Why did Djokovic's players' association sue tennis governing bodies?

The lawsuit labels the sport's governing bodies- WTA and ATP tours, the International Tennis Federation, and the organisation managing anti-doping and anti-corruption efforts (ITIA)-as a cartel.

Ons Jabeur, a three-time Grand Slam finalist with over $13 million in prize earnings by the age of 30, surveyed the main court designated for the Miami Open this week and next, listing several aspects she believes need improvement in professional tennis to benefit all players.

 

"We must enhance the framework we have… We can improve our approach to scheduling—the schedule for matches. There are numerous tournaments, and in terms of player health, I do not think that is beneficial. The weekly changes of the balls are not helpful. Players should receive better compensation," said Jabeur, who is part of the executive committee of the Professional Tennis Players' Association (PTPA), an organisation co-founded by Novak Djokovic several years ago. "There are certainly many aspects to improve."

 

 

The concerns Jabeur raised were included in a class-action antitrust lawsuit filed by the PTPA in a federal court in New York on Tuesday. The lawsuit labels the sport's governing bodies—the women's (WTA) and men's (ATP) tours, the International Tennis Federation (ITF), and the organisation managing anti-doping and anti-corruption efforts (ITIA)—as a cartel.

 

"The players genuinely insist on being acknowledged and on having their concerns treated seriously, to address systemic problems that hinder tennis and significantly stifle it as a global sport," said PTPA executive director Ahmad Nassar, "and to establish a framework that fosters balance, equality, and fairness across the tennis industry."

 

What is the PTPA? 

The PTPA was founded by 24-time Grand Slam winner Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil and was publicly announced just before the 2020 US Open. Its aim is to represent athletes who work as independent contractors in a predominantly individual sport; tennis does not have a comprehensive union that negotiates collective bargaining contracts as in team sports.

 

The PTPA said it engaged with over 250 players, both female and male, including most of the top 20 in the WTA and ATP rankings, before filing the lawsuit.

 

Why did tennis players take legal action against the sport's leadership? 

Pospisil said that "player welfare is entirely overlooked in all aspects, including the tour schedule, anti-competitive actions, and the exploitation of our rights regarding name, image, and likeness."

 

Why were the Grand Slam tournaments not included as defendants? 

The PTPA categorised the four Grand Slam events—Wimbledon, US Open, French Open, and Australian Open—as co-conspirators under the ITF rather than naming them as separate defendants.

 

According to the filing, the four Grand Slam tournaments collectively generated more than $1.5 billion in 2024, yet players received only between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of that revenue.

 

However, Nassar said, "The Slams cannot independently adjust the schedule. They cannot resolve anti-doping issues. They cannot address medical concerns. They cannot resolve the prize money conspiracy and price-fixing that occur at every other level in every tournament."

 

Why is Djokovic not a plaintiff? Who are the players involved? 

Pospisil is named as a plaintiff along with 2022 Wimbledon finalist Nick Kyrgios, Sorana Cirstea, Varvara Gracheva, Reilly Opelka, and Tennys Sandgren, while Djokovic is not included.

 

According to Nassar, this lawsuit is about more than just one individual, stressing that Djokovic, as part of the executive committee, "is highly engaged and well-informed."

 

How did the defendants, including the WTA and ATP, respond? 

The WTA described the lawsuit as "unfortunate and misdirected." The ATP dismissed the case as lacking "any merit" and added, "The PTPA has repeatedly opted for division and distraction via misinformation instead of advancement."

 

What could the lawsuit mean for tennis in the short and long term? 

Like many legal cases, predicting the long-term consequences is difficult, but the lawsuit clearly highlights the divide between the sport’s officials and many players.

 

• Could there be a settlement?
• Could the players' efforts lead to no change at all?
• Could a court ruling force major reforms?

The outcome remains uncertain, but this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the future of professional tennis.  (With agencies inputs)