In a case that could reshape the governance of professional tennis, the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) and 12 players including Vasek Pospisil, Nick Kyrgios and Anastasia Rodionova on Tuesday sued the four major tennis organizations—the International Tennis Federation (which regulates the four Grand Slams), the ATP Tour and the WTA Tour (which oversees the men’s and women’s pro tennis tours, respectively), and the International tennis Integrity Agency (which policies the sport).
Pospisil et al. v. ATP Tour et al., which was filed in the Southern District of New York, represents a multipronged attack on economic restraints faced by tennis players. The complaint depicts the four defendants as violating several areas of antitrust law, including in how they join hands to allegedly suppress players’ earning and other professional opportunities.
Among the specific arguments are allegations of price fixing. As the plaintiffs tell it, the defendants illegally conspire to cap prize money and limit players’ earnings opportunities off the court. Along those lines, the defendants are accused of using a veto power to block measures that would increase prize money.
The plaintiffs illustrate that contention by explaining what happened when billionaire Larry Ellison sought to increase the prize money pool for the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells in 2012. Ellison wanted to boost the prize money by $1.6 million, since paying more, the plaintiffs wrote, “was likely to attract better players, draw more television partners and increase ticket sales and sponsorship revenues relative to its competitors.” The plaintiffs insist the ATP was worried an increase “would pressure” other tournaments to raise prize money “above the annual rate the cartel had agreed to,” and “his proposal was rejected.”
The rejection of Ellison’s proposal, the players maintain, is tangible evidence that players earn less than what the market would pay them in the absence of caps imposed by the tennis organizations. It’s not just players who are hurt, either, the complaint insists. Individual tournaments are barred “from competing to draw better players and bigger audiences through larger prize money pools.” Pro golfers might vouch for this point. When LIV Golf offered golfers more lucrative pursues, the PGA Tour increased its purses.
The plaintiffs further argue that players are denied a fair share of revenue. While players in the major U.S. pro leagues have bargained to receive about half of their leagues’ revenue streams, tennis players—according to the complaint—are only paid between 10% and 20% of “Grand Slam Co-Conspirators” $1.5 billion in revenue generated in 2024. Revenue streams include ticketing, sponsorships, event-day sales and broadcast and streaming media.
The complaint also targets rules requiring players to “sign over” NIL rights as a condition of competing, which players do so “often without any compensation in return.” These rules are portrayed as undermining players’ “freedom to contract for sponsorship and endorsement deals” since they place control of players’ NIL away from the players and enable the defendants to up the value of their own endorsement deals by marketing the NIL.
Non-competes and other measures that “lock in players” from partaking in outside competitions are also rebuked in the complaint. The complaint references the tennis organizations imposing fines and suspensions on players who compete in alternate tournaments. The plaintiffs also highlight penalties on players who withdraw from the defendants’ tennis tournaments. “In a particularly callous exercise of their power over players,” the complaint charges, “defendants will penalize players even when an absence results from an injury, the birth of a child or the death of a loved one.”
The use of ranking points draws rebuke in the complaint, too. As the plaintiffs see it, the point system is an “anticompetitive currency” rigged to skew player compensation and sponsorship opportunities in anticompetitive ways. The system allegedly “funnels players away from alternative events” by only rewarding points for participation in defendants’ tournaments. The complaint also argues that the ATP and WTA sell sponsorship rights to ranking points, including to Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
In addition to economic concerns, the plaintiffs repudiate the defendants for what they term “abusive investigations and arbitrary discipline.” They charge the ITA engages in “aggressive, unrelenting and, at times, illegal investigative processes” that have subjected players “to dozens of drug tests (both blood and urine), invasive searches of their personal cell phones, hours-long interrogations without counsel and harassment by unaccountable and ill-trained investigators.”
Player health concerns are also raised in the complaint as evidence of the defendants acting without restraint. The plaintiffs argue that players are “forced” to “play in dangerous conditions,” including “excessive heat” such as temperatures in Melbourne exceeding 120 degrees during the Australian Open. Also mentioned are players playing after midnight at the U.S. Open.
The complaint insists these and other measures “leave tennis fans worse off and impede the sport’s growth.” Building on that theme, PTPA executive director Ahmad Nassar said in a statement that “tennis is broken.” The current framework, Nassar contends, “exploits” players’ talent, “suppresses their earnings, and jeopardizes their health and safety.”
The players who brought the lawsuit reflect what the complaint bills as a “diverse group” of men and women, “established superstars, journeymen and relative newcomers from around the world.” Unlike in the NFL or WNBA, there is no collective bargaining relationship in tennis, meaning rules restricting players’ compensation and other conditions of employment are vulnerable to antitrust scrutiny.
The PTPA, which was founded in 2019 through the efforts of Novak Djokovic and Pospisil, advocates for players and, the complaint says, fights back against “anti-competitive organizations” that erode players’ rights. The PTPA has “repeatedly tried to negotiate” and but bemoans it has been “strung along and then rebuffed.” Worse yet, the plaintiffs charge, the PTPA has changed its bylaws to “punish” players who join the PTPA by removing any player from the ATP’s player advisory council who joins the PTPA.
The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief that would compel rule changes. They also seek for their case to be certified as a class action of similarly situated players; the proposed classes would include former, current and future players. Antitrust claims ordinarily have a four-year statute of limitations, so class member players would likely include those who competed since 2021, and future ones would go until the date of final judgment in the case.
The plaintiffs have retained experienced antitrust attorneys, including James Quinn, who served as lead counsel in McNeil v. NFL and proved that NFL free agency rules violated antitrust law. The legal team also includes Andrew Tulumello and colleagues from Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Tulumello was an attorney for Tom Brady in the Deflategate litigation and has also represented the National Football League Players Association and National Women’s Soccer League Players Association in matters.
In the coming weeks, the defendants will answer the complaint and deny wrongdoing. They will also motion for the complaint’s dismissal. Expect them to raise a bevy of defenses.
One likely defense is that players contractually accepted the conditions that are at issue in the case. This is a standard defense in commercial litigation and contends a party that voluntarily accepts a set of business and economic policies should not later sue over them.
Another probable defense is that the defendants haven’t conspired but have instead independently pursued policies that are designed to maximize the sport’s appeal to broadcasters and consumers. For instance, restrictions on outside competition aren’t necessarily borne through conspiracy. They ensure that certain star players will participate in tournaments; without those restrictions, media companies would be less willing to pay as much to broadcast those tournaments. That type of defense has been used in antitrust cases against the PGA Tour and NASCAR, for example.
Along those lines, expect the defendants to assert that many of the challenged policies promote market competition for the sport. In a more decentralized and arguably less organized model, the defendants might insist, there would be adverse impacts on players’ earnings and endorsement opportunities.
