Contact here for Advertising & Partnerships // Support the newsletter here.
Written by David Skilling
The US Open expects to host close to 100 content creators this year, almost twice the 54 it admitted when it introduced creator credentials in 2025. That means another group of creators is being paid to make content for the tournament and Tennis is actively building influencer marketing into how the sport presents itself.
I don’t have a problem with that. Modern sport doesn’t exist in a sealed sporting world any more, and pretending otherwise would be more damaging than inviting a fashion creator courtside. These days, fans discover sport through various cultural triggers like individual athletes, clothes, music, travel, food, gaming and people they already follow, and clearly, the US Open understands that its value extends beyond the court.
Former American player John Isner told Front Office Sports that creators have brought “a lot of novice eyeballs to our sport”, even if some aren’t attending primarily for the tennis. Aryna Sabalenka was enthusiastic, telling FOS: “I love it, I love it. It’s more eyes on [our] sport.” She specifically praised creators for bringing “this fresh eye on tennis”.
Both arguments make sense. The part I’m less convinced by is the assumption that all attention has the same value.
An influencer can put the US Open in front of three million people who wouldn’t normally watch tennis, but what happens afterwards? If the tournament is just another backdrop between a fashion show and restaurant opening, the sport has just rented somebody’s audience for an afternoon, where’s the real value?
Want to understand the business behind stories like this? Upgrade to receive the weekly Culture of Sport Marketing Intelligence Brief.
Formula 1 has been wrestling with the same situation for years, take Monaco for example, it’s built part of its mythology around glamour long before Instagram existed, but what has changed is the scale and purpose of the people being invited inside.
Martin Brundle’s grid walk has accidentally become a useful test of it. Brundle raced in 158 grands prix, stood on an F1 podium nine times and has spent decades broadcasting the sport. His pre-race interviews regularly produce awkward encounters with celebrity guests who either don’t know him or appear confused by why he is approaching them.
I don’t believe anybody is obligated to speak to Sky Sports, and a polite refusal is completely reasonable. What irritates many F1 fans is something different: the sight of somebody occupying one of the most privileged spaces in motorsport while appearing to have almost no relationship with the thing happening around them.
Brundle has more reason to be standing on an F1 grid than almost any celebrity or influencer being invited onto it. When a guest doesn’t even understand who he is or why he’s there, the sport has created a strange hierarchy in which borrowed fame has become more valuable than those who have competed in, and represented the sport for a generaiton.
Tennis should pay attention to that as its own influencer and creator economy expands. The can’t just fill Flushing Meadows exclusively with tennis influencers, even though they are valuable because they deepen fandom, sports organisations also want people capable of reaching audiences outside the existing fan base, and that logic is sound.
Selection therefore becomes more important than follower count. An athlete from another sport already has an obvious bridge into tennis, while a fashion creator genuinely interested in tennis can explain its clothes, personalities and the environment to people who might usually never watch match highlights. Food, travel and lifestyle creators can do something similar because the US Open itself is an experience extending well beyond the court.
My point is, the relationship needs to be believable.
Former player Genie Bouchard raised another consequence with FOS, acknowledging that greater brand and influencer presence can become uncomfortable when “true fans” struggle to attend. Patrick McEnroe was more direct, arguing that rising costs can price “the real tennis fan” out of the market. The average ticket price for the opening formal day of this year’s tournament reached $296, according to TicketData, up from $250 last year.
Influencers aren’t responsible for those prices, and removing them wouldn’t suddenly make Grand Slam tennis affordable, but their visibility makes the allocation of scarce access easier to question. Fans will tolerate outsiders entering their world when those people appear genuinely interested in joining it. They become more resentful when sport feels like scenery provided for somebody else’s personal brand.
Tennis should keep opening its doors, it’s not a bad strategy. Bringing new cultural references into the game is part of how sports remain relevant beyond the people already watching, but access should create some possibility of conversion.
The best creator leaves with a stronger relationship with tennis than they arrived with, and gives their audience a reason to follow. The weakest gets the photograph, posts it and moves on to the next invitation.
For the sport, only one of those is genuine influence and beneficial to its growth.
Thanks for reading. If you hit the like button, you’ll be doing me a huge favour.
David Skilling: Follow on Instagram
