Tennis Antitrust Lawsuit: Rulings, Settlement, and Djokovic’s Exit

The tennis antitrust lawsuit is a class-action case brought in March 2025 by the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) and a group of professional players against the sport’s governing bodies, alleging they operate as a cartel that fixes prize money, locks players into a sanctioned-events system, and denies athletes the labor protections common in other pro sports. Parallel actions were filed in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The U.S. case is Pospisil et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc. et al., pending before Judge Margaret Garnett in the Southern District of New York.

Who Is Suing Whom

The PTPA was co-founded in 2019 by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil and launched publicly at the 2020 US Open, growing out of frustration that existing player councils lacked real influence over decisions affecting athletes.¹²³

The U.S. complaint originally named twelve current and former players as plaintiffs, and the total across jurisdictions rose above twenty.⁴²⁵ Djokovic, despite co-founding the PTPA, was not a named plaintiff.

The defendants have shifted. The original complaint targeted the ATP Tour, the WTA Tour, the International Tennis Federation, and the International Tennis Integrity Agency. In September 2025 the PTPA dropped the ITF and ITIA and formally added the four Grand Slam organizers: Tennis Australia, the All England Lawn Tennis Club, the French Tennis Federation, and the United States Tennis Association. Until then those bodies had appeared only as co-conspirators. The PTPA said the escalation followed a failed settlement window.⁶

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The complaint invokes Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the U.S., Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Chapters 1 and 2 of the UK Competition Act 1998.³ It contains eight antitrust-specific claims under U.S. law spanning restraint-of-trade and monopolization theories.⁷

The core allegations fall into a few buckets. On price fixing, the PTPA claims the tours and Grand Slams coordinate to cap what tournaments can pay in prize money, and points to a 2013 incident in which the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells was allegedly blocked from raising its purse.⁸ On group boycott and market allocation, it argues the sanctioning and licensing system divides the market and shuts out rival events. On ranking-point coercion, it argues that because points are only available at sanctioned tournaments, players who compete elsewhere risk penalties, lost points, and suspension. Four additional claims allege monopolization and monopsony of both the men’s and women’s professional tennis markets.⁷

Money sits at the center of the case. The PTPA says tennis players collect roughly 15 percent of Grand Slam revenues, well below the roughly 50 percent share athletes receive in the NBA, NFL, and professional golf. Published financial data broadly supports the figure; at Wimbledon in 2024 the prize-money share was about 12.3 percent, and at the US Open about 13.4 percent.⁹

Beyond pay, the complaint targets the eleven-month competitive calendar, arguing the schedule injures players’ bodies while mandatory-participation rules punish those who withdraw for injury, mental health, or family reasons. Because tennis players are classified as independent contractors, the PTPA says they lack the collective bargaining protections available to athletes in team leagues.⁸ The suit also challenges the mandatory arbitration provisions in tour rulebooks, characterizing them as a mechanism the governing bodies use to keep disputes out of open court.³

How the Defendants Are Fighting Back

The ATP, WTA, ITF, and ITIA filed a joint motion to dismiss whose central argument attacks the PTPA’s right to be in court at all. The motion contends the organization lacks both associational and antitrust standing because it is not a formal union, has no dues-paying members, and cannot show injury to any actual member. The defendants call the PTPA’s participation a “redundant” and “improper attempt to circumvent class-action requirements.”¹⁰¹¹

The WTA filed a separate motion adding two arguments: that male plaintiffs like Kyrgios, Opelka, and Tennys Sandgren have no standing to sue the women’s tour, and that female plaintiffs like Cirstea and Varvara Gracheva should be compelled into arbitration under a WTA rulebook clause stating that “Any Dispute” must be “submitted exclusively” to the American Arbitration Association.¹⁰

The remaining Grand Slam defendants filed their own joint motion in December 2025, arguing the plaintiffs rely on “conclusory assertions” rather than actual evidence of a cartel agreement.¹² The non-U.S. entities have also challenged jurisdiction, arguing that a New York federal court should not preside over tournaments held in London, Paris, and Melbourne.

Key Rulings So Far

The Anti-Retaliation Order

On May 7, 2025, Judge Garnett prohibited the ATP from retaliating against players for joining or considering joining the lawsuit. She found that the ATP had circulated a letter requiring players to disavow the PTPA and the litigation, and that board members had specifically pressured Alexander Zverev and Ben Shelton. Garnett described the conduct as “coercive, deceptive, or potentially abusive” and ordered the ATP to notify players within seven days that no one would be punished for participating.¹³¹⁴ The ATP said it would comply.

