Tennis governing bodies file motions to dismiss PTPA lawsuit that labeled them ‘a cartel’

On the eve of the French Open, the most powerful governing bodies in tennis have filed motions to dismiss a lawsuit that labeled them a “cartel” and accused them of “harm of players and fans alike.”

The ATP and WTA Tours, which govern professional men’s and women’s tennis; the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and the tennis anti-doping body, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), have moved to quash the antitrust suit filed by the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) and 12 player plaintiffs in March.

The four bodies have filed individual motions to either dismiss or transfer to arbitration the allegations against them, as well as a joint motion to dismiss the PTPA as a plaintiff entirely.

The ITIA was first to file its motion, which states that the lawsuit “failed to plausibly allege that the ITIA “conspired” with the Governing Body Defendants,” as well as stating that the PTPA did not provide a “single allegation” in support of the ITIA’s alleged conspiring to commit an illegal act.

The ATP, WTA and ITF later filed their own motions, which referred to their respective player agreements, all of which compel players to settle disputes either with arbitrators or in a forum of the organization’s choosing. For the ITF, that is the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS); for the ATP, it is the Delaware Courts and for the WTA it is the American Arbitration Association.

At the heart of the governing bodies’ motions, which apply only to the U.S. lawsuit and not the actions in the United Kingdom and the European Union, is the argument that the PTPA does not have the standing to file an antitrust suit against them. Lawyers for the tennis governing bodies argue that the PTPA does not have a formal membership roll, it does not charge dues and is not a union or a players association, comparable to those that represent athletes in organized team sports in the U.S.

Tennis players are independent contractors and therefore cannot form the kind of association that players in baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer and football have formed, as employees of the leagues and teams. Their membership agreements with the WTA and the ATP require them to settle legal disputes through arbitration, rather than the federal courts. So, the tours’ lawyers argue, they cannot file an antitrust lawsuit.  Neither can the PTPA, they argue, because it does not directly suffer the effects of behavior that violates antitrust laws.

The motions also argue that the players are not experiencing ill effects. They say that monopolistic behavior would theoretically drive the market for player services down, but cite the fact that prize money continues to rise.

Finally, the tours have argued that the ATP players cannot be a party to an action against the WTA Tour, since they are not members of that tour, and the WTA players can’t take action against the ATP Tour for the same reason.

Ahmad Nassar, the executive director of the PTPA, said these were all arguments that the organization expected the tours to make. The PTPA, he said, is prepared to argue against them. The PTPA specifically did not keep membership rolls or charge fees because the ATP threatened action against anyone found to have joined an organization that the ATP viewed as a significant threat, Nassar said.

In May, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court ruled that the ATP Tour could not retaliate against players who either joined or considered joining the lawsuit, after the tour circulated a letter to be signed by men’s players stating that they did not support the action. At the time of that ruling, an ATP spokesperson said that it remained “committed to supporting our players, upholding the integrity of the game, and fully defending ourselves in the ongoing legal proceedings.”

A hearing in the case that will largely involve logistics and scheduling is supposed to take place this week. The court is expected to consider the motion to dismiss the case and any arguments against doing so that the PTPA makes during the next 60 to 90 days.

The lawsuit also described the owners and organizers of tennis tournaments, including the Australian, French and U.S. Opens and Wimbledon, as co-conspirators, who act in concert with the defendants “to enrich themselves at the players’ expense, to the detriment of fans and the game.” Filed in New York City, London and Brussels, it most directly targets the proportion of revenue from tournaments which is shared with players, as well as the demanding 11-month schedule and its impact on players’ health and earning potential.

It also accused ITIA investigators of acting “unlawfully,” including “harassing” and “interrogating” players and their families. When the lawsuit was filed, the ITIA said that it “seeks to uphold the highest standards in our work, following best practice and appropriate rules throughout the management of cases, from intelligence gathering through to investigations and, where applicable, sanctions.”

The ultimate goal of the lawsuit, the PTPA says, is not necessarily to have the courts create a new structure for the sport. Rather, it is to force its leaders to negotiate over the things players are most concerned about: the revenue sharing, which dwindles behind agreements between players and leagues like the NFL and NBA, and the schedule. Tennis players typically receive somewhere between 13 and 30 percent of revenue from events. In the NFL and NBA, that figure is closer to 50 percent.

As one of the biggest events in the sport approaches, it now faces the possibility that it may go no further. For now, the parties are in dispute over when to enter discovery. The tennis governing bodies wish to stay the process until these motions have been judged; the plaintiffs are against the stay.

In a case schedule submitted to Judge Margaret Garnett, the PTPA and player plaintiffs ask for initial discovery — of the documents most important to each side’s claim and defense — to be completed by July 7. The tennis governing bodies wish for this to happen 14 days after the decision on their motions to dismiss.

This article originally appeared in The Athletic.

Sports Business, Tennis, Women’s Tennis

2025 The Athletic Media Company