Why Tennis’ Wildcard System is a Threat to the Sport’s Longevity

If you were told that a player ranked lower than 104 in the world had just won one of their sport’s major tournaments, you’d scratch your head and assume it was the upset of the century.

And in some cases that might be true….but in others, said player could be a former Grand Slam champion that is returning for one last jolly on a whim.

In tennis, tournament officials want the most recognisable names in the sport to play in their events. But what happens when players, who have been injured, suspended or taken early retirement, don’t qualify automatically based upon their ranking?

They get given a wildcard – often at the expense of a young player creeping up the rankings, or a journeyman pro that travels the world in the search for those elusive ranking points.

Wouldn’t it be better for tennis’ long-term future if those individuals were given a Grand Slam wildcard, rather than faded former stars seeking one last payday in front of an adoring crowd?

Or, is the standard of wildcard entries now so high that it won’t be long before they’re reaching the business end of major tournaments?

How are Wildcards Decided in Tennis?

When it comes to the Grand Slams, in the singles draws in the men’s and women’s game there’s only space for 128 players in each.

That might sound like a large number, but when you consider the qualifying criteria it becomes apparent that earning a place in a tennis major is not as easy as it sounds:

• Top 104 in the ATP or WTA rankings that sign up
• 16 via the qualifying rounds
• 8 via wildcards

The various tennis governing bodies have introduced rules that enable them to ringfence the rankings of those players experiencing exceptional circumstances.

A Protected Ranking allows for a player that is experiencing a long-term injury of six months or more to return with the same ranking as they had before suffering their ailment. That enables them to qualify for majors despite not picking up any ranking points during their period of absence.

The WTA has also introduced a Protected Ranking system for players who leave the tour temporarily to have a child. They can enter up to 12 tournaments in a three-year period using their ranking prior to taking maternity leave.

Any players that don’t fit the bill have to go through qualifying: a gruelling process in which 128 players battle it out with a full-length game every day until just 16 remain standing.

Of course, there’s one other way that a player can gain access to a major. They can be handed one of the eight wildcards that tournament officials are allowed to grant, although these typically go to players that have previously won a Grand Slam, performed well in that major before, that have some kind of ‘pulling power’ (like a star of yesteryear) or if they are a talented young star from the host country.

For Wimbledon in 2024, all of those boxes were ticked. In the men’s singles, all eight of the wildcards were given to British players that have shown promise or, in the case of Liam Broady, had been a long-time servant to British tennis.

As for the women’s singles, the rollcall also included former Grand Slam winners making their return after pregnancy and/or injury: Emma Raducanu, Angelique Kerber and Naomi Osaka amongst them, as well as the previously retired Caroline Wozniacki.

Wimbledon Wild Cards in 2024

In 2001, the wildcard system was altered somewhat when the tennis authorities in Australia and France signed up to a reciprocal wildcard agreement – each would guarantee entry to at least two players (one male, one female) into their respective Grand Slams via a wildcard.

The United States has since joined the pact, hence why you see wildcards given to French and American players at the Australian Open and so on. At the time of writing, the LTA – the British tennis body – has declined to join the agreement.

The Arguments For and Against Grand Slam Wildcards

There’s no doubt that the likes of Raducanu, Osaka and Wozniacki hold commercial appeal, which explains why Wimbledon officials were so keen to hand them a wildcard -Raducanu’s world ranking, incidentally, was just 168 when she was given the call-up to SW19.

That trio is all young enough and talented enough to enjoy a renaissance in their respective careers, as is Kerber, and so an argument that these wildcards are given out on commercial, rather than sporting, merit seems unjustified.

However, there is an argument to suggest that the number of wildcards given to domestic players should be cut – many of them will play on outside courts and lose in the first round, which suggests that their places might have been better off handed to players just outside the top 104 in the world that might have proven to be more competitive.

Most would agree that sport is, or should be, a meritocracy – performance and ability in the here and now should be rewarded, not past achievements. It’s the only way that tennis can continue to maintain its high standards at the top of the game; wildcards handed to fading former stars may put bums on seats in the crowd, but they do little to future-proof the upper echelons of the sport.

And there’s questions of conspiracies outside of the majors too. IMG, one of the most high-profile player management stables in tennis, also has a sponsorship stake in some big events on the ATP and WTA circuits – you can probably guess who gets wildcards into those.

It’s notable that siblings and children of famous players are handed wildcards over arguably more deserving players – nepotism is avoidable when tournament organisers have a fair and transparent choice to make.

Mind you, these wildcards can be an excellent way to spot future talent at the other end of the age spectrum. Jannik Sinner was given a wildcard into his home Next Gen tournament at the age of 17 back in 2019 – any claims of a form of domestic nepotism were kicked to the kerb when the Italian went on to win the Australian Open and top the ATP world rankings.

The likes of Andrey Rublev, Frances Tiafoe and Felix Auger-Aliassime have also been handed wildcards in the past, and both have gone on to enjoy excellent careers – with plenty of time left on their side to improve yet further.

Wildcard Winners

Those arguing the case for wildcards at the Slams will point to two famous victories in the majors that would not have happened had tournament organisers not had the power to invite their chosen players.

Of all the Wimbledon wins of the modern era, Goran Ivanisevic’s triumph at SW19 in 2001 takes some topping. The Croat was ranked 125 in the world heading into the tournament, but his status as a three-time Wimbledon finalist – and the fact that he had been suffering from debilitating shoulder injuries, hurting his ranking – was enough to convince organisers to hand him a wildcard.

