The Final Score
Women's relegations—and frustrations—have added up at Roland Garros.
PARIS, France — After writing about it early in the tournament, I thought it was the right time to close the loop on the talk of scheduling at Roland Garros.
Now that the order of play has been released for Day 11, which is the last day on which French Open women’s and men’s singles matches are held on the same day, we have the full set of data from this year to complete a five-year sample of striking scheduling patterns here.
Most of the talk around the tournament has been about women, for the second year in a row, being shut out of the showcase night sessions. That’s understandable: those are the marquee matches which—as pointed out by Stuart Fraser of The Times of London—are billed as “Ladies or Gentlemen’s Singles—1 ‘Great’ match’” to ticket-buyers.
But now that I’ve run the complete numbers for this year to paint a full picture of the last five years, I’m more struck by the top line of my data, about matches put first on Chatrier.
With women taking up the least watched opening act spot 11 out of 11 times this year at Roland Garros, the overall count of women getting the first slot in this era goes to 53 out of 55, or 96.3 percent of the time. This is even more lopsided than the much-discussed men’s prevalence in the primetime fourth slot, which at 51 out of 55 is 92.7 percent.
Numbers were again much more comparable at Lenglen (during the first nine days of the tournament when that venue hosts singles), but there was still a clear trendline there, too.
Yesterday, on her sublimely written Substack Finite Jest, former French Open semifinalist Andrea Petkovic also honed in on the indefensibility of the mass of morning matches for the mademoiselles (and I would’ve shared this even without the very nice shoutout—hello to any new Bounces subscribers Petko sent my way!).
Petkovic wrote:
Much has been written about not enough women’s matches being scheduled at night. The real scandal, in my opinion, is that 97% of matches played at 11am on Philippe Chatrier are women’s matches! That to me is a much bigger scandal than not having them play at night. If Justin Bieber himself showed up for an 11am Philippe Chatrier gig, chances are the stadium would be half empty. Not to mention that it’s the middle of the night in the US when the US have the most female players in the TOP 10 right now. Ben Rothenberg over at Bounces has done a terrific job in highlighting this fact (please subscribe to Ben if you want actual journalism and not whatever I’m doing over here).
Let’s go on a thought experiment here for a second. If I took gender out of the equation and said to a non-tennis-fans: There are people who play best-of-5 and other people who play best-of-3, the likelihood they would agree that the night session with one match should be filled up by people who play best-of-5 is high. If, however, you asked the same non-tennis-fan why in their opinion people who are playing best-of-3 are always scheduled at 11am, they couldn’t possibly think of an explanation. Because there is none.
How Ons Jabeur Changed the Conversation
Early talk about gendered scheduling this year at Roland Garros was, it’s fair to say, largely driven by the media—both traditional journalists like myself and former players—at the outset.
The first few current players presented the topic didn’t show much interest. When I asked defending champion Iga Swiatek about it last week, you’ll recall, she was in no mood to engage on the topic:
Q. But does it bother you they get such a bigger platform?
IGA SWIATEK: No.
The conversation in the locker room shifted, however, after three-time major finalist Ons Jabeur published an unexpected ode to women’s tennis on social media last Friday.
“You don’t have to agree, just read with an open heart,” Jabeur wrote in the caption of her essay/poem, which I thought was worth reprinting in full here:
A lot of amazing athletes have been told the same things over and over. That no one watches. That no one cares. That women’s sport doesn’t “move people.”
Judgment comes quickly often from those who’ve never even watched a full match. One empty stadium is held up as proof. The packed ones? Conveniently ignored. A missed shot becomes a headline. The hundreds of brilliant ones? Forgotten.
Still, they show up. Still, they compete. Still, they carry a sport forward on their shoulders.
When a woman wins 6-0, 6-0, it’s called boring. Too easy. When a man does it? That’s “dominance.” “Strength.” “Unstoppable.”
When women play with power, they’re told they “play like men.” As if strength, speed, or aggression don’t belong in a woman’s game.
If they celebrate, they’re dramatic. If they don’t, they’re cold. Too emotional. Too distant. Too loud. Too quiet. Too much. Never just right.
And yet the game itself keeps rising. Coco Gauff leads with fearless belief. Aryna Sabalenka strikes with unmatched power. Iga Świątek dominates with calm and precision. Jessica Pegula brings relentless consistency. Paula Badosa fights through every storm. Mirra Andreeva breaks through, young and fearless. Jasmine Paolini lights up the court with fire and courage. Elena Rybakina is composed and lethal. Naomi Osaka opened up about the battles off the court and kept showing up. Venus and Serena Williams broke barriers and then broke records.
The game is full of stories. Of greatness. Of fight. Of grace under pressure. And still many choose not to look. Not to listen. Not to care.
But belief is not a requirement. Permission is not necessary. Respect may be delayed but progress isn’t waiting.
So when the headlines say “no one watches,” remember: full stands were just never part of their narrative.
When the narrative says “too easy,” look closer: it took years to win that fast.
And when someone says women don’t play with power, watch again and be honest this time.