The Credentialing Fight

In spring 2026, a secondary dispute broke out over tournament access. After PTPA director of player relations Anastasia Skavronskaia requested credentials for the French Open and Wimbledon in April 2026, both tournaments denied the requests and explicitly cited the lawsuit. The French Tennis Federation’s CEO said the FFT “can’t grant any credentials to any parties who sue the FFT.” The All England Lawn Tennis Club’s CEO said a meeting would not be “productive with the lawsuit ongoing.”¹⁵

The PTPA filed an emergency motion arguing the denials violated Garnett’s earlier anti-retaliation order. The tournaments countered that accreditation is a “privilege, not an entitlement” and again disputed the New York court’s jurisdiction over events abroad.¹⁶¹⁷¹⁸

The Tennis Australia Settlement

In December 2025, Tennis Australia became the first defendant to break ranks. Its settlement with the PTPA was filed in court on January 17, 2026, and Judge Garnett granted preliminary approval on January 28, 2026.¹⁹²⁰

Financial terms are confidential, though the PTPA indicated potential damages against Tennis Australia could have reached tens of millions of dollars.²¹ In exchange for a liability release, Tennis Australia agreed to cooperate with the PTPA against the remaining defendants. The cooperation includes turning over confidential financial records, tournament prize-money data, information on player name-image-and-likeness rights, sponsorship and endorsement details, scheduling requirements, and internal communications on player claim enforcement.¹⁹ Tennis Australia also agreed to consult on structural reforms.¹²

The PTPA’s lawyers said that discovery would arrive “well in advance of court-ordered discovery against ATP and WTA,” giving them a head start against the remaining defendants. After settling, Tennis Australia raised the 2026 Australian Open prize purse to roughly 111.5 million AUD, about 16 percent of reported revenue.¹²

Djokovic’s Exit From the PTPA

On January 4, 2026, Djokovic announced he was “stepping away completely” from the organization he had co-founded. He cited “ongoing concerns regarding transparency, governance, and the way my voice and image have been represented,” adding that his “values and approach are no longer aligned with the current direction of the organization.”²²

Reporting suggested the rift had been building. Djokovic’s name was absent from the March 2025 complaint, and he had reportedly been uncomfortable with what he saw as overly aggressive legal language. The split reportedly widened after the private Tennis Australia settlement, a move some viewed as undermining the PTPA’s stated goal of full systemic reform, and after internal friction over the direction taken by executive director Ahmad Nassar.²² The PTPA, backed by Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Foundation, has not issued a formal public response.

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-2026, the case is still in its early procedural stages. The remaining defendants’ motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration are pending before Judge Garnett, who signaled in her May 2026 credentialing ruling that she expects to address them soon.¹⁷ If the case clears those motions, class certification will be the next major battleground, with progress expected over the following twelve to eighteen months. The PTPA has stated it has “comprehensive funding sufficient to last through trial.”¹⁹ The remaining defendants — the ATP, WTA, the All England Lawn Tennis Club, the French Tennis Federation, and the United States Tennis Association — continue to contest the claims.

1
Tennis.com. Co-Founder Novak Djokovic Exits PTPA, Values Transparency, Image
2
ESPN. Players File Suits vs. ATP, WTA, More, Cite Unfair System
3
University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review. From Tennis Court to Courtroom: The PTPA’s Global Antitrust Challenge to Tennis Governance
4
Sport Resolutions. Professional Tennis Players Association Files Lawsuit Against Governing Bodies
5
Daniel Kaplan Substack. Tennis Antitrust Lawsuit Losing Its Class Representatives
6
Sports Business Journal. PTPA Adds Grand Slams to ATP, WTA Antitrust Suit
7
Sports Litigation Alert. Alleging Antitrust Injury, Potential Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Pro Tennis Governing Bodies
8
The Athletic (New York Times). Tennis Lawsuit Antitrust ATP WTA Novak Djokovic
9
France 24. Do Tennis Players Really Only Take 15 Percent of Grand Slam Revenues
10
ESPN. Pro Tennis Tours File Motion to Dismiss PTPA Antitrust Lawsuit
11
Yahoo Sports. Pro Tennis Tours File Motion to Dismiss PTPA Antitrust Lawsuit
12
Sports Litigation Alert. Tennis Australia Breaks Free From the Pack by Settling in Pro Tennis Antitrust Litigation
13
The Athletic (New York Times). Tennis Lawsuit PTPA ATP WTA Players Retaliation
14
Bloomberg Law. Tennis Group Barred From Threatening Players in Antitrust Suit
15
Front Office Sports. Wimbledon, French Open PTPA Lawsuit Fight
16
Daniel Kaplan Substack. Wimbledon, French Open to PTPA on Credentials
17
Sports Business Journal. Judge Denies PTPA’s Motion for French Open, Wimbledon Credentials
18
New York Law Journal. Wimbledon, French Open Win Access Fight but Warned Against Retaliation
19
The Guardian. Tennis Civil War Erupts With Details of Initial Peace Deal Revealed for First Time
20
Justia. Pospisil et al v. ATP Tour, Inc. et al, Filing 204
21
SportsPro. Tennis Australia PTPA Settlement Deal Australian Open Grand Slams
22
Tennis Majors. Djokovic Severs Ties With PTPA in Major Blow to Player Union