And boy, did Ivanisevic make it count.

Seemingly free of the burden of his injured shoulder, the left-hander served ace after ace as he powered his way through the field, dumping out the seeded Carlos Moya, the up-and-coming Andy Roddick, home favourite Greg Rusedski and the fourth seed, Marat Safin, on his way to setting up a semi-final against the darling of British tennis, Tim Henman.

This was in the days before Centre Court at Wimbledon had its retractable roof, and so the tournament was at the mercy of the weather gods – intermittent rain saw the Ivanisevic vs Henman match played over three days.

In the end, Ivanisevic – who trailed 1-2 after three sets having been bagelled in the third – was able to use the rain delays to his advantage, coming out fresh on the third day and acing his way to a five-set victory.

The rain meant that the men’s singles final took place on Monday in an unusual turn of events, with the wildcard taking on the Aussie, Pat Rafter.

Ivanisevic, in his fourth Wimbledon final, would not be denied, finally winning a marathon match 9-7 in the fifth set – there wasn’t a dry eye in the house as he hauled his way up through the crowd to set up an emotional celebration with his father.

𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐎𝐝𝐝𝐬 (𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟏)

From wild card to champion, Goran Ivanisevic’s one-of-a-kind journey to Wimbledon glory#CentreCourt100 🍿 pic.twitter.com/uQ5nlPFVij

— Wimbledon (@Wimbledon) June 16, 2022

In terms of pure sporting brilliance, Kim Clijsters’ victory at the U.S. Open in 2009 takes some topping.

The Belgian hadn’t played a competitive match in more than two years heading into the tournament – she had taken time away from tennis to get married and start a family.

Her wildcard into the U.S. Open was a nod to past achievements as much as anything else, but there was a competitive fire that still raged inside Clijsters – not to mention no shortage of skill.

She beat four seeds on her way to the final at Flushing Meadows – including both Williams sisters on home soil – to set up a meeting with future wildcard claimer Wozniacki.

Clijsters would just about have the edge in a nervy first set, claiming it 7-5, before the Belgian asserted her dominance in the second to prevail 6-3 and complete the most remarkable comeback victory.

Without the wildcard system, the world of sport would not have been treated to two such memorable comeback stories!

Does the Tennis Wildcard System Really Work?

Aside from those attention-grabbing stories involving Ivanisevic and Clijsters, does tennis’ wildcard system really work? Does it promote elite-level competitiveness, or at least provide a pathway for future generations to experience a Grand Slam early in their careers?

The data suggests that, at best, the jury is out – but at worst, you’d have to say that the current wildcard system is an abject failure.

For context, we looked at each year of Wimbledon (between 2003-2023) to see how the wildcards had performed. We charted their round of exit from the competition, which you can see graphically represented below. This is for the men’s singles:

To put some numbers on it, there were 135 wildcards handed out in our study period, with 87 of them losing in their first-round match – that’s a staggering 63%.

Some 33 of the 135 (24%) made it to the second round, where they suffered defeat, with ten losing in the third round (7%) and three (2%) in the fourth.

Barely 1% of wildcard entries in the past 20 years of Wimbledon have made it to the quarter-final stage. Juan Carlos Ferrero, the 2003 French Open champion, was the first in 2009.

The Spaniard enjoyed a charmed draw by playing two unseeded players first up, before dumping out tenth seed Fernando Gonzalez in the third round and eighth seed Gilles Simon in the fourth.

That set up a quarter-final date with Andy Murray; the Scot triumphing in straight sets in front of his adoring ‘home’ crowd.

We’d have to wait until 2014 for another wildcard to reach the quarter-finals – this time, it was the bad boy of tennis, Nick Kyrgios.

The Australian played with his trademark exuberance and head-scratching combination of brilliant strokeplay and basic errors. He lost at least one set in every single match he played, but battled past the likes of Richard Gasquet and Jiri Vesely to set up a third-round encounter with two-time Wimbledon champion Rafa Nadal.

Kyrgios played flawless grass court tennis, dumping out the Spaniard in four sets to the general amazement of the SW19 crowd. The Aussie would ultimately go down to the big-serving Canadian, Milos Raonic, in the quarter-finals, but he well and truly delivered on the promise of his wildcard.

Otherwise, just one-third of wildcard entries make it past the first round – that doesn’t exactly sound like a system that is flushed with success.

Maybe the wildcards handed out in the women’s singles have enjoyed more joy?

As you can see, the prognosis is essentially a mirror image of that from the men’s game.

We can see that 93 of the 142 wildcard entrants at Wimbledon in the past 20 years have lost in the first round – some 65%.

A further 33 (23%) have lost in the second round, which means that – all told – a whopping 88% of wildcard invitations don’t progress past the second round of Wimbledon.

There has been rare success stories, with three wildcards reaching the semi-final stage: Zheng Jie in 2008, who beat world number one Ana Ivanovic on her way to the last four, Sabine Lisicki – who beat two top-10 ranked players in 2011, and Elina Svitolina, whose semi-final match against Marketa Vondrousova was the first in Open Era history not to feature a seeded player.

But for those anomalous success stories, the truth is that wildcards in both the men’s and women’s draws simply don’t work. It’s true that these aren’t the best players in the world – hence why they aren’t automatically ranked in the top 104, but their overall record really is poor.

A switch to a flat draw, featuring the best 156 players as per the world rankings, is surely the fairest and most competitive system that tennis could have.