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 ostensibly functions 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 the sport’s decision making table have been rebuffed, often vigorously, by the leading governing bodies – the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA), the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and the four grand slam tournaments – it became increasingly likely that their acrimonious relations would lead to litigation. The PTPA’s decision to initiate a lawsuit against the ATP, WTA and ITF on Tuesday, while naming the grand slams as co-conspirators, marks a dramatic intensification of its campaign for players’ rights. It also comes as no great surprise.
Related: Players accuse tennis governing bodies of running ‘cartel’ in lawsuit
In the lawsuit’s 163 pages, the PTPA presents ample valid criticism of the tours. Their points range from the lack of financial transparency from the ATP and WTA alongside the low percentage of revenues received by the 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 anti-competitive practices. They argue the tour structures artificially limit players’ the 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 fund limits and annual rises are standardised across tournament categories.
Many of their criticisms have reasonably focused on ATP and WTA structures, which present the 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 CEO 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 claims 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 players 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 only benefit the richest most famous players, rewarding unregulated, low effort hit-and-giggle invitational events with ranking points would devalue the entire sport. Some of their 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 (ITIA), but they are paired with some conspiratorial claims, such the insinuation that the initial result Jannik Sinner received in his first instance anti-doping hearing had a positive outcome because he is “a prominent player who had not vocalized any issues with the cartel”.
Within the lawsuit, the PTPA positions their legal action as part of a long line of historical landmark anti-trust sporting cases, such as the transformative ones in Major League Baseball (MLB), National Football League (NFL) and the recent National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) lawsuit that paved the way for student athletes to 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 negotiate the landmark NBA case in 1976 that allowed its players to secure free agency. Their efforts are partially funded by the hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman.
The ball is now in ATP, WTA and ITF’s court and they have to 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 half years of attempting to shut the PTPA out. While tennis may be as fractured as ever, there is certainly never a dull day on tour.
