Series
Blogs
Series
Blogs
The Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) has recently announced the launch of a Maternity Fund Programme (Programme). The Programme, fully funded by the Public Investment Fund (PIF), introduces maternity leave and benefits for eligible women tennis players, and builds on the WTA's ongoing efforts since 2018 to help players balance their careers and family commitments.
The launch of the Programme also comes at a time of increasing recognition for the need to ensure that women in sport are not forced to choose between their career and parenthood. Over the last five years in the UK, policies about maternity leave and benefits have been introduced by UK Sports, the Rugby Football Union, and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association.
These developments are backed by a broader movement towards increasing parental rights. Enhanced parental rights, such as parental leave and the prevention of maternity discrimination, were listed in Labour’s manifesto for 2024 and form part of the changes being brought in by the Employment Rights Bill (find more details on our tracker here).
In this blog, we provide an overview of what the WTA PIF Maternity Fund Programme will offer, and consider the Programme in the context of existing maternity policies in the sports sector as well as statutory minimum standards in the UK.
The Programme, retroactively applied from 1 January 2025, will not be accessible to all 1,600 WTA members, as players will need to have competed in a minimum number of WTA events within a specified time period to be eligible. It is expected that 320 members will benefit from the Programme, including 25 players currently on tour. Whether the WTA plans to expand this number over time remains unclear.
The relatively limited pool of recipients may be a natural consequence of the Programme being one of the first initiatives to provide benefits to self-employed athletes. By contrast, the RFU and FIFA maternity policies are only available to athletes under contract.
Another feature of the Programme is that eligibility is independent of a player’s ranking or earnings. However, the WTA’s chief executive has noted that “those who earn less will find this benefit particularly valuable”. This departs from the financial support available to Olympic and Paralympic athletes, which is linked to both performance and means-testing.
Currently, the Programme applies solely to players, unlike FIFA’s policy which also covers coaches. Whether maternity benefits might be extended to tennis coaches remains to be seen, particularly as their visibility grows following the recent approval of off-court coaching during matches.
Finally, the WTA-PIF Programme standardises maternity leave and benefits to players across jurisdictions, irrespective of what national laws mandate. This marks significant progress in providing equality of opportunity and agency in women’s tennis, as players no longer have to rely on the widely disparate protections offered by their countries of nationality or residence. Similarly, the FIFA policy seeks to address disparities by establishing minimum standards for leave and benefits, but it defers to statutory levels to be applied when they are more generous. It is unclear if the Programme offering is intended to supplement or replace the statutory provisions for self-employed players – if the benefits are additional to statutory provisions, this may continue to result in unequal benefits based on nationality or residence (although a baseline will remain available to all who are eligible).
The Programme offers paid maternity leave for up to 52 weeks, far exceeding the entitlement provided by FIFA (14 weeks unless a higher statutory level applies) and the RFU (26 weeks). Under UK Sports Guidance, athletes can continue to receive their grant for the duration of their pregnancy, and for up to 36 weeks after childbirth. Although statutory maternity leave in the UK is also available for 52 weeks, it doesn’t apply to self-employed individuals. For them, maternity allowance is limited to 39 weeks, leaving any additional time unpaid.
The WTA hasn’t disclosed the specific amount players will receive during maternity leave but ensures that all eligible players will receive the same sum irrespective of ranking. This stands in contrast to other policies, where pay is tied to prior earnings. For instance, the RFU policy provides players with their full contractual pay, UK Sports allows athletes to stay on their existing grants, and the FIFA policy entitles players to two-thirds of their contractual salary. Statutory maternity allowance in the UK is determined by the individual’s national insurance contributions and has a lower and upper limit of £27 and £187.18 per week.
Beyond maternity leave, the Programme offers eight weeks of paid parental leave to players who become parents via a partner’s pregnancy, surrogacy or adoption. This aligns with the FIFA policy, although FIFA does not explicitly mention surrogacy. Adoption leave is briefly addressed in the RFU and UK Sports policies, but the details of adoption leave under these policies are not publicly available. There is no statutorily guaranteed pay for self-employed non-biological mothers, and they must rely on discretionary council benefits.
Quite significantly, the Programme also provides grants to players for a range of fertility treatments, including IVF and egg-freezing. Financial support for these treatments does not appear to be envisioned in any of the other policies. The Programme’s support for different types of biological and non-biological parenthood means that women tennis players will now have more control over if, when, and how they choose to have children.
While not covered by the Programme itself, the WTA also offers players a significant degree of support when they return to the game after having a child. Players receive guidance on a staged return to play, and are given special rankings that allow them to return at the same level for up to three years after pregnancy, and two years after any other means of parenthood. Further, players who rank high enough to be seeded are offered a guarantee that they will not face another seeded player in the opening rounds of their first eight tournaments. These measures are substantial, because they recognise that motherhood has an ongoing impact to be accounted for.
The recognition that balancing parenthood and a career is a journey, particularly in a world where care responsibilities are still disproportionately borne by women, may require even more long-term solutions. For instance, the FIFA policy encourages member associations to provide family-friendly environments during final competitions, including ensuring that families can stay in the same hotel or near the players, providing financial assistance for travel and accommodation for families, and facilitating childcare services. It remains to be seen if the WTA will also introduce similar provisions in the future (even if they are just recommendations).
As a final point, we note that the Programme offers players a significant amount of agency – while the WTA offers players support in returning to tennis, there is no obligation on players to repay any funds if they elect not to return to the game.
The WTA PIF Maternity Fund Programme is certainly a unique offering for self-employed athletes. When contrasted with other policies in the sports sector, it is clear that the Programme is both reflective of broader changes in the field, but also a significant step ahead – in particular, its recognition of non-biological motherhood and support for fertility treatments will enhance the ability of players to be parents in a way that works for them. It remains to be seen how the existing uncertainties with the Programme, particularly the value of benefits and their interaction with national laws, are resolved.
Sign up to SportingLinks for more dedicated legal opinion on topical issues in the sports sector.