Sabalenka warns tennis schedule erodes players’ bodies: ‘We may have to sacrifice points to protect ourselves’

At Flushing Meadows, after a 6-3, 6-4 third-round win over Kamilla Rakhimova at the 2026 US Open, Aryna Sabalenka did not want to discuss her 16-match winning streak at the tournament. She chose a hotter topic: a tennis calendar pushing players to their limits. Sabalenka, the Belarusian world No. 1, directly backed Carlos Alcaraz after the Spaniard made waves by announcing plans for a long break. Alcaraz said the ATP and WTA schedules are too dense and that if mandatory events are not cut, he is willing to sacrifice points and ranking to protect his body. Sabalenka shared the concern almost word for word. “I would love to see changes in the schedule and to cut out the mandatory events and let the players decide what’s better for their health.” She made the statement in a post-match press conference, signalling that frustration is no longer confined to locker-room corridors. Sabalenka added: “It’s been super intense. Especially if you play at the level that Carlos is playing – basically very consistent – it’s very tricky for the body.” The remark reflects a paradox: the deeper players go, the more successful they are, the less time they have to recover. The context behind the crisis is not new, but it is becoming acute. A professional tennis season lasts nearly 11 months, from January to November, leaving only December for rest. The four Grand Slams are mandatory for leading players, along with a run of 1000-level tournaments often stretched over 12 days. That means a player who regularly reaches finals can play more than 70 matches a year, travelling across continents without a real break. Alcaraz, at 22, has already spoken about his physical state. Sabalenka, 27, defending 2,000 points at the US Open, stands on the same side. What stands out is not the familiar complaint, but the timing: both are speaking from the top of their form, not after losses or early exits. Sabalenka holds a 16-match winning streak at the US Open, stretching from her 2026 and 2026 titles. Her third-round win over Rakhimova was not a struggle, yet that very consistency exposes the hidden cost of the schedule: there is no room for top athletes to breathe. The issue is not only the number of matches. The ATP and WTA operate separate governance systems, with revenues tied to sanctioning fees, broadcast rights and sponsorship linked to the number of events. Cutting mandatory tournaments means cutting revenue – a calculation no governing body wants to face. That is why Alcaraz’s threat to sacrifice points, and Sabalenka’s support, looks like leverage rather than an empty warning. Top players have major sponsorship deals and global fan bases, so they can absorb short-term ranking drops. It is the tournaments that become vulnerable when the biggest names stay away. From the outside, fans often assume cutting a few events would solve the problem. But this is a story about power and revenue. Real change will not come from closed-door meetings; it will come when players turn warnings into action, or when sponsors begin questioning the sport’s image. The 2026 US Open is still going on, but the biggest story of the tournament may not be on the court. It is about whether Sabalenka and Alcaraz are willing to cross the points line to protect themselves, or whether tennis leaders will listen before their stars’ bodies speak for them.