Exhibition events in tennis add a bit of extra and unexpected fun and intrigue to the calendar. While players give their everything while playing a professional event, the exhibition brings out their lighter side and gives them some time to enjoy themselves with their peers in a manner reminiscent of childhood. That’s exactly what happened at 6 Kings Slam. Though the players apparently enjoyed playing in Riyadh, the tournament organizers received significant backlash for the hefty paycheck they offered. However, unlike other, the ATP legend Jimmy Connors seems to have a positive outlook about all of this. 

In his podcast (Advantage Connors), Connors responded to his son Brett’s question about whether the Saudi event had the energy of his 1970s clashes against legends like Rod Laver and John Newcombe. “Whatever brings more interest in the game, I’m all for it, as long as it means something,” Connors explained, sharing memories of the tension and excitement these non-sanctioned matches create.

Connors recalled the stakes involved, saying, “I go back to the challenge matches that I played…the first one I played against Laver… If I didn’t win that match, they were over. It wasn’t going to go on anymore.” Winning against Laver ensured there would be more challenge matches even though he had to lose the Grand Slam finals to secure them. “Geez, I had to lose Grand Slams to get another challenge match. I think I might have rather won the Grand Slams,” he joked.

Even though Jimmy Connors didn’t specifically mention it, his comments indirectly suggest he is unfazed by Jannik Sinner’s $6 million paycheck – which must be a relief to the player and the organizers of the tournament.

However, unlike Connors, many have expressed their resentment at the recently concluded exhibition event. Andy Roddick, one of the game’s legends, came forward and expressed his thoughts on the ongoing debate.

Unlike Jimmy Connors, Andy Roddick doesn’t seem to care much about Jannik Sinner’s $6 million prize money

Andy Roddick, in his podcast (Served with Andy Roddick), talked about the exhibition event and highlighted how paying huge sums of money is completely absurd. He even called it a marketing budget while suggesting that, unlike other events, the organizers did not have the pressure of paying many players and hence, paying $6 million to the champion was an easy task for them.

“In all seriousness, I never begrudge anyone their choices. Listen, someone will pay you that amount of money and you have to go do awkward dancing. The whole thing looked completely unnatural. It just looked weird,” said Roddick in his podcast. “I had no interest in it. Even the Novak and Rafa thing, I don’t know, it felt fine, felt like an exhibition but without the charm of a Laver Cup where you’re seeing the interactions between players and the legends get brought back,” he added.

Apart from Roddick, Serena Williams’ ex-coach Rennae Stubbs, in her podcast, expressed similar thoughts about the tournament. “I did watch a little bit of tennis, not a lot of it. Just felt like the Six Kings thing like ‘Who cares?’ I mean Sinner won $6 million, like he beat I mean Alcaraz in the finals. He has been a better player on the faster courts okay, I get into the reasons why but do I really care? No, I don’t, I really don’t care,“ said Stubbs in her podcast.

While the likes of Andy Roddick and Rennae Stubbs have not been very excited about the whole thing, Jimmy Connors’ opinion definitely offers a fresh perspective. What are your thoughts on the same? Do let us know in the comments below!