Earlier this week, the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) launched its most significant bid yet to try and change the way tennis has been operating for years.
Three legal filings were sent around the world against tennis’ governing bodies concerning what the PTPA perceives as ‘anti-competitive practices and a blatant disregard for player welfare.’ An antitrust lawsuit was filed in New York City and the PTPA is seeking a jury trial. Meanwhile, legal complaints were also sent to the European Commission in Brussels and the Competition Markets Authority in London.
“Operating globally makes it more imperative to follow the law, not less. That’s also why we filed in the US, UK, and EU. The law applies to all global businesses, and global businesses have to follow more laws and regulations than domestic businesses. For some reason, tennis thinks it can operate above the law across the world. It cannot.” Nassar told Ubitennis.
The 163-page document covers various issues, including anti-competitive practices, prize money, ranking points, the tennis schedule, player welfare and anti-doping/anti-corruption investigations. So what are the PTPA hoping to achieve?
One key area from this case is the argument that players should be given more freedom to play when they want and not be pressured to play certain tournaments. But what does this mean and is the PTPA in favor of multiple tours forming? Something that has happened in golf with the Saudi-backed LIV Tour.
“The overall system is draconian and illegal. It stifles innovation from outside and within in order to protect the status quo for the majority of the co-conspirators,” Nassar argues.
“We think one Tour with all the top players is the ideal, operating legally. The risk of not doing that is external forces coming into play.”
The co-conspirators named in the lawsuit are the four Grand Slams – the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open. They are accused of preventing tournaments from increasing their prize money. Citing a past example of Indian Wells owner Larry King who in 2012 was prevented from increasing the amount of prize money by both the WTA and ATP.
“The focus is on having tournaments pay market rates. Not artificially fixed, and illegal, prize money,” Nassar explains.
“Tournaments are currently locked into bands, starting with Grand Slams, then 1000s, 500s, and 250s. But some 500s may want to pay more and should be able to. Unless it was part of an agreed-upon, independently and arms-length negotiated settlement with the players.”
As for which tournaments should pay the most, it only seems logical that Grand Slams should be given their status and popularity.
“Continuing to have Grand Slams at the top of that pyramid is certainly possible, and logical given that they currently generate the most revenue.”
The naming of Holger Rune and Jannik Sinner
Nassar admits he was caught off guard by the reaction to how Holger Rune was used in the legal case as an example. Rune, who is currently ranked 12th in the world and has won four ATP titles, played in Saudi Arabia’s King Six exhibition event last year. The PTPA says players should be allowed to play in such events when eliminated from the early rounds of the Grand Slams.
In the lawsuit footnotes, they wrote that Rune was ‘the only player invited to the Saudi Arabian exhibition who had never won a Grand Slam, and the only player ranked outside the ATP top 10. However, Rune has “long been touted as a future rival for Sinner and Alcaraz.” The PTPA’s legal team has been accused of trying to single the Danish player out with some tennis fans also voicing their displeasure.
“I didn’t see that coming and we should have,” Nassar commented.
“Definitely not an intention to single him out! And certainly not in a negative fashion – in fact, that example shows a mini-free market system at play. The exhibition organizers decided who they wanted to play based on a multitude of factors, and got an incredible roster of players to compete.”
The PTPA confirmed that they have directly reached out to Rune concerning this matter but no further details have been given.
Meanwhile, men’s world No.1 Jannik Sinner and his anti-doping case is also a prominent fixture in the lawsuit document.
Sinner twice tested positive for the banned steroid clostebol in 2024 but was cleared of wrongdoing by a panel of three independent experts who concluded that he had no fault. However, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the panel’s finding because they felt the Italian had a degree of fault as he employs his team and is therefore partly responsible for making sure they are following the correct protocol. They sought a ban of between one and two years before agreeing to a three-month ban (via a case resolution) which the tennis star is currently serving.
The PTPA complaint accuses the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) of double standards, writing that “there was no investigation that dragged for over a year into a prominent player who had not vocalized any issues with the cartel.” Cartel is the term they are using to describe the tennis governing bodies.
“I’ve been consistent and clear on Jannik’s case. He was treated unfairly by an out-of-control, illegal, and not-fit-for-purpose anti-doping program,” said Nassar.
“At the same time, others have pointed out that he seems to have been treated less unfairly than many other players.
“The solution here is not to treat him more unfairly, in line with other players. Nor is the solution even to treat other players as unfairly as Jannik. Our solution is to treat all players fairly!
“If someone is not at fault, as adjudicated by the ITIA and WADA, how is it possible that the case still took nearly a year to be resolved, and still resulted in a three-month suspension that is still being served as we speak? The system is not working and must change.”
So what next?
Now that the PTPA has made its legal move, it is now the turn for the ATP, WTA, ITF etc to respond. Due to the complexity of the matter, it may take weeks or many months before a final verdict is made and it is possible that the lawsuit could be settled out of court if an agreement is reached.
“A legal complaint is not some sort of article, where we might expect to find discussions of proposed solutions – and where we have, in fact, made such proposals in the past,” Nassar explains.
“ The players are victims of the global, illegal scheme – victims are not legally required to come up with proposed solutions before they are allowed to file complaints.
“I think in an everyday business context, we’d all understand that if we are treated illegally by a large, global enterprise, we would be able to go to court and seek redress. And that’s a microcosm of the overall issue here: people forget that global sports are, in fact, businesses. But while people may forget, the law does not. It applies to the tennis industry.”
