LONDON — Tennis is facing one of its most significant legal battles in recent history as the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA), co-founded by Novak Djokovic, has filed a lawsuit against the sport’s governing bodies. The move has sparked debates about player rights, revenue distribution, and the future of the sport’s structure. BBC Sport tennis correspondent Russell Fuller examines the key questions behind the lawsuit and what it means for the game.
What is the lawsuit about?
The PTPA, established in 2020 as an independent players’ union, has taken legal action against the ATP (men’s tour), WTA (women’s tour), and the four Grand Slam tournaments (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and US Open). The lawsuit alleges antitrust violations, claiming these organizations have engaged in "anti-competitive practices that suppress player earnings and restrict their professional opportunities."
Central to the dispute is the distribution of revenue. While tennis generates billions annually, players—especially those outside the top ranks—argue they receive a disproportionately small share. The PTPA claims that the current structure "unfairly benefits tournaments and administrators at the expense of the athletes who drive the sport’s popularity."
Why now?
The PTPA’s legal action follows years of simmering tensions. Players have long criticized the sport’s governance, citing:
- Low prize money at non-major tournaments
- Lack of health insurance and retirement benefits
- Limited say in scheduling and rule changes
The pandemic exacerbated these issues, with lower-ranked players struggling financially due to reduced tournaments and prize pools. Djokovic, the PTPA’s most prominent figure, has been vocal about the need for reform, stating in 2023: "Players are the ones sacrificing their bodies and careers. It’s time for a fairer system."
How have the tours responded?
The ATP and WTA have dismissed the lawsuit as "misguided and without merit," arguing that player representation already exists through tour-elected player councils. In a joint statement, they emphasized efforts to increase prize money and improve conditions, citing recent increases at ATP 250 and WTA 500 events.
However, the PTPA contends these measures are insufficient. Executive director Ahmad Nassar told The Guardian: "Token increases don’t address systemic inequities. Players deserve a seat at the table when decisions are made."
What are the potential outcomes?
Legal experts suggest three possible scenarios:
- Settlement: The tours could negotiate with the PTPA to avoid a prolonged court battle, potentially revising revenue-sharing models.
- Court victory for players: If the lawsuit succeeds, it could force sweeping changes to tennis’s financial structure.
- Status quo: If dismissed, player discontent may grow, leading to further unrest or even boycotts.
Impact on the sport
The lawsuit has divided opinions. Some players, like Andy Murray, have expressed cautious support, while others worry about disruption. Tournament organizers fear financial instability if forced to redirect more revenue to players.
Former WTA CEO Steve Simon warned: "Litigation rarely benefits anyone. The focus should be on collaborative solutions that sustain the sport’s growth."
What’s next?
The case is expected to take months, if not years, to resolve. Meanwhile, the PTPA continues to gain members, with over 500 players now affiliated. Djokovic recently confirmed plans to expand the union’s role, including potential collective bargaining.
As the legal process unfolds, the tennis world watches closely. The outcome could redefine power dynamics in a sport historically controlled by tournaments and federations. For players, this lawsuit represents a pivotal moment in their fight for greater recognition and rewards.
In Djokovic’s words: "This isn’t just about money—it’s about respect. Players built this sport, and it’s time our voices are heard." Whether the courts agree may determine tennis’s future for decades to come.