Are tennis players right to protest over prize money?

Many of the world's top tennis players will continue their prize money protest by further restricting media opportunities at Wimbledon - but are they right to?

After all, it was just a couple of weeks ago that Wimbledon announced a 20% increase in prize money - taking the total sum of the pot to £64.2m.

Leading players, including world number ones Aryna Sabalenka and Jannik Sinner, will not only limit the time they offer at the forthcoming media weekend, but are also planning to restrict post-match appearances to 15 minutes throughout the first week of the Championships, which start on Monday.

Reigning men's champion Sinner has previously said the issue is "about respect", while Sabalenka says both sides must come together to reach "mutually beneficial solutions".

But after Wednesday's announcement, the All England Club (AELTC) said it was "surprised and disappointed" by the latest move, while BBC pundit Andrew Castle, speaking on Wimbledon qualifying coverage, said it was "tone deaf" of the players.

So, what exactly are the players asking for, how will those protests look at Wimbledon, and are they being reasonable in their demands?

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?