Tennis analyst Brad Gilbert said players lack necessary leverage in their professional dealings because they do not have a union.
This assessment highlights the precarious nature of professional tennis careers, where the absence of collective bargaining affects how athletes manage their teams and negotiate their terms. The lack of a unified body leaves individual players to navigate the business side of the sport alone.
Speaking in a CNBC Sport videocast released May 27, 2026 [1], Gilbert said the volatile dynamics between athletes and their support staff often depend on immediate performance rather than long-term strategy.
"It's massively a results business," Gilbert said [1].
Gilbert, a former professional player and longtime coach, said the pressure for success creates a cycle of instability. Because the industry prioritizes winning above other metrics, coaches often find their job security tied directly to the player's current ranking or tournament outcomes.
Beyond the coach-player relationship, Gilbert said the broader structural absence of a union limits the power players have within the sport. Without a collective voice, athletes have less ability to influence the rules, compensation, or working conditions that govern the professional circuit.
This dynamic creates a power imbalance where the governing bodies and commercial interests hold more sway than the individuals competing on the court. Gilbert said this lack of organization is a primary reason why players struggle to gain leverage in high-stakes negotiations.
“"It's massively a results business."”
The commentary suggests that professional tennis operates more like a freelance marketplace than a structured professional league. Without a union to standardize contracts or protect player interests, the sport remains a high-risk environment where both players and coaches are subject to the volatility of match results, further cementing the industry's reliance on short-term performance over systemic stability.
