Pegula and Medvedev Split on US Open Influencer Boom as Player Frustration Grows
GOATIFYThe US Open has always mixed elite tennis with spectacle, celebrity and New York energy. In 2026, though, one part of that formula has become impossible for players to ignore: the rapid rise of credentialed influencers and content creators around the tournament grounds.
Jessica Pegula, Daniil Medvedev, Naomi Osaka and Aryna Sabalenka have now all weighed in on where that new attention helps tennis and where it starts to interfere with the people actually playing the matches. Their views are not identical. Some see a useful new way to reach younger audiences; others are increasingly frustrated by noise, lighting and movement during points.
The debate matters because the numbers are moving quickly. The US Open credentialed 54 influencers as media in 2025, and the 2026 total has nearly doubled. That expansion can put the tournament in front of audiences traditional tennis coverage may not reach, but it also creates a new courtside etiquette problem when content creation begins affecting competition.
Why the US Open’s Influencer Boom Became a Match-Day Issue
The tension became visible early in the tournament. During Naomi Osaka’s first-round match against Anastasia Zakharova, play was interrupted because a group in an Arthur Ashe Stadium suite was making too much noise. Separate fan videos also circulated showing ring lights and conspicuous filming setups in the stands.
Osaka’s position captured the central conflict. She has no problem with tennis becoming more popular and more culturally relevant, but growth cannot come at the expense of basic respect for the sport. If people are attending primarily to create content, the expectation still has to be that a live point is treated differently from a concourse interview or food review.
Tournament organizers reacted to some of those complaints by reinforcing reminders against flash photography and disruptive lighting. That may sound like a small operational adjustment, but it reflects a much larger challenge. Modern sporting events increasingly want creators because their posts can deliver huge reach, yet the venue still has to function first as a competitive arena.
Pegula offered one of the most balanced versions of that argument. She understands why creators are useful when they showcase the full tournament experience: restaurants, drinks, shopping, fan zones and the atmosphere around the grounds. That kind of coverage can make a tennis event feel accessible to people who might never watch a three-hour match from start to finish.
Her concern is what happens when the camera becomes more important than the match. Bright selfie lights, talking at the wrong time or moving around to capture a better angle can directly distract players. Pegula’s view is effectively that promotion is welcome until it starts interfering with someone else doing their job.
Players See the Upside — but the Boundary Is Getting Clearer
Daniil Medvedev has leaned more toward the upside. He sees the creator boom as a net positive and trusts organizers to deal with individual problems when they appear. Sabalenka has taken a similarly welcoming position, reflecting the reality that players themselves now build enormous audiences through social media and benefit when tennis escapes its traditional media bubble.
Not everyone is as comfortable. Adrian Mannarino has described the environment in much harsher terms, suggesting the tournament can feel chaotic when too many people around the event are focused on their own production. The criticism is less about whether influencers belong at tennis and more about how much disruption the event is willing to accept in exchange for visibility.
There is also a fan-access question sitting underneath the player complaints. Patrick McEnroe has raised concerns that ordinary tennis supporters are increasingly being priced out of marquee sessions, while Eugenie Bouchard has argued that it would be disappointing if brand guests and creators began replacing people who genuinely came to watch the sport.
Those concerns become more sensitive at the US Open because demand is already enormous. A credential, premium seat or hospitality space given to someone with a large social following can be commercially valuable, but the tournament also depends on the energy created by fans who understand the rhythm of a tennis match and know when silence matters.
The strongest middle ground is becoming clear. Creators can be excellent for tennis when they document the event, introduce personalities to new audiences and make the sport feel less closed-off. Players are not asking for the internet to disappear from the stands. They are asking for the same basic rules to apply whether someone has 200 followers or 20 million.
That means no bright lights during points, no conversations loud enough to stop play, no unnecessary movement at critical moments and no assumption that a media credential overrides court etiquette. The US Open can keep expanding its cultural footprint without turning every seat into a miniature studio.
For Pegula and the rest of the field, that distinction is likely to matter more as creator access grows. The 2026 tournament has shown that the experiment is not going away. The next step is making sure the attention stays additive rather than becoming another variable players have to manage between serves.
