A frustrated and gesticulating Daniil Medvedev on a tennis court is no uncommon scene for any tennis fan, as the Russian is known for his controversial on-court behavior from time to time. The former World No. 1 made the news for his on-court outburst during one of his matches at the Vienna Open, something he alluded to before his campaign at the Paris Masters.
Watch What’s Trending Now!
“No, it’s always about emotions, but I really think that the system of fines in ATP is a little incorrect,” said Medvedev in an interview at the Paris Masters. “Yes, and in principle, my performance in Vienna is not a demonstration of this, but in the end it demonstrates this. In general, it’s a long story; I just think that the system of fines in ATP is incorrect.”
During his match against Cameron Norrie in Vienna, Medvedev could not rein in his frustrations in a tense contest, bending down to punch the court with his fist. While the action was just to vent his inner emotions, the former World No.1 did not miss the opportunity to make a sly remark about the ATP’s current sanction systems, which would have seen the third seed get a warning if he had hit the court with his racket.
“If you hurt yourself, at least you don’t get the fine,” Medvedev said during the match. “The ATP likes it when people get hurt.”
Code violations are completely subjective in nature, and they fall under the discretion of the umpire. While the chair umpire in Vienna did not deem Medvedev’s actions worthy of sanction, smashing a racket on the court surface breaches the ATP’s racket abuse regulations. Under the current tiering system, an official code violation warning is issued to the player before imposing a point penalty and a game penalty for the second and third offenses.
Fines are associated with each code violation and depend on the severity of the incident, often reaching $60,000 at the Masters 1000 events. However, emotions tend to run high in intense match situations, leading to lapses in judgment, and Medvedev himself has been at the center of that several times.
While his incident in Vienna did not result in a fine, the Russian was disqualified from his match against Novak Djokovic at this year’s China Open after accidentally hitting a spectator with the ball. Not only was the Russian defaulted, but his tournament winnings, which were north of $219,000, were also forfeited.
Medvedev is not the only player to have taken up the habit of not using his racket to show his frustration, as his compatriot Andrey Rublev has often been spotted hitting himself with a racket during matches. Even someone like Coco Gauff used the method of hitting herself with tennis balls during the US Open to avoid both injuries and fines.
One would think Medvedev’s critique of the ATP’s fining system comes from his individual experience, as the former Grand Slam champion has spent quite a bit of coin in fines during his playing career.
Daniil Medvedev Has Been Fined Before
Medvedev has often been at the center of controversy on court, with the Russian paying a $ 7,000 fine during his match against Matteo Berrettini in Monte Carlo this year. The Russian lost the match 6-0, 6-0 and had an incredible meltdown, smashing his racket to pieces, which earned him both a code violation and the fine.
Not to forget the 2025 US Open, where the former champion was fined a whopping $42,500 during his first-round match against Benjamin Bonzi. While he was penalized $12,500 for equipment abuse, the Russian had to pay an additional $30,000 for unsporting conduct, which resulted in code violations during the match.
The China Open match against Djokovic is not the only instance in which Medvedev has been defaulted in a tennis match; the Russian was previously disqualified from a match against Donald Young at the 2016 Savannah Challenger after engaging in a verbal altercation with the chair umpire. Not to mention, he once engaged in a verbal spat with the chair umpire during his semifinal clash against Carlos Alcaraz at Wimbledon in 2024, but was lucky to get away with a code violation warning despite using objectionable language.