Does tennis need a Rules Committee?

You don’t have to dive too deeply into tennis to come up with potentially beneficial rule changes. Why not make brief, end-of-set breaks a regular feature? How about counting an errant ball toss that goes un-hit a fault? How about outlawing the deadly I-formation in doubles?

The only thing standing in the way of those and other tweaks is the game’s lack of a “rules (or competition) committee.”

The NFL, NBA and MLB all have such entities, but not pro tennis. It’s one of the main reasons that, for too many years, the Grand Slam tournaments couldn’t even agree on how to end a five-set match, and why the ATP and WTA haven’t embraced the simple idea of playing let serves.

“I don't think we even have a rules committee in the ATP Tour,” renowned coach Dave McPherson, who guided the brilliant doubles career of brothers Bob and Mike Bryan, told me recently. “It's bizarre to me. I don't know why we're so stodgy in tennis, where we don't look at things. We don't have an independent panel that looks at the rules each year and asks, ‘How can we make the game more attractive, singles and doubles?'"

Read More: Question: Is it time to eliminate the do-over serve toss?

We don't have an independent panel that looks at the rules each year and asks, ‘How can we make the game more attractive, singles and doubles?' Renowned coach Dave McPherson

This shortfall stems from the fact that unlike the major team sports, pro tennis is not a league with a single, clear system of governance. Rule changes in tennis are driven by the official governing body of the global game, the International Tennis Federation (in 2026, the ITF will have the new name: World Tennis).

The ITF, a global entity representing over 100 nations, has always been entrusted to set the basic rules for the entire tennis ecosystem. The problem for making rule changes is that they must be approved by the ITF affiliates at the annual general meeting, where consensus is not a sure thing and different constituencies have different—and sometimes conflicting—aims and abilities.

The system makes for a very slow-moving, bureaucratically complicated rule-change mechanism.  Just as importantly, the other stakeholders in the pro game—the four Grand Slam tournaments, the ATP and WTA—are autonomous entities (hence the different versions of the final-set tiebreaker that we still see). They generally play nice with each other, until they don’t.

Now, contrast that with the NFL, where robust rule changes are common. The 10-member NFL Competition Committee, consisting mostly of head coaches, general managers, and team executives, gathers input from multiple sources (including medical experts, players and NCAA reps) every year. It meets at the annual Combine, then drafts proposed rule changes. Ultimately, the owners vote on the proposals (sometimes with modifications) at their annual meeting. The other leagues have a similar process.

Improving the rules on things like time allowed between serves, or for bathroom breaks, is in the best interest of all the stakeholders at the pro level. Pete Bodo

It’s hard to imagine that tennis couldn’t come up with a streamlined, comparable structure addressing issues relevant to the professional game on the tours and at Grand Slam events. Improving the rules on things like time allowed between serves, or for bathroom breaks, is in the best interest of all the stakeholders at the pro level. Let the ITF decide on how to apply any such changes to non-commercial elements like junior tournaments, tennis leagues, and other amateur enterprises.

Now take one of McPherson’s pet peeves, the I-formation in doubles. He believes that it should be forbidden. But he doesn’t know how such a rule change would get traction under the current system.

“The players discovered 20 years ago that I-formation makes it really tricky to get the return by the net man,” he said. “So now you have a lot of points that are short and ugly, and we lose that artistry of great doubles on all but the slow surfaces.”

The coach believes that the net man on the serving team should have to take up his starting position behind the service line to give returners a “fair shake” at breaking serve. He likened the idea to the rule that forbids players from being inside the “kitchen” in pickleball. Then, he said, “We could see entertaining points of six, eight, 10 shots on a more regular basis.”

Here’s another example: The advantage of being the server has only increased over the years. So has the sight of a player making repeated tosses before a fully executed stroke. Wouldn’t it make for a more interesting game if a player had to hit every ball that leaves the hand when serving?

Adopting such a rule could hardly pose special problems for any ATP, WTA, or Grand Slam tournament, nor could the elimination of “let” first or second serves. The server already has enough of an advantage (and it has increased over the years), what with potentially getting a mulligan in the form of a second serve on every single point.

But this isn’t really about whether this or that rule change is going to add value and interest to the game. This is really about the game’s slow rate of adaptation, a weakness that is exacerbated by the resistance to change among so many players, especially top players. It is about the lack of an organism to study and implement (or reject) rule changes. And if not all the stakeholders sign on to a rules committee, the tours or majors should such entities on their own.

McPherson is an Aussie, and a lover of his native Aussie Rules football. He said that while the sport has quite a tradition, it is always open to innovative changes. “They're always tweaking the rules to try and make it more fair and attractive to spectators,” he said.  “And isn’t that what sports are supposed to be about?”