was straightforward and revealing: mixed doubles could not attract attention unless famous players were involved. That premise may be defensible from a marketing standpoint. But it carries a deeper implication—if only stars matter, then there is no viable professional tier beneath them.

In other words, there is no middle class in pro tennis. There is only the top—and everyone else.

For decades, mixed doubles functioned as part of the sport’s connective tissue. It allowed specialists to build careers, extended longevity for players outside singles, and reinforced the idea that professional tennis was not an all-or-nothing proposition. By replacing that structure with a star-centric showcase, the USTA effectively acknowledged that it no longer believes in supporting professionals who are not already famous.

That is not innovation. It is retrenchment.

The Contradiction at the Heart of Tennis Messaging

This decision sits uneasily alongside the sport’s messaging to juniors and families. Players are routinely told that tennis offers many pathways, that professional opportunities exist beyond the very top, and that persistence will be rewarded.

The mixed doubles pivot contradicts that narrative entirely.

If even one of the most accessible professional formats must be sacrificed to star power to remain “relevant,” then the message to aspiring players is unmistakable: unless you are elite, the system is not built for you.

That is not how healthy sports ecosystems function.

Every successful professional sport relies on depth. Soccer, basketball, baseball—even golf—support multiple professional tiers beneath their stars. Those layers matter not just economically, but developmentally. They create belief. They keep people in the system.

Tennis increasingly does not.

By centering mixed doubles around marquee singles names, the USTA reinforced what many players already know: there is no reliable way to make a living in professional tennis unless you reach the very top. And if that is true, rational actors opt out early. Participation thins. The pipeline narrows.

The sport becomes more exclusive, not stronger.

Marketing Cannot Replace Structure

The USTA will argue that this was about exposure—that star-driven formats bring in new fans who might later engage with the broader game. But marketing cannot compensate for the absence of structure.

You cannot promote a pathway that does not exist. You cannot build a professional ecosystem by spotlighting only those who have already made it. At some point, tennis must decide whether it wants to be an entertainment product centered on a handful of celebrities, or a competitive system that supports careers across levels.

Right now, its choices suggest the former.

A Revealing Signal

The mixed doubles change matters not because of mixed doubles itself, but because of what it signals. When governance prioritizes star visibility over professional sustainability, it tells everyone else exactly where they stand.

The USTA’s pivot was honest, if nothing else. It acknowledged what many insiders have long suspected: pro tennis is no longer a ladder—it is a lottery.

And a sport that offers only a lottery should not be surprised when fewer people decide to play.