Are tennis players right to protest over prize money?

Saying thank you very much for a 20% annual increase before escalating the protest to another level shows the confidence the players, and their representatives, are feeling.

The average UK employee can currently expect a 3.4% annual pay rise, and with first-round losers at Wimbledon guaranteed to take home £80,000, sympathy among the general public is likely to be in short supply.

But for the players this is not about the annual increase, but about getting a higher percentage of the revenue they help the All England Club generate.

The AELTC counters with the argument that revenue does not take into account their costs, or investment in infrastructure and other grass-court events.

But the players feel emboldened, and will not mourn over lost media opportunities, especially if they can avoid being fined.

The French Open prize money increase was in single digits, but players received 16% at the Australian Open and expect this year's US Open to at least match the 20% rise they offered last year.

They are slowly but surely getting what they want on pay, although are asking for an extra 1.5% of revenue every year until 2030.

Those figures may not be delivered across the board, so can the issue be solved by negotiation, or will it revert to a game of bluff in which players threaten strike action - and more convincingly than they have to date?