From the court to the courts: PTPA vs ATP, WTA, ITF and ITIA

On 18 March 2025, the Professional Tennis Players Association (“PTPA”) and a number of professional tennis players commenced a series of legal claims in the US, UK and EU against the sport’s governing bodies – the ATP, WTA, ITF and ITIA – alleging violations of anti-trust / competition law.

The claims, which have echoes of those brought by in recent years by professional golfers against the PGA Tour and by MMA fighters against the UFC, allege a variety of related anti-competitive practices, which the PTPA claim have suppressed player earnings, prevented rival tournaments from entering the market, violated players’ human rights and compromised players’ welfare.

This article will break down the key aspects of the players’ claims, consider how the proceedings may play in to their wider strategy, and reflect on whether this case may form part of a wider trend across the sporting landscape.

 

What is the PTPA?

The PTPA is a not-for-profit organisation that advocates for player rights and welfare in men’s and women’s professional tennis. It was founded by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil, and has obtained funding through a number of investors. It is not recognised by the tennis governing bodies as an official player association, but its members include a number of top players.

 

What are the PTPA’s claims?

The PTPA alleges that the governing bodies hold a monopsony in the market for professional tennis which eliminates competition, and that the governing bodies abuse their dominant position to the detriment of the players.

In summary, the PTPA points to the following as examples of alleged anti-competitive / abusive practices:

• Suppressing competition between tournaments (including preventing potential rival tournaments entering the market).
• Fixing prize money at artificially low levels.
• Restricting players’ freedom to compete in alternative (unsanctioned) events, including by imposing “draconian” ranking systems and compulsory playing schedules.
• Exploiting players’ name, image and likeness (NIL) rights without compensation, whilst limiting players’ freedom to obtain sponsorship.
• Imposing an unsustainable playing schedule.
• Imposing playing conditions which disregard player welfare.
• Violating players’ privacy and due process rights in the investigation and prosecution of anti-corruption and anti-doping rule violations.
• Exploiting players’ data without their consent.
• Compelling players to enter into exclusive arbitration agreements.

The allegations are disputed by the ATP, WTA and ITIA.[1]

The PTPA’s position is that these various interlocking restraints and abusive practices damage players’ earnings, compromise their welfare, and violate their fundamental rights.

For example, the PTPA claims that by controlling the tournament schedule, fixing prize money and limiting players’ freedom to play elsewhere, the governing bodies are collectively stifling the free market for tennis, suppressing players’ earning potential (on the basis that certain tournaments might be willing to pay players more) and preventing alternative tournaments from emerging (which, in turn, reduces demand for players’ services and thus further suppresses earnings).

They also claim that the governing bodies’ approach to investigating potential anti-corruption rule violations (by requiring players to hand over their phones) and anti-doping rule violations (by testing them “in the middle of the night”) are an abuse of their dominant position in the market.

The governing bodies are yet to address those claims. However, as governing bodies often do in such cases, they will likely argue that such measures are necessary for the effective organisation of professional tennis competition, and that the restraints imposed are reasonable and proportionate.

The governing bodies will also likely be quick to point to the fact that not every professional player supports the claims, with some going as far as to vocalise criticisms.  Men’s world number two Carlos Alcaraz has said that he does not support the claims, whilst world number three Alexander Zverev called for unity over division, despite his view that the claims raise “valuable points” (although, as players currently at the top of the ATP rankings, they may have fewer reasons to be concerned about professional tennis’ present structure).

 

What may happen next?

If the players’ claims succeed in full, the governing bodies may be ordered to pay substantial damages to the players and significant changes may be forced to the structure and regulation of professional tennis.  However, expensive and time-consuming court proceedings are rarely in anyone’s best interests, and the players’ final valuation of their claims could (if awarded in full) cause the governing bodies financial issues.

Settlement discussions are therefore likely. Indeed, the PTPA’s Executive Director has acknowledged that (whilst it is willing to litigate these matters), a settlement would be the PTPA’s preferred outcome.

Below are some of the issues which may be high up on their agenda.

Role of the PTPA

Players currently have their say in the running of professional tennis through the election of Player Councils (ATP, WTA) whose members represent player interests before the ATP and WTA boards.

Whilst it advocates for players’ rights, the PTPA does not have a formal ‘seat at the table’ like other player associations do (e.g., The Professional Footballers’ Association must consent before any changes are made to players’ conditions in English professional football; and the NBA Players Association ratifies the Collective Bargaining Agreement dictating the terms of player employment in the NBA).

The PTPA’s claims may therefore form a basis for the PTPA to be recognised as a players’ association with a role in decision-making in professional tennis, perhaps even via a formal Collective Bargaining Agreement. However, such a development would represent significant change in the governance of professional tennis and may still be some way off – not least since the very public nature of the claims will undoubtably have rankled the relevant governing bodies.

Financial improvements

Much emphasis has been placed in the litigation on the issues of competition between tournaments, the capping of prize monies, and the use of players’ NIL rights.  Ultimately, those claims combine to assert that players’ earnings have been limited by the governing bodies’ conduct.

Settlement discussions are therefore likely to focus on:

• Increasing and/or removing caps on prize money;
• Introducing additional payments in recognition of the use of players’ NIL rights (outside of any indirect remuneration paid through prize money);
• Granting players greater freedom to enter into their own sponsorship agreements.

Schedule changes and flexibility

Concerns have also been raised in relation to the scheduling of professional tennis, including that:

• An 11-month season is onerously long, with certain events played under extreme conditions;
• The Ranking Points system forces players to follow an unsustainable schedule; and
• The Ranking Points system prevents players from competing in alternative events (where prize monies may be greater than available at tour events).

Scheduling concerns in professional tennis are not new and, whilst the players are keen to ensure their welfare is respected, they will not want to compromise the revenues capable of being generated by the tours. Accordingly, any modified schedule will need to be carefully balanced.

The parties will also be challenged with ensuring that the needs of lower-ranked players climbing the rankings are balanced with those of players focused on competing for Grand Slams and Masters 1000 events.  

Rival tour

Should settlement negotiations prove fruitless, litigation is likely to continue.

Such circumstances may also present an opening for the formation of a rival international tennis tour, which may use enhanced financial rewards and a relaxed playing schedule (focused on big money events in only the biggest markets) to entice tennis stars away from the current system. 

That threat alone could encourage the existing governing bodies to accede to players’ requests and introduce changes to the systems that players have criticised – particularly in light of the challenges faced by the PGA Tour following the emergence of LIV Golf (a scenario that tennis will be keen to avoid).

 

Conclusion

Tennis is not the first professional sport to have been taken to court by its athletes in recent years (see, for example, the disputes in professional golf and mixed martial arts).

It is also unlikely to be the last example of players and/or their unions turning to litigation as a method by which to advance players’ rights and/or to seek changes to the governance of their sport. 

The PTPA’s lawsuits could mark the start of a protracted legal battle across multiple jurisdictions.  Whilst legal action may be the only way to protect those rights, it is likely that a negotiated solution (potentially with changes to the governance structure of professional tennis) will be best for all parties.

The PTPA’s claims may not only mark the start of changes in the landscape of professional tennis, as athletes in many sports worldwide may view a positive outcome for tennis players as a sign that similar claims could work in their favour too.

Only time will tell in this case, but athletes and player associations worldwide would be well advised to consider their rights under competition law and whether their objectives would be more likely to be achieved by exercising those rights.  

 

Authored by 

Ben Cisneros 
Associate

Sam Comb 
Associate