analysis Murray and Nadal joining forces in a search for change, writes Simon Cambers

The tie with Hungary at the Braehead Arena, which starts on Friday, will be an early chance for him to get the disappointment of his US Open semi-final defeat out of his system.

Even as he prepares to join up with his team-mates, Murray is thinking about the future. However, along with how he is going to win a grand slam title, he has become front and centre of a bid by the top players to have more of a say in how the sport is run.

Because the Association of Tennis Professional represents both the players and the Tour, Murray wants to establish a players’ union that can better represent them, particularly in the four grand slam events.

It was fascinating to see Murray emerge as one of leaders of the calls for change. The Scot has never been slow to speak his mind, from drugs-testing to the length of the season, but to see him promote a greater share of tournament revenues and increased prize money was something new.

Murray and Rafael Nadal say they feel the US Open is putting the demands of television and sponsors above those of the players. Tennis players get 13% of US Open revenue; that compares to almost 50% in the NBA and NFL. The two men want to draw up document, which they hope all the players will sign, perhaps as soon as next month’s Masters 1000 in Shanghai.

The issue of a roof at Flushing Meadows has been a thorn in the side of the United States Tennis Association for many years. The lack of foresight to build one when the tournament moved there in 1978 is the obvious flaw; it was a mistake the Australian Open did not make when they moved to Melbourne Park, roof and all, in 1988.

Putting a cover over the main stadium court would cost $200m, according to the USTA, money they are unwilling to spend. The next two biggest courts -- Louis Armstrong and Grandstand -- both leaked this year and putting a roof over either could be unworkable because the site is built on landfill and the water table is too high.

So their only option -- if they want a roof -- will be to tear down one or more of the main stadiums and start again, which won’t be cheap and will be disruptive to the tournament, potentially affecting attendances and revenue.

The players are most concerned with the ludicrousness of the Saturday-Sunday, semi-final, final finish, a set-up designed for television. There is no question that down the years it has produced more than its share of drama but the unfairness of it all, especially to the player involved in the second semi-final, suddenly seems to have hit home with the top players.

“I think playing the first round over the first three days and the Super Saturday is just not feasible,” said Roger Federer, president of the ATP Players’ Council, a body designed to raise players’ issues. “In all the other grand slams you do not really have that competitive advantage over another player and I don’t think it should be the case here.”

“It shouldn’t happen anymore. And I don’t think TV should dictate to have the finals on Sunday and the semis on Saturday and not have the true champion hold the trophy up.”

US network CBS are the host broadcasters for the finals weekend. Their contract was due to expire after this year’s event but it is understood they have agreed a new multi-million dollar, three-year deal with the USTA, a deal dependent on playing the semi-finals on Saturday and the final on Sunday.

Having agreed to spend a reported $20m per year, it is hard to see CBS agreeing to change, which leaves the players in a quandary. When the top men boycotted Wimbledon in 1973, it was because of a restriction of their trade. With so much money at stake, would they really be willing to do that again in this case?

The top players would also like to cut the season, have fewer mandatory events and make the ranking system over two years, to relieve pressure. But the biggest problem Murray and co. may have is getting everyone on the same page.

Someone struggling to make the main draw of a grand slam event would be more concerned with prize money at the bottom end of the scale than playing fewer mandatory events.

As Nadal summed it up: “We understand television is important but we are a big part of the show as well and we don’t feel protected”. ATP Tour chief Adam Helfant stands down in December; who would want his job now?