Is Tennis Rigged? Roger Federer Thinks So, and He’s Not Happy

So, what’s got Federer all worked up? It’s the homogenization of tennis courts. According to him, the variety is gone. Hard courts, clay courts, and grass courts are all starting to feel the same—slow. This uniformity, he argues, benefits a specific type of all-court player, namely the two young guns currently dominating the sport: Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner.

“That’s why we, the tournament directors, we need to fix it,” Federer stated, not mincing his words. “We need to have not only fast courts, but what we would want to see is Alcaraz or Sinner figure it out on lightning fast and then have the same match on super slow and see how that matches up.”

His logic is simple. When every court plays at a medium-slow pace, players don’t need to adapt their style. They can use the same baseline-heavy, grinding strategy week in and week out, whether they’re at the French Open or Wimbledon. The days of serve-and-volley specialists clashing with clay-court grinders are fading, and Federer mourns the loss of that strategic diversity. It’s like every level in a video game having the exact same layout, just with a different-colored sky. Where’s the challenge in that?

Is a Sinner-Alcaraz Final Really What Everyone Wants?

Federer took his theory a step further, suggesting this isn’t just a happy accident for Alcaraz and Sinner. He believes it’s a calculated business decision. A final between the two biggest names in men’s tennis sells more tickets and generates more buzz. So, why not stack the deck to make it happen?

“That’s what the tournament directors are thinking, like, ‘I kind of like Sinner-Alcaraz in the finals, you know? It kind of works for the game,'” Federer theorized.

Slowing the courts acts as a “safety net” for the top players. On a slower surface, an underdog can’t just get lucky with a few big serves or risky winners. They have to outplay titans like Sinner and Alcaraz from the baseline, which is a monumental task. The result? More predictable matches and fewer shocking upsets. It makes for a great marketing poster but can leave the actual tournament feeling a bit… scripted.

It’s a cynical take, but not an entirely unbelievable one. After all, Alcaraz and Sinner have swept all eight of the last Grand Slams between them. While their talent is undeniable, Federer suggests the system is giving them a helping hand by eliminating the variables that once made tennis so unpredictable and exciting.

A System That Rewards Consistency Over Adaptability

Federer reminisced about a time when players had to be specialists. You had your clay-court warriors, your grass-court artists, and your hard-court brawlers. The rankings were even structured differently to reflect this, with only a player’s top 12 tournament results counting. This encouraged players to master their preferred surface.

“That’s how the rankings points used to be, remember?” Federer explained. “Back in the day… everybody would play on their favorite surface. And then they would sometimes meet, and those were the best matches when you had the attacker against a retriever, and now everyone plays similar.”

Today, the ATP tour rewards relentless, week-in-week-out consistency. The slower courts are a huge part of that, creating a one-size-fits-all style of play. While it’s produced two phenomenal champions in Alcaraz and Sinner, Federer fears it’s at the cost of the sport’s soul.

Of course, upsets can still happen. Taylor Fritz’s recent victory over Alcaraz at the Laver Cup is proof that nothing is ever guaranteed. But Federer’s point is that those moments are becoming rarer. The deck is increasingly stacked in favor of the house, and in this case, the house wants its top two players in the Sunday final, no matter what.

So, is tennis rigged? Maybe not in the way you’d think, with shady backroom deals. But if one of the greatest to ever pick up a racquet is telling you the game is being engineered for predictability, it’s probably worth listening.