Tennis players have frequently complained that they receive a low percentage of the revenue generated by the sport, especially the four Grand Slams, and now the players’ union co-founded by Novak Djokovic has filed a lawsuit citing “anti-competitive practices and a blatant disregard for player welfare”.
The Professional Tennis Players’ Association (PTPA), which was founded by players but is not officially recognised, has filed legal papers in New York. It claims that the lawsuit is “backed overwhelmingly by the top 250+ men’s and women’s players including a majority of the Top 20 players.
The 163-page complaint alleges that the current tennis governing bodies have a monopoly over the services of professional tennis players and is seeking to end this control. The lawsuit highlights the low percentage of revenue that players receive compared to other sports and calls for a more equitable system (in tennis only 18% of revenue goes to the players).
The lawsuit also criticises the players’ lack of freedom to compete in lucrative unsanctioned exhibition and other tours and that other events are excluded from ranking points. Throughout the filing, the PTPA argues that the free market should determine player earnings.
The PTPA also wants to address issues like the long and demanding season, with the 11-month tennis season cited as putting player health and welfare at risk, and is seeking to establish a collective bargaining unit for players, allowing them to negotiate better working conditions and terms.
The organisation has also started additional legal proceedings in the UK and the EU to end what it considers the “unchecked authority of the sport’s governing bodies” and to challenge “cartel” behaviour including capping prize money and preventing potential competitors entering the market. The ATP Tour, the men’s professional body, said it “strongly rejects the premise of the PTPA’s claims”.
If the PTPA wins it could lead to significant changes in tennis, such as enhanced rights or an increased share of the revenue for players. A PTPA victory could shift the balance of power in tennis, giving players a greater say in the sport’s structure and governance. Other changes could include reducing the number of tournaments and the frequency of events, or structural changes at the ATP/WTA to provide greater transparency in financial operations.
It seems no sport is immune from talk of a breakaway league or competition, and tennis may be starting to have its moment. Bringing market forces into the relatively closed corporate structure of professional tennis could help leverage the sport’s massive worldwide following, akin to the advent of LIV Golf.
It is therefore a shrewd move by the PTPA to start renegotiating player remuneration now, in anticipation of momentum growing for a breakaway tournament further down the line. Globally, tennis boasts over a billion fans who either attend matches or tune in to watch tournaments, with the sport’s popularity especially high in countries hosting Grand Slams. Starting a bidding war for the sport’s biggest names would certainly help them to maximise their earnings.
However, for spectators it will be crucial that there are still opportunities for the top players to face off at a variety of tournaments throughout the season. The beauty of the Grand Slam format is that it enables player rivalries to flourish and play out over generations, and I just wonder whether a variety of tournaments running in parallel would have the same appeal for viewers without head-to-head contests.
What is certain is that the sports lawyers involved for the PTPA and ATP/WTA will bill lots of hours, but it is unlikely that this lawsuit will ever get to a jury trial. The settlement terms seem straightforward, and a compromise will undoubtedly be reached out of court, which is probably why the PTPA has tried its hand in the first place. The share of revenue players receive (particularly from the major tournaments) will be increased and structures will be adapted to give players more input on decisions.
The ATP will of course push back at any challenge to its prevailing hegemony over the players’ rights, exclusivity and the schedule. But the new balls are out of the tube, and that fresh ball ‘breakaway league’ smell is in the air. From LIV Golf to the failed European Super League, the record $1bn prize pot for the FIFA Club World Cup to cricket’s innovations with the Hundred, sports clubs and players are looking for ways to maximise their commercial potential, draw in audiences and leverage their full economic power on the global stage. Perhaps it is no surprise the players are wondering if it is high time for a shake-up in tennis too?
Contact our Sports Law and Corporate & Commercial expert:
David Little is a Partner at Bishop & Sewell in our expert Sports Law and Corporate & Commercial teams.
If you would like to contact him, please call on either 07968 027343 or 020 7631 4141 or email: company@bishopandsewell.co.uk.
The above is accurate as at 01 April 2025.
The information above may be subject to change.
The content of this note should not be considered legal advice and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
