The 6 Kings Slam was one of the highest stake events ever in tennis history. The event had 6 of the best players in the modern-day sport come together to fight for the mammoth $6 million prize money. However, out of those, Jannik Sinner managed to seal the deal in the finals against Carlos Alcaraz and win the event. But, little did he know that after the high-stakes clash, criticism would follow him. The Italian superstar, after bagging a massive prize pool opened up on the event. But, not everyone bought into his statement.

After winning $6 million in the Riyadh exhibition, Jannik Sinner responded to the ongoing criticism, clarifying that he doesn’t play for money. “It’s very simple,” said Sinner, the ATP’s world No. 1. “Of course, it’s a nice prize and everything, but for me, I went there because there were possibly the six best players in the world. And then you can measure yourself with them.”

He further shared his experience in Riyadh, saying that it was a very nice event for him. It was also the first time he went there, “When you come back as a winner, for me, it was more than, ‘Okay, I played the matches in the right way, and this hopefully can improve me as a player also for the future.’

However, Paul Annacone, a former tennis pro and respected commentator, expressed a different perspective on Sinner’s comments. In the Tennis Channel Live Podcast dated 27th October, Annacone suggested that the event was a business opportunity, as it brought together top players and substantial prize money. He stated, “I don’t think he plays solely for money. He’s got a lot more integrity than that, but just like every other big business, there’s a price for players to go to certain places and certain times of the year.” Annacone further added that Sinner doesn’t need to defend his choice to play for financial rewards. Although Sinner emphasized his focus on competition, Annacone hinted that financial incentives likely played a role.

The prize money that the players got for playing in Riyadh was immense. Daniil Medvedev, who just played for around an hour managed to bag around $1.5 million and Rafael Nadal, who’s nearing the end of his career got a sovereign worth around $270k.

Talking about reactions though, while Annacone disagreed with Sinner’s comments, another former pro Coco Vandeweghe spoke in favor of it.

Ex-pro stands in support of Jannik Sinner after his comments on the Saudi exhibition

Coco Vandeweghe recently defended Jannik Sinner’s choice to play in the Riyadh exhibition, where he earned a $6 million prize. Commenting on the significant payout, Vandeweghe said, “Saying no to $6 million? I’m not saying no to $1 million. It definitely counts for something.” She acknowledged that while Sinner’s primary goal was to compete against the world’s best, the financial reward also played a role.

Vandeweghe added, “I think he clarified his reasoning of playing against the top players.” She suggested that high rewards may be essential to draw top talent, saying, “Maybe that’s going to be the formula going forward… you’ve got to pay the big bucks.”

However, her perspective aligns with Paul Annacone’s, who similarly noted that, despite players’ focus on competition, large payouts undeniably added appeal. What are your thoughts on Sinner’s comments though? Do you think it’s possible not to be bothered about a prize amount as high as that? Let us know in the comments below!