Tennis star Carlos Alcaraz has called for an end to late-night Grand Slam finishes, arguing that matches ending in the early morning hours place an unfair physical burden on players and hurt audience engagement. Speaking ahead of the Laver Cup in London, the Spanish major champion pointed to his own draining experiences at major tournaments and warned that scheduling practices must change.
The Physical Toll of Early-Morning Finishes
Alcaraz highlighted the exhausting reality faced by competitors when matches stretch past midnight. “For an athlete who finishes at 3:30 in the morning, it means leaving the facility at 4:30 and then driving back to the hotel,” Alcaraz said. “You don’t go to bed until 6:30 or 7:00 in the morning. In terms of recovery for the next match, the opponent has an advantage. That is too much. Something has to happen.”
The issue gained fresh urgency following Alcaraz’s title defense at the US Open in New York. During the tournament’s quarterfinals, Alcaraz fell in a grueling five-set match against Ben Shelton, where the final point was secured at 3:33 a.m. local time. Tournament records show that contest stands as the latest-ending match in the history of the US Open.
Contrasting Grand Slam Scheduling Rules
Scheduling protocols vary across the major tennis tournaments. While a strict 11:00 p.m. local time curfew exists at Wimbledon, other major venues operate without hard stop times.
Tournaments in New York, Paris and Melbourne feature no mandatory cutoff time to suspend matches, frequently leading to matches bleeding deep into the overnight hours.
Impact on Television Viewers and Live Audiences
Beyond athlete recovery and competitive fairness, Alcaraz pointed out that the extended schedules diminish the sport’s reach. As the world’s number three player noted, late finishes alienate fans sitting in the stands and those watching from home.
“It is a pity that such a match didn’t reach many viewers because they go to bed and have to work the next morning,” Alcaraz said. Players and observers continue to debate whether the logistical and physical costs outweigh the benefits.
Keep reading
