The Professional Tennis Players’ Association (PTPA) was formed on the eve of the 2020 US Open, during the height of pandemic restrictions. Co-founded by Novak Djokovic, the PTPA initially struggled to make an impact but has since focused on building its infrastructure, finances, and player support. While it aims to act as a union for players, it is not legally recognized as such because players are considered independent contractors rather than employees.
The PTPA has faced significant resistance from the major governing bodies of tennis— the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA), the International Tennis Federation (ITF), and the four Grand Slam tournaments. These governing bodies have repeatedly rejected the PTPA’s attempts to gain a voice in decision-making processes, making a legal battle increasingly likely. The PTPA’s decision to file a lawsuit against the ATP, WTA, and ITF, while naming the Grand Slam tournaments as co-conspirators, represents a major escalation in its push for players’ rights.
In the 163-page lawsuit, the PTPA criticizes the governing bodies for various issues, including a lack of financial transparency, the small percentage of revenue received by players, and the grueling 11-month tennis season. Other points of contention include late-night matches, the extended length of ATP Masters 1000 and WTA 1000 events, and the overall scheduling. The PTPA also argues that the tour structures artificially limit players’ earning potential, citing examples like the 2012 Indian Wells tournament where the ATP and WTA prevented the tournament’s billionaire owner from increasing prize money significantly.
One of the central critiques involves the governance structures of the ATP and WTA, where players and tournaments are supposed to have equal votes on decisions. The PTPA points out that the chair of the ATP Board, who has the final vote, is financially aligned with the tournaments rather than the players. The lawsuit also accuses the ATP of engaging in union-busting practices, discouraging players from associating with the PTPA and penalizing them for doing so.
Some of the PTPA’s criticisms are less convincing, such as its focus on the rankings system. While there are legitimate concerns, the lawsuit spends considerable time discussing issues like the restrictions on WTA 250 events and the limits placed on the number of top 10 players these events can host. Additionally, the PTPA criticizes the players’ inability to compete in lucrative, unsanctioned exhibitions outside the official tour and the fact that such exhibitions do not earn ranking points. However, granting ranking points to such events could devalue the sport, as they typically benefit only the wealthiest and most well-known players.
The lawsuit also raises concerns about the ability of players to accept or display betting sponsorships, arguing that the free market should determine player earnings. However, it also highlights a double standard, as tournaments are allowed to receive such sponsorships while players are not. Moreover, the PTPA questions the practices of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) regarding anti-doping and anti-corruption efforts, alleging that high-profile players, such as Jannik Sinner, have received favorable outcomes because of their prominence and lack of criticism of the existing system.
The PTPA frames its legal action as part of a broader historical context of landmark anti-trust cases in sports, including those in Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Football League (NFL), and the NCAA, which opened the door for student-athletes to earn money from their name, image, and likeness. The lawsuit is led by James W. Quinn, a prominent attorney who played a key role in securing free agency for NBA players in 1976. The PTPA’s efforts are financially supported by billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman.
Now, the ATP, WTA, and ITF must decide whether to engage in an expensive legal battle or potentially negotiate with the PTPA after years of attempts to exclude it. While the world of tennis remains divided, the ongoing legal drama ensures that the sport remains as eventful as ever.