The game is not asking to be seen. It’s already shining.
No one’s denying the greatness in men’s tennis. The fierce battles, the legacies, the magic under pressure.
But honoring one side of the sport shouldn’t mean ignoring the other. The women’s game has been writing its own legacy loudly, brilliantly, and for far too long without full recognition.
With respect🙏🏼
A player who chose this racket out of passion, and honors every woman fighting for her place on the court❤️
James Rogers, one of the co-hosts of The Body Serve podcast, said on their latest episode, “A Fight Worth Fighting,” that Jabeur’s missive was important to show a lack of complacency or complicity toward the status quo.
“I love what Ons is doing here because she's fighting a fight that a lot of people think is useless, and a fight that she may lose—will probably lose, and probably knows she will lose,” Rogers said. “But it's so important to fight these tooth-and-nail—even for things that you find insignificant—about holding leadership accountable for the way that they treat the women's side of the sport, right? Fighting the fight, even if you know you're gonna lose, shows people that women's sport is worth fighting for.”
Rogers pointed out that this sort of unwillingness to accept lesser treatment from tournaments was the foundational agitation that the eventual success of women’s tennis was built upon.
“There is a bigger picture here, right?” Rogers said. “Women's tennis is in a very vaunted position in opposition to most women's sports: they play majors alongside men, they earn the same money at majors, they're very prominently featured on TV alongside men's matches. That didn't just happen. It wasn't that tennis leadership woke up one day and was like, ‘Wow, this is the right thing to do.’ No, a lot of women had to be very annoying, for a very long time, for this to happen. And a lot of y'all back 50 years ago probably would have said ‘Ugh, Billie Jean, God, I'm so tired of hearing from this woman—all she does is complain.’”
The Women Pick up the Baton
WTA players in the interview rooms started striking a much different tone after Jabeur’s eloquent essay. Swiatek, most notably, was far more willing to engage on the topic the next time it came up:
“Yeah, I think it should be equal,” Swiatek said on her second effort. “Like personally it's not like I have big feelings about it, because I just do my job; I adjust to the schedule that I'm given. But, yeah, I think it should be equal, because the women's matches can be an entertainment the same way. As you could see today on my match, they were giving waves and everything. So people like it. We can put on a nice show. That's why I think it should be equal. That's it.”
Coco Gauff also revised an initial answer she had given to be more forceful on her second chance. “I definitely do agree with Ons,” Gauff said, citing her own undeniable star power as proof.
“I feel like we produce some high-quality tennis and we have some great stars on the women's side who fans I'm sure would love to see,” Gauff continued. “From my experience playing at U.S. Open, night match at 7 p.m. with Novak following me—and he's the greatest player of all time—people were almost just as excited to see me play as him. Yeah, same with other places I play, like Australia, night match, people were excited to see [me], too. I definitely think there is opportunity to improve that in the future with this tournament.”
Jessica Pegula, a longtime member of the WTA Player Council, exasperatedly emphasized how perennial the topic had become here.
“Every year it's the same thing,” Pegula said of Roland Garros. “It's never equal. I don't really know what else to say. They don't really seem to care or want to do anything different about it. I mean, I agree with [Jabeur]: it should be more fair. We are an event that is supposed to be equal. Slams, it's supposed to be equal. Why not give us some more chances to be? But, again, it feels like just hitting my head against the wall because I feel like we have been talking about this for two, three, four [years]—probably forever, to be honest, because it's never been equal. I'm happy that she's able to speak up, and obviously she's always been really good at wanting everything to be equal and fighting for not just where she's from, but also for women in general. So, yeah, I'm with her, and I think, again, we have proven that we deserve the same amount of opportunity, yeah.”
Madison Keys, also on the WTA Player Council, was similarly blunt about the issue only occurring in Paris.
“Women typically have night matches everywhere else, so I don't think it's a point of discussion at other tournaments; it's obviously been a hot topic here,” Keys said. “Seeing as there is only one match [in the night session], I think that it's much different than other tournaments. But I think women's matches are very entertaining, and they have great value, and they deserve to be the feature match.”
Even Aryna Sabalenka, the current WTA No. 1 who hasn’t exactly been a stellar spokeswoman for women’s tennis as a product, historically—repeatedly making unhelpful remarks during on-court interviews that the crowd is probably mostly there to watch whatever men’s match is following her onto court—said after her 11 a.m. quarterfinal win on Tuesday that women “deserve equal treatment” in the schedule.
“There was a lot of great battles, a lot of great matches, which would be cool to see as, like, night session—just more people in the stands watching these incredible battles,” Sabalenka said of women’s tennis. “And just to show ourselves to more people. So, yeah, I definitely agree that we deserve to be put in a bigger stage, better timing, more people watching.”
It Falls on Her Shoulders
While anyone can talk, the scheduling decisions here ultimately fall to the French Open tournament director. Since 2022, that position has been held here by Amelie Mauresmo, a two-time major champion who was the best player in France for a generation of women’s tennis.
