Why the Calendar Resists Being Shortened
Every week on the calendar is somebody's revenue, somebody's broadcast slot, and somebody's contractual right, usually secured years in advance. Removing an event does not free up time in the abstract. It cancels a business. There is also a genuine geographic argument for spread, since a global outdoor sport needs events in both hemispheres, and the tolerable weather windows in different regions do not overlap neatly.
The most awkward objection to a shorter season is that it would fall hardest on the players who most need the work. Cutting events reduces the number of paid opportunities available to the ranks below the elite, whose income depends on volume rather than on deep runs at marquee tournaments. Reform framed as protecting players can therefore end up as a transfer away from the majority of them, which is one reason proposals to compress the year keep stalling even when almost everyone agrees the year is too long.
