Sport Discussed

By Ben Phillips

As Roland Garros draws towards its thrilling conclusion, all eyes turn to Saturday’s women’s singles final, where world number one Aryna Sabalenka will take on world number two Coco Gauff in what promises to be a blockbuster encounter. Sabalenka arrives at this point after surviving a dramatic semi-final against four-time French Open champion and clay-court maestro Iga Swiatek. The Belarusian overcame a tense and gritty contest, prevailing 7-6, 4-6, 6-0, showing immense resilience to blank Swiatek in the final set and assert her dominance on the big stage.

Gauff, meanwhile, was clinical and composed in her semi-final match, dispatching world number 361 with ruthless efficiency, 6-1, 6-2. The American has grown immensely since her Grand Slam breakthrough as a teenager and has now matured into one of the sport’s most consistent forces. The final pits the two top-ranked women in the world against each other in a match-up that not only promises high-octane rallies and elite-level athleticism but also represents the very best women’s tennis has to offer.

Yet, despite this marquee final, a shadow has loomed over the tournament—one that has reignited a debate that has simmered beneath the surface of the sport for years. The controversy concerns the glaring imbalance in scheduling between men’s and women’s matches during the night sessions of Roland Garros 2025. Critics and fans alike have pointed out that the vast majority of prime-time slots were awarded to men’s matches, sparking accusations that women’s matches are still seen as secondary events by tournament organisers and broadcasters.

The Scheduling Disparity

This year at Roland Garros, of the ten evening sessions held, eight featured men’s singles matches, with only two showcasing women’s matches. Tournament director Amélie Mauresmo, a former Grand Slam champion herself, has previously defended the scheduling by citing commercial interests, concerns about match duration, and the perceived unpredictability of women’s matches. But with the top players in the women’s game consistently delivering high-quality tennis and generating just as much, if not more, public interest than some of their male counterparts, this justification feels increasingly inadequate.

Sabalenka, Gauff, Swiatek, and Elena Rybakina, among others, are not only winning titles but also drawing huge global audiences and expanding their fan bases. Their matches are fast paced, tactically complex, and dramatic. The idea that these contests are somehow unworthy of prime-time billing points to deeper systemic issues in how the WTA is marketed and perceived.

This scheduling imbalance leads to a broader, more controversial question: is it time to consider shifting the women’s Grand Slam format from best-of-three sets to best-of-five?

A Change in Format: Why Now?

Advocates for the five-set format for women argue that such a move would elevate the perceived stature of women’s matches, providing equal footing in the eyes of audiences and tournament organisers alike. If both men and women were to compete in best-of-five sets at the Grand Slams, it would remove one of the most visible distinctions between the two competitions and further reinforce the principle of equality.

From a sporting perspective, five-set matches provide more room for comebacks, tactical shifts, and psychological endurance—elements that define the drama of tennis. Aryna Sabalenka’s semi-final win over Swiatek, which was packed with momentum swings, might have looked even more compelling under a five-set format. Similarly, past epic WTA matches, like the 2023 Australian Open final between Rybakina and Sabalenka, left fans wondering what might have been had the match gone longer.

Furthermore, women already play best-of-five in other prestigious competitions. The WTA Finals used a five-set format for the final until 1998, and several players, including legends like Martina Navratilova and Serena Williams, have expressed openness to the change.

As well as this, five-set matches extend the duration of matches, meaning that any concern that fans in the stadium will not get to watch much tennis is removed.

Challenges and Counterarguments

However, any potential change isn’t without its complications. Opponents of the move argue that adding two more sets to women’s Grand Slam matches could increase the risk of injury and fatigue, especially given the intense physical demands of the modern game. Many also argue that the three-set format already produces dramatic and high-quality tennis.

Another significant concern is scheduling. The Grand Slam calendar is already a tightly-packed logistical feat, and lengthier matches across both draws could create significant issues with court availability and broadcast windows. This, in turn, might have a knock-on effect on lower-ranked players, who may see their matches delayed or moved to outer courts.

Some female players have also expressed mixed feelings. While many welcome the idea of equality in format, others are hesitant to embrace change without a clear vision for how it would impact the tour’s structure, rankings, and prize money distribution.

Equality Beyond Format

It’s also worth noting that equality in tennis is about more than just format. Pay parity at Grand Slams has been one of the sport’s most notable achievements, but systemic disparities remain in terms of exposure, endorsements, coaching opportunities, and infrastructure. Increasing the length of women’s matches will not, on its own, solve these issues.

That said, symbolic gestures matter. When the most prestigious events in the sport treat men’s and women’s matches differently, it sends a message. Changing the format would be a powerful declaration that women’s matches are just as capable of delivering the same depth, intensity, and emotional payoff as the men’s.

A Turning Point?

With two of the most marketable and successful players in the world set to contest the Roland Garros final, and with women’s tennis currently boasting one of its most competitive eras, there may never be a better time to have this conversation. Sabalenka and Gauff have shown time and again that they belong on the biggest stage. Their final, regardless of the outcome, will be a showcase of modern athleticism, mental toughness, and elite skill.

Whether the match goes three sets or five, what matters most is that it receives the attention and respect it deserves. But moving to a five-set format at the Grand Slams could help ensure that the women’s game is no longer viewed through a different lens. It would be a change rooted not in pressure or controversy, but in celebration of the extraordinary talents of players like Sabalenka and Gauff.

The scheduling controversies at Roland Garros may have reignited this debate, but the success of the women’s draw in 2025 has shown us one thing: the time for equality in opportunity, visibility, and format is long overdue. Let this be the year tennis not only talks about change, but commits to it.