To her credit, Mauresmo held an open mid-tournament press conference here—something her Australian Open counterpart Craig Tiley hasn’t done for years in Melbourne, notably. But while Mauresmo didn’t say the ham-fisted things she did during her first year in the role—when she said that men’s matches had “more attraction and appeal” and later apologized—nor could she provide answers that cooled off the grilling she got from assembled anglophone media.
Matthew Futterman of The Athletic led the questioning, fairly interpreting Jabeur’s statement as saying that the scheduling in Paris was “telling women that they are not worthy.”
“That's not what we're saying—I have to stop you right there,” Mauresmo interjected.
“That's not what you were saying, but that is the message they are receiving,” Futterman said. “That's the message that I think a lot of girls receive.”
Mauresmo continued to reject the assertion.
“It has never been that the girls are not worthy to play at night,” she said. “It's never been this. I will not accept that you carry this message. That's really clear to me.”
Mauresmo said the issue with night sessions was “potential match length.”
“The two sets can go really fast,” she said. “[Men’s] have three sets, minimum.”
Mauresmo then asked Futterman: “What would you do?”
“I would solve the problem so the women don't receive the message that you're not trying to give them,” Futterman said. “I have three daughters. That’s what they think the message is. That's what many women in the room feel the message is. I guess I would listen to them, to start.”
Mauresmo didn’t have a reply to this. “Maybe we talk about it on [the] last Sunday,” she said, referring to after the tournament was over.
Questions for Mauresmo kept coming, next from David Law and Catherine Whitaker—two hosts of The Tennis Podcast—and she still didn’t have satisfactory answers, even when Whitaker shifted the focus, as I did to start this post, away from night sessions and to the scheduling of the first match on Chatrier.
“The funny thing is it’s the same questions, year after year,” Mauresmo lamented, seeming to not understand a slightly new line of inquiry.
“And it’s the same answers,” Whitaker replied.
In an appearance on The Tennis Podcast the same day as Jabeur’s statement, Pam Shriver did not hide the sense of betrayal she felt toward Mauresmo as a part of the women’s tennis sisterhood:
“It's extremely triggering, painful, and disappointing to have a player—a former WTA Tour player who got to No. 1 in the world, is in the Hall of Fame—who basically earned her 15 million plus prize money—not including all the endorsements, exhibitions, every opportunity that she had—on the back of the Original 9, led by Billie Jean King, furthered along by Martina and Chrissie. You know, where women's tennis has gone since the early 70s to where we are today, to have equal prize money at the four majors, all the wonderful [WTA] 1000 events around the world and made such strides. To have a tournament director with that CV, that background, basically slapping women's tennis—the modern-day version, 2025—is horrendous to hear.”
Despite her pedigree as a champion of women’s tennis—and notably as a particular pioneer for being a rare openly gay woman during her career1—Mauresmo is eroding the painstakingly built structure that made her.
But, alas, women have often been a core part of upholding the patriarchy, and that’s what Mauresmo is doing here. There’s plenty of sexism in tennis, especially in Europe, so perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that it would have a hold on the French Open tournament director regardless of her gender.
And though Mauresmo played women’s tennis, she perhaps always showed a greater affinity for the men’s game, taking most of her post-career coaching roles on the men’s tour, and often socializing mostly with her ATP counterparts.
As Richard Gasquet retirement tributes rolled in in recent days—check out these two from Giri Nathan and Christopher Clarey—I harkened back to a memorable group photo of French tennis players from about 17 years ago, in which Gasquet posed the house down and earned the 2000s message board nickname of “Richie Red Shoes.”
When I found the photo after some digging, I saw that Mauresmo was there, too, right in the middle of the group, happily hanging with the guys. And as a social preference, of course that’s totally fine if Mauresmo would rather be around men’s tennis and its players.
But if any of the men in this photo—all of whom could’ve been plausible candidates for a leadership post in French tennis nowadays—had been sustaining the same sexist sentiments Mauresmo has for years now, they wouldn’t have gotten any of the benefit of the doubt that she has received (or at least used to receive) as a woman in leadership.
Equality has become one of the most foundational tenets of tennis, particularly at the Grand Slam events, and it’s something that I—and clearly many others, from the multitude of voices you’ve heard in this piece—place a preeminent priority on in the sport.
So if Mauresmo isn’t up for being the pillar who upholds that core virtue at Roland Garros, then she should step aside and let another person, man or woman, take her spot before next year’s tournament. Anything less will cause bigger and bigger cracks to show in this tournament of clay—because those cracks cause the leaders here to trip, fall, and faceplant year after year.
Thanks for reading Bounces! If you’re enjoying this piece or the overall coverage of the 2025 French Open, please subscribe! -Ben
Happy Pride, everybody!
Great to see the facts laid out so clearly. One thing that has changed is there’s now men campaigning for women - everyone now cares that their daughters grow up in an equal world. Thank you for carrying the torch on this.
Agree about Mauresmo. It’s extremely puzzling, and disappointing. I share that feeling of betrayal that Pam outlined.