The Professional Tennis Players Association’s lawsuit against the ATP, WTA, ITF, ITIA, and the four Grand Slam organizers is an antitrust case filed in March 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that tennis’s governing bodies operate as a cartel to suppress prize money, restrict competition, and control players’ careers. As of mid-2026, motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration are pending before U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett, Tennis Australia has settled and agreed to cooperate against the remaining defendants, and Novak Djokovic, who co-founded the PTPA, has publicly stepped away from the organization.
What the PTPA Is Alleging
The 163-page complaint, filed March 18, 2025, casts the tours and tournaments as an interlocking system that behaves like a cartel. The central financial claim is that players receive roughly 15 to 20 percent of Grand Slam and major tournament revenue, compared to shares above 50 percent in golf, basketball, and American football. The suit points to the US Open, where a single specialty cocktail generated more than $12 million in tournament revenue while the combined men’s and women’s singles champion payouts totaled $8 million.
Around that core, the complaint layers several related allegations:
- A closed tournament structure that requires players to compete in eight to twelve sanctioned events to maintain ranking points, which the PTPA argues forecloses rival competitions that might pay more.
- Interference with higher payouts at independent events, including an allegation that governing bodies blocked BNP Paribas Open owner Larry Ellison from raising prize money at Indian Wells because it would have pressured the ATP and Grand Slams to raise their own.
- Name, image, and likeness restrictions that force players to assign NIL rights to governing bodies without adequate compensation, alongside blanket bans on endorsements from certain industries.
- Anti-doping and anti-corruption practices by the ITIA that the suit calls disproportionately intrusive, including searches of personal devices and random middle-of-the-night drug tests.
- Retaliation against players aligned with the PTPA, including the alleged stripping of pension eligibility and player council participation.
- An 11-month calendar that the PTPA says forces players into roughly 45 weeks of competition per year.
Beyond damages, the PTPA is asking the court for a declaratory judgment that would classify professional players as employees of the ATP and WTA rather than independent contractors. That reclassification would give players the legal right to unionize and collectively bargain, something they cannot currently do because there is no formal mechanism to negotiate wages, schedules, or working conditions with the tours.
Who Is Suing Whom
The case is captioned Pospisil et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02207, in the Southern District of New York. The PTPA is joined by twelve named player-plaintiffs: Vasek Pospisil, Nick Kyrgios, Sorana Cîrstea, Reilly Opelka, Nicole Melichar-Martinez, Saisai Zheng, Varvara Gracheva, Aldila Sutjiadi, Anastasia Rodionova, John-Patrick Smith, Noah Rubin, and Tennys Sandgren. They seek to represent a broader class of professional tennis players.
The original defendants were the ATP, WTA, International Tennis Federation, and International Tennis Integrity Agency. On September 26, 2025, after the year’s four majors had concluded, the PTPA amended its complaint to add the United States Tennis Association, Tennis Australia, the Fédération Française de Tennis, and the All England Lawn Tennis Club. The three foreign Grand Slam organizers promptly challenged the court’s jurisdiction, and the USTA moved to compel arbitration with specific players.
The U.S. suit is not alone. The PTPA simultaneously filed antitrust complaints with the European Commission under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and with the UK Competition and Markets Authority under the Competition Act 1998. A UK “letter before action” was also served. The European filings mirror the U.S. allegations on price fixing, market foreclosure, and abusive procedural rules.
Djokovic, though a co-founder of the PTPA, chose not to be a named plaintiff. He said at filing that he wanted “other players to step up” and that he did not agree with all parts of the litigation.
How the Governing Bodies Have Responded
The defendants rejected the case on the day it was filed. The ATP called the suit “entirely without merit” and said it would “vigorously defend” its position, pointing to rising prize money and pension contributions. The WTA called the lawsuit “regrettable and misguided.” The ITF described itself as a “not for profit organisation and global guardian of the game” that reinvests 90 percent of its income across 213 member national associations. The ITIA said it welcomes engagement with players and upholds “the highest standards” in its investigations.
The procedural attack has been multi-pronged. The ATP and WTA jointly moved to dismiss the PTPA itself from the case, arguing it is “a self-proclaimed advocacy group that competes neither on the tennis court nor in the alleged relevant markets.” The WTA separately moved to compel arbitration for several female plaintiffs, pointing to player agreements that require disputes to go through the American Arbitration Association rather than federal court. The ATP filed its own motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to sever the claims against it and transfer them elsewhere.
Judge Garnett denied the first round of defense motions in July 2025 without prejudice, letting defendants refile after the PTPA submitted an amended complaint. New motions followed and remain pending. Discovery against the WTA is stayed while its arbitration motion is decided, but the court ordered the PTPA and ATP to begin exchanging documents on class certification. The PTPA and players filed opposition briefs on August 28, 2025.
The arbitration clauses are the piece legal observers watch most closely. Harvard Law School sports law lecturer Peter Carfagna has said that players sign contracts waiving the right to sue in favor of binding arbitration or litigation in Delaware state courts, and that proving those contracts are unconscionable is “very hard to do.” He has predicted the suits are “not likely to produce seismic shifts” and expects a settlement involving “modest reforms” rather than a full trial.
