9 hours ago
2
The Professional Tennis Players’ Association came into existence on the eve of the 2020 US Open and at the height of pandemic restrictions. After an inauspicious start, the association co-founded by Novak Djokovic has spent time building its professional structures, finances and player support while trying to gain influence in the sport. The PTPA functions ostensibly as a players’ union but it is not legally recognised as such, since players are classed as independent contractors rather than employees.
As the PTPA’s numerous attempts to gain a seat at tennis’s decision-making table have been rebuffed, often vigorously, by the leading governing bodies – the Association of Tennis Professionals, the Women’s Tennis Association, the International Tennis Federation and the four grand slam tournaments – it became increasingly likely that their acrimonious relations would lead to litigation. The PTPA’s decision to initiate on Tuesday a lawsuit against the ATP, WTA and ITF, while naming the grand slam events as co-conspirators, marks a dramatic intensification of its campaign for players’ rights. It also comes as no great surprise.
In the lawsuit’s 163 pages, the PTPA presents ample valid criticism of the tours. Its points range from the lack of financial transparency from the ATP and WTA alongside the low percentage of revenues received by players, to the exhausting 11‑month season, the frequency of matches that drag on to 3am or later, plus the increasingly unpopular decision to increase ATP Masters 1000 and WTA 1000 events to 12 days.
There is also significant weight attached to what the PTPA brands as anti-competitive practices. It argues that the tour structures artificially limit players’ earning potential. In some cases that is fair; the lawsuit cites events at Indian Wells in 2012 when Larry Ellison, the billionaire owner of the tournament, was stopped by the ATP and WTA from significantly increasing prize money. Prize moneyfund limits and annual rises are standardised across tournament categories.
Many of its criticisms have focused reasonably on ATP and WTA structures, which present players and tournaments as having an equal vote in the development of the sport. The PTPA, for example, argues that the chair of the ATP board (the ATP chief executive, Andrea Gaudenzi), who usually has the deciding vote, has a financial interest in siding with the tournaments over players. The lawsuit also alleges what amounts to union‑busting behaviour by the ATP in particular which, it is claimed, has aggressively sought to discourage players from officially associating with the PTPA, and even penalised them for doing so.
Some of the PTPA’s arguments are less impressive. The lawsuit spends a significant amount of time lamenting the rankings system. There are valid issues surrounding restrictions on players; the problematic WTA scheduling rules were highlighted by a farcical situation last month when Madison Keys was unable to compete in the Austin Open because she entered the top 10 after her Australian Open triumph. WTA 250 events have limits on the number of top‑10 players they can host.
The PTPA also criticises the players’ lack of freedom to compete outside the tour in lucrative unsanctioned exhibitions and the exclusion of those events from receiving ranking points. Aside from the fact that exhibitions benefit only the richest, most famous players, rewarding unregulated, low‑effort, hit-and-giggle invitation events with ranking points would devalue the entire sport. Some of its issues seem to be with the basic organisational structures of a professional sporting league or tour.
Throughout the lawsuit, the PTPA argues that the free market should determine player earnings, even stating players should be allowed to accept or display betting sponsorships. While there is a double standard in allowing tournaments to receive them but not athletes, perhaps the scourge of betting advertisements, particularly in tennis, should be restricted for all.
There are also some serious allegations made regarding the anti-doping and anti-corruption efforts of the International Tennis Integrity Agency, but they are paired with some conspiratorial claims, such as the insinuation that the initial result Jannik Sinner received in his first anti-doping hearing had a positive outcome because he is “a prominent player who had not vocalised any issues with the cartel”.
after newsletter promotion
Within the lawsuit, the PTPA positions its legal action as part of a long line of landmark anti-trust sporting cases, such as the transformative ones in Major League Baseball, the NFL and the recent National Collegiate Athletic Association lawsuit that paved the way for student athletes to be able to earn money for their name, image and likeness.
The PTPA’s lawsuit is spearheaded by James W Quinn, a prominent lawyer who helped to negotiate the NBA case in 1976 that allowed its players to secure free agency. Its efforts are funded partially by the hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman.
The ball is now in the court of the ATP, WTA and ITF, and they must decide whether they will choose to tackle the PTPA in a potentially expensive legal battle. Maybe this suit will bring those governing bodies to the negotiating table after four and a half years of attempting to shut out the PTPA. While tennis may be as fractured as ever, there is certainly never a dull day on tour.
