The ATP Tour’s decision to introduce a formal heat policy from the 2026 season marks one of the most significant athlete-welfare reforms in men’s professional tennis in recent years.
Triggered by a spate of high-profile heat-related incidents during the 2023 season, the new framework replaces subjective judgment with measurable medical thresholds, anchored in the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) index. While the policy represents clear progress in standardising player protection, its chosen thresholds raise important questions about whether the ATP has gone far enough in prioritising health over scheduling continuity .
For years, heat management on the ATP Tour was governed by loosely worded references to “adverse weather,” leaving suspension decisions largely to tournament officials. This approach proved inadequate as extreme heat and humidity became increasingly common across the calendar. The breaking point came in 2023, particularly at the Shanghai Masters, where elite players visibly struggled.
Jannik Sinner retired with severe cramping, Novak Djokovic was seen vomiting on court amid suffocating humidity, and Holger Rune openly questioned whether players were expected to “die on court.” Earlier in the season, Arthur Rinderknech had collapsed in Cincinnati under similar conditions. Collectively, these episodes exposed a systemic failure to safeguard athletes against exertional heat illness.
From 2026, the ATP will adopt the WBGT index as the definitive metric for heat stress. Unlike simple air temperature or heat index readings, WBGT accounts for humidity, radiant heat, wind and ambient temperature factors that together determine the body’s ability to dissipate heat. This is particularly relevant in tennis, where hard courts absorb and re-radiate solar energy, creating a microclimate that is often significantly harsher than surrounding weather-station readings.
Under the new policy, two fixed thresholds govern best-of-three-set singles matches. When WBGT reaches or exceeds 30.1°C, a 10-minute cooling break becomes available after the second set. If WBGT exceeds 32.2°C, play must be suspended immediately. The shift from discretionary judgment to non-negotiable, medically defined action points is a major governance improvement. It empowers medical teams, ensures consistency across tournaments, and reduces the pressure on players to “push through” dangerous conditions.
However, the details reveal a more complex risk calculus. The 30.1°C threshold for a cooling break is widely recognised as a high-risk zone for heat stress, yet the intervention is delayed until after two full sets are completed. This makes the break remedial rather than preventative, allowing substantial thermal strain to accumulate before relief is provided. While the 10-minute pause includes hydration, ice, cooling vests, clothing changes and medical supervision, it is designed to manage an already elevated risk rather than prevent it.
Read Articles Without Ads On Your IndiaSportsHub App. Download Now And Stay Updated
The more contentious issue lies with the suspension threshold of 32.2°C WBGT. In comparative terms, this is an extremely high tolerance level. FIFA guidelines for football mandate cooling breaks at WBGT levels as low as 26°C and recommend postponement once WBGT reaches 28°C. The UCI classifies conditions above 28°C WBGT as a “red zone” for endurance cycling, triggering course modification or cancellation. Even occupational health standards, including military and athletic training protocols, treat WBGT levels around 32°C as conditions where strenuous activity should be prohibited altogether.
By allowing competitive play to continue until WBGT exceeds 32.2°C, the ATP is effectively asking players to operate near the upper limits of human thermal tolerance. Sports medicine research suggests that thermoregulation failure can begin at wet-bulb temperatures well below this level, particularly when exposure is prolonged or cumulative over successive days. In tournaments played daily under extreme heat, the risk compounds rapidly.
The ATP’s position reflects a pragmatic compromise. Tennis differs from continuous-running sports in that play is intermittent, with built-in rest between points and games. Scheduling complexity, global broadcasting demands and the difficulty of rescheduling matches mid-tournament all exert pressure to keep play going. In this context, the ATP has opted for a structured but relatively aggressive threshold rather than a conservative, preventative one.
Read Articles Without Ads On Your IndiaSportsHub App. Download Now And Stay Updated
The policy does align men’s tennis with the ITF and WTA in terms of adopting WBGT-based standards, creating uniformity across professional tennis. Yet, even within the sport, there are more advanced models. The Australian Open, for example, uses a Heat Stress Scale that layers environmental data with physiological modelling, estimating core temperature and sweat rate. This approach recognises that environmental thresholds alone cannot capture individual or cumulative risk.
Another crucial variable is measurement accuracy. WBGT readings must be taken at court level, exposed to direct sun and radiant heat from the playing surface. If measurements rely on generalised meteorological data rather than court-specific sensors, the actual thermal burden on players could be systematically underestimated, undermining the policy’s intent.
In its current form, the ATP’s heat policy is an important structural advance, but not a definitive solution. Medical evidence and cross-sport comparisons suggest that a lower suspension threshold closer to 28–29°C WBGT would provide a safer buffer. Introducing earlier, time-based cooling interventions when WBGT exceeds moderate risk levels could further reduce danger before players reach physiological breaking points.
Ultimately, the success of the 2026 heat policy will not be measured by its existence, but by its flexibility. As extreme heat becomes a permanent feature of the global sports calendar, the ATP’s willingness to revise thresholds downward and adopt more preventative measures will determine whether player welfare truly sits above the demands of completion and spectacle.