The Anti-Retaliation Ruling
The first substantive ruling in the case had nothing to do with the merits. Within weeks of filing, the PTPA accused the ATP of pressuring players to sign pre-written statements denouncing the lawsuit. According to court filings, an ATP player representative circulated letters for players to sign stating they did not support the PTPA. At least one player who refused was reportedly denied the chance to photograph the statement and warned that ATP chairman Andrea Gaudenzi would be informed of his response. Players were also allegedly told the ATP planned to respond to lawsuit participation by reducing wages and pensions. A named ATP official reportedly approached Alexander Zverev and Ben Shelton at the Miami Open seeking their signatures.
On May 7, 2025, Judge Garnett partially granted the PTPA’s motion for corrective action. She found the ATP’s conduct, “regardless of intent, could readily have been viewed as potentially coercive, deceptive or otherwise abusive.” She reasoned that tennis players are “vulnerable to economic coercion” because the ATP and Grand Slam tournaments provide essentially the only way for most professional male players to earn a living, and that risking termination of membership would effectively deny a player the ability to work in their field. She ordered the ATP to circulate a notice to players clarifying they cannot be punished for joining the litigation and to preserve all communications with players about the case. She declined to impose a blanket ban on ATP-player communications, saying total prohibition would “harm the ability of the ATP to permissibly discuss and respond to this litigation in lawful ways.”
Tennis Australia Settles and Turns Over Records
The first crack in the defense came in December 2025, when Tennis Australia reached a settlement with the PTPA. The deal was filed in the New York district court on January 17, 2026, and received preliminary approval from Judge Garnett on January 28, 2026. Tennis Australia confirmed it settled “without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,” saying early resolution let it “focus entirely on delivering an outstanding Australian summer of tennis.”
Financial terms are confidential. Operational terms are not. In exchange for release from monetary damages that the PTPA suggested could have reached tens of millions of dollars, Tennis Australia agreed to cooperate against the remaining defendants. That cooperation includes providing financial books and records, tournament prize money data, player NIL rights and usage information, sponsorship and endorsement data, scheduling and ranking points records, and internal communications regarding player participation and claim enforcement. The PTPA has said it plans to use these materials to build its case well in advance of court-ordered discovery, and that narrowing the defendant list means remaining organizations “may find it in their interest to engage promptly with reform.”
Djokovic Leaves the PTPA
On January 4, 2026, days after the Tennis Australia settlement terms became public, Djokovic announced he had “stepped away completely” from the organization he had helped create. He cited “ongoing concerns regarding transparency, governance, and the way my voice and image have been represented,” and said his “values and approach are no longer aligned with the current direction of the organisation.” He added that while he remained proud of the original vision to give players an independent voice, “this chapter is now closed.”
Reporting at the time indicated Djokovic had grown frustrated with the PTPA’s increasingly confrontational posture toward the tennis establishment, which repeatedly resulted in him being publicly associated with actions he did not necessarily support. He had already distanced himself from the litigation by declining to be a named plaintiff.
The PTPA responded by describing itself as the target of a “co-ordinated defamation and witness intimidation campaign” tied to the ongoing litigation. It claimed “inaccurate and misleading narratives” were being spread to discredit its staff and work, said a federal court had already ruled such harassment improper and ordered it to cease, and stated it was working with legal counsel and law enforcement to address the situation.
The French Open and Wimbledon Credentialing Fight
In April 2026, the dispute spilled outside the courtroom. PTPA director of player relations Anastasia Skavronskaia asked for tournament credentials for herself and two colleagues for the French Open and Wimbledon on April 13. The French Tennis Federation denied the request within a day. FFT public relations director Kidline Chevalier wrote that “we have received clear guidance we can’t grant any credentials to any party suing the FFT.” FFT CEO Stéphane Morel later said “our lawyers don’t unfortunately allow us to proceed accordingly, unless you pull out from your legal action first.” Wimbledon’s response came on April 16. AELTC professional tennis manager Joanne Simons said that “in light of the ongoing litigation with the PTPA, the AELTC will not be accrediting anyone from the PTPA’s organisation.” AELTC CEO Sally Bolton later declined a meeting request, saying “we do not believe this would be productive with the lawsuit ongoing.”
The PTPA filed an emergency motion, calling the denials “illegal retaliation against plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit” and pointing to what it said was coordination between the two organizations. The Australian Open, by contrast, had granted the PTPA credentials after settling. On May 22, 2026, Judge Garnett denied the emergency motion, finding the PTPA had not shown “irreparable harm.” She warned, however, that the French Open and Wimbledon organizers “are cautioned that the Court may consider their undisputedly retaliatory conduct in assessing any similar motions in the future.”
Where the Case Stands
As of mid-2026, the remaining defendants are the ATP, WTA, ITF, ITIA, USTA, Fédération Française de Tennis, and All England Lawn Tennis Club. Their motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration are before Judge Garnett. Briefing was expected to conclude by the end of March 2026, and a ruling is anticipated in the spring or summer of 2026. Recent procedural activity has focused on the tours and Grand Slam organizers rather than the ITF or ITIA.
The PTPA has said its funding is “sufficient to last through trial” and that it is prepared to “litigate the antitrust claims to a successful jury verdict.” No trial date has been set. The organization continues to operate under executive director Ahmad Nassar, with Weil, Gotshal & Manges leading the litigation. Whether the case moves toward a courtroom fight or a broader settlement track will likely depend on how Judge Garnett rules on the arbitration and dismissal motions now in front of her.