“We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. The easy way is that we negotiate in good faith, which we’ve done now for over two years. What we need is real change on a real timeline.”
This is what Ahmad Nassar, chairman of the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA), told Ubitennis in November when quizzed about the threat of legal action against tennis’ governing bodies. Four months on and that threat has turned into a reality in what is the latest roller-coaster to hit the sport.
On March 18th, the PTPA officially filed an antitrust lawsuit in New York City, London, and Brussels. In it, they accused the bodies of having “complete control over the players’ pay and working conditions.” They want players to have more freedom and higher pay in the sport. The filing also mentions concerns about anti-doping protocols, the tennis schedule, and the current ranking system.
The ATP, WTA, ITF and ITIA have all been named as Defendants in the case. All of these have issued statements in response with the strongest being from the ATP who accuses the PTPA of ‘division and distraction through misinformation over progress.’
Here is everything we know so far about the case.
What is the PTPA?
The PTPA began in 2019 after being founded by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil. The aim of the organization is to campaign for players to have a greater say when it comes to decision-making in the sport. Something both the ATP and WTA have previously hit back at by arguing they have their own player council’s that contribute towards the decision making process.
Overseeing the organisation is Nassar who has been CEO since 2022. He has previously served as president of the National Football League (NFL) Players Incorporated and helped grow the NFL Players Association’s marketing and licensing business.
“I think tennis will look different two or three years from now. We have to be laser-focused on making sure that no matter what, it ends up looking like it does serve the interests of the players,” Nassar told Ubitennis last year.
The PTPA looks like a union but doesn’t have formal recognition as one because the people they represent (players) are not employees. They are self-employed. However, they are a member of the World Players Association which is a group of unions and associations that represents players.
Finally, there is an executive committee of players which includes Ons Jabeur and Hubert Hurkacz.
So who has put their name on the lawsuit and is Djokovic one of them?
In the lawsuit, the 12 players who have agreed to be plaintiffs are described as ‘established superstars, journeymen, and relative newcomers from around the world.’ They are Vasek Pospisil, Nicholas Kyrgios, Anastasia Rodionova, Nicole Melichar-Martinez, Saisai Zheng, Sorana Cîrstea, John-Patrick Smith, Noah Rubin, Aldila Sutjiadi, Varvara Gracheva, Tennys Sandgren, and Reilly Opelka. They are bringing this case ‘on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.’
Perhaps the most significant aspect is the name that is missing, which is Novak Djokovic. The person who was instrumental in forming the PTPA. He is yet to publicly speak about his decision to not be in the case. According to one source speaking to The Athletic, the decision was motivated by the desire to put the focus on a group of players instead of him against the tennis governing bodies. Nevertheless, it is a bit puzzling why such a massive legal move from the PTPA would take place without its co-founder listed.
It has been claimed that hundreds of players, including top names, are supporting this action. However, the accuracy of this claim has not been independently verified.
What areas is the lawsuit focused on?
The 163-page legal filing is pretty comprehensive and covers many things. Here is a brief breakdown:-
-anti-competitive practices
-prize money
-ranking points
-the tennis schedule
-player welfare and anti-doping
-anti-corruption investigations.
In a nutshell, the aim is to generate more freedom for players and a higher percentage of pay from the revenue. The PTPA is alleging that there are “price-fixing arrangements and other restrictions that limit players’ pay, restrictive scheduling and ranking mandates that lock players in to their closed system of tournaments.”
As for anti-doping, they specifically singled out the case of Jannik Sinner who is currently serving a three-month ban. Accusing authorities of double standards when it comes to handling cases. They go on to suggest that no lengthy investigation took place involving a player who hadn’t “vocalized any issues’ about tennis’ governing bodies. Furthermore, concerns about how players are treated during ITIA investigations have been raised.
Finally, they describe the ranking point system as ‘draconian’ which forces players to play certain events to have them. Taking away their option to play other events. However, it is unclear as to why this is such an issue considering most sports use a ranking system to determine how good that athlete/team is compared to others which then places them into a category when they can play against others of the same level.
Are Grand Slams involved?
Under the list of defendants, Grand Slams are not included. Instead, it is ATP Tour, Inc., WTA Tour, Inc., International Tennis Federation Ltd., and International Tennis Integrity Agency Ltd.
However the word ‘Grand Slam’ is used 191 times in the legal file.
“Grand Slams are not “ok.” Nassar wrote on X.
“Part of the system. Named as co-conspirators, along with all tournaments and others. We named the governing bodies as defendants but no one is getting off the hook here. The entire system is culpable and the entire system needs to change.”
A co-conspirator is defined as someone who plans secretly with one or more other people to do something bad or illegal.
What has Kyrgios said?
One of the first to speak out about the case was Nick Kyrgios, who is one of the 12 names on the legal filing. The Australian is a former top 20 player and Wimbledon finalist.
“I felt people knew something was going on behind the scenes for a long time,” Kyrgios told Sky Sports. “We wanted to do something like this for the future of tennis.
“I know the players and myself aren’t happy with the structures and everything that is going on in tennis at the moment.
“There are over 100 pages of doctrine that people can read for more information. I don’t want to go into all the details but I’ve been as involved as I can be with everything I’ve got going on.”This will be a special moment in tennis, for sure. Things needed to change. It’s a big day for tennis.”
Media day at the Miami Open will get underway today so there will be plenty of comments from more top names coming within the next 24 hours.
How long will it take?
Days, weeks, months or years? As with all legal cases, the process will be a lengthy one and it is not known how long it will go on for. The PTPA is seeking a jury trial in their complaint filed in the United States District Court in New York. Although technically this can be avoided should both parties reach a settlement beforehand.
It should also be noted that the Brussels filing was with the European Commission and in London it was with the Competition Markets Authority.
Why should the case be followed?
Depending on which party the court sides with, it could trigger a huge change in the tennis landscape. It is hard to judge how big such a change might be at this stage. It could be from the PTPA winning their argument to give players more power in the decision-making process or at the other end of the spectrum it could lead to the reconstruction of how tennis’ governing bodies operate.
It is very much a case of wait and see with plenty of arguments along the way.
