Bill Simons
In 2019, an upstart rebel player group emerged with a high-profile media event in New York. Many players were on hand. Spirits were high. Their vision was appealing: democratize tennis, make the sport a more viable, healthier profession that would provide livelihoods to far more athletes.
It sounded great – what was not to like?
The Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) was going to change the world – well, the world of tennis. It was co-founded by the greatest player of all time, Novak Djokovic, and Canadian journeyman Vasek Pospisil. Billionaire Bill Ackman was supportive. They had an articulate, telegenic Executive Director, Ahmad Nassar, strong legal representatives, a sleek website and a nifty slogan: “Game, Set, Reform.”
But, season after season, not much happened. The PTPA had little impact. It seemed like an afterthought. Was it a dud? You can’t fight City Hall.
Then, on March 18, the PTPA filed a bombshell lawsuit in New York’s Southern District Court, Brussels and London. It sought to shake up many core protocols of tennis that have been in place for decades. Unfortunately for its backers, virtually no top player is supporting the initiative.
The PTPA targeted the ATP, the WTA, the International Tennis Federation and ITIA (which oversees drug testing). The suit claims that tennis is essentially an unfair, restrictive cartel in which players have virtually no power and their welfare is being ignored. Nassar claims that tennis is broken and its current framework exploits players’ talents, suppresses their earnings, and jeopardizes their health.
Djokovic insisted, “We need a system where players have a voice and negotiate for their rights, like other sports.” Nick Kyrgios added, “This will be a special moment in tennis, which is the only sport that doesn’t have a players’ organization. The ATP has so much power – it doesn’t have to show anything.”
Observers asked whether the PTPA’s 163-page filing would be a landmark move for tennis. In baseball, players gained power when the Supreme Court approved Curt Flood’s 1970 suit that challenged the sport’s reserve clause, which allowed owners to control players. The dynamics of pro basketball were changed when the game’s reserve clause was banned in 1976.
Tennis is vastly different from American team sports. It’s not only very international and co-ed, it’s an individual sport that’s rooted in deep traditions, and based very much on a Darwinian concept: winning is everything.
Of course, tennis has had numerous earthshaking moments, including the creation of Open tennis in 1968, the founding of the men’s pro circuit in 1972, the 1973 Battle of the Sexes, the creation of the WTA in 1974 and the ATP’s 1988 US Open press conference, which again shook up the game. Insurgency leagues, rogue circuits, bans, boycotts and provocative lawsuits are part of the fabric of tennis history.
Still, the PTPA’s suit prompts questions. Why weren’t the four Grand Slams named as defendants? Why wasn’t Djokovic, the high-profile warrior who co-founded the group, named as a plaintiff? Writer Jon Wertheim said sources told him that Novak didn’t want to be a plaintiff because then the suit would become all about him. Others countered, “Come on – put your money where your mouth is.”
Observers noted that there are thousands of pro players, so why did so few, just 12, come forward as plaintiffs? Plus, among casual sports fans, only one of the plaintiffs is a household name.
Wimbledon finalist and perpetual lightning rod Kyrgios, who’s now No. 892, is on board. But none of the true icons of the sport, who we know by their first names (Roger, Rafa, Serena, Venus, Naomi, Coco, Carlos and Aryna) stepped up. And none of the players who were punished recently by the ITIA’s drug penalties participated in the suit. Think Jannik Sinner, Iga Swiatek, Simona Halep, Jenson Brooksby and Tara Moore. No man in the top 100 are plaintiffs and only two women are.
Aside from Kyrgios, three other plaintiffs have also been outspoken on assorted topics. American Reilly Opelka has been highly critical of the prize money players receive, the media and the existence of mixed doubles.
Plaintiff Tennys Sandgren’s extreme political views have drawn attention, while the now retired Noah Rubin founded the Instagram series “Behind the Racquet,” which shares the struggles of players. The other plaintiffs are lesser known or retired: No. 101 Sorana Cîrstea, No. 69 Varvara Gracheva, Nicole Melichar-Martinez, No. 68 Saisai Zheng, John-Patrick Smith, Aldila Sutjiadi and Anastasia Rodionova.
The PTPA lawsuit claims that tennis’ ruling groups fix prize money. It pointed to Larry Ellison’s 2012 effort to increase Indian Wells’ payoff by $1.6 million, which the ATP prohibited. And, while players in other leagues earn about 50% of the revenues, tennis players get 10-20%. The PTPA is also critical of a bedrock of the sport. It asserts that ranking points are a “draconian” system that uses an “anti-competitive currency” to micromanage and control careers.
The PTPA also argues that certain alternative earning sources are prohibited, and says competition is suppressed. The ITIA is said to be used as a way to control players through intrusive searches at all hours. Phones are inspected and players are subject to unreasonable interrogations.
The suit also points to extreme conditions, like playing the Australian Open in 120° heat and post-midnight matches at Slams, as well as the sport’s 45-week schedule, which they say is unsustainable.
The PTPA added that its members were banned from the Players Council and their pensions were stripped, that non-compete rules were imposed, and that name, image and likeness rights were violated.
An ATP statement says, “We strongly reject the premise of the PTPA’s claims, [and] believe the case to be entirely without merit…[The] ATP remains committed to working in the best interests of the game – towards continued growth, financial stability, and the best possible future for our players, tournaments, and fans.”
The WTA asserted, “The PTPA’s action is both regrettable and misguided, and we will defend our position vigorously in due course…Contesting this baseless case will divert time and resources from our core mission.”
Stay tuned.
