Is professional tennis an invasive “cartel” that illegally prevents world-class players from profiting from their sport — or voluntary opportunities for lucky competitors to compete for money and fame?
That question is at the heart of a trio of antitrust cases filed by the Professional Tennis Players Association, also known as the PTPA — an organization co-founded by superstar Novak Djokovic. In March, twelve plaintiffs from the PTPA — Djokovic not among them — filed class-action suits in the U.S., U.K., and E.U. on behalf of all professional players, claiming that the pro men’s and women’s tours and the International Tennis Federation, which oversees the four Grand Slam tournaments, engage in illegal anticompetitive behaviors that hurt players and the game alike.
“Professional tennis players are stuck in a rigged game,” reads the complaint.
If successful, the lawsuit could upend the rules and compensation of one of the most popular sports in the world: According to one report, nearly two million people from 200 nations last year tuned in to the Grand Slam tournaments — the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open.
But Peter Carfagna, a lecturer at Harvard Law School and director of its Sports Law Clinic, says that the suits aren’t likely to produce seismic shifts in professional tennis. Instead, he says, the sides may choose to avoid lengthy and expensive trials in favor of a settlement with more modest — but perhaps important — reforms.
“This is a game that continues to grow on an exponential basis,” he says. “In the end, I think they’ll try to find something that works for everyone, for players, for the sponsors, for the tournaments. I would hope they could find a way to say, ‘Tell me where it hurts, and let’s make it better together.’”
This may already be underway: Organizers recently announced a seven percent increase in prize money for the Wimbledon Championships, which are set to begin on June 30. This fattened pot, totaling more than $72 million, is nearly double what was awarded in 2015.
Monopoly — or ‘misguided’?
In their lawsuit, the PTPA alleges that the ATP and WTP — the bodies governing men’s and women’s professional tennis, respectively — work together to restrict players’ compensation and their ability to control their careers and brand, and subject them to invasive examinations in the guise of preventing doping and corruption. The suit asks the court to stop the monopolistic behavior — and award damages to the players.
But the professional tennis bodies have already begun to fight back. In March, the ATP released a statement calling the suits “without merit,” adding that prize money pools have increased significantly in recent years, and that players have more input in decision-making. The ATP “has remained focused on delivering reforms that benefit players at multiple levels,” said the statement. Meanwhile, the WTP has dubbed the suits “both regrettable and misguided.”
Last month, the pro tennis groups also filed a motion to dismiss the suit in a New York federal court. Yet, even as the court considers this request, the PTPA scored an early victory: The judge ruled in May that the ATP Tour could not punish or threaten to retaliate against players who join the lawsuit.
But the procedural win doesn’t signal much about the players’ ultimate chance of success on the merits of the players’ claims, warns Carfagna, who is also a former chairman of the Ladies’ Professional Golf Association and CEO of Magis, LLC, a sports management and investment company. Carfagna also represented Wimbledon as the chief legal officer for IMG, a sports and media company.
Carfagna stresses that antitrust lawsuits can take a lot of time — and cost a lot of money. “You have to define the market, you have to define harm to the market, define monopoly, and then determine pro- versus anti-competitive practices,” he says.
And before a court even considers the meat of an antitrust suit, the players will have to surmount several administrative hurdles, Carfagna adds. For one, he explains, the parties disagree on whether the players belong in court at all — and, if they do, whether the PTPA can represent the full “class” of professional tennis players.
“In joining onto the professional tours, players usually agree to waive their right to sue in court in favor of binding arbitration or agree to sue in a specific court, such as Delaware state courts,” he says. “The only way to get out of these provisions is to prove that that this part of their contract was ‘unconscionable’ — which is very hard to do.”
The PTPA may also have trouble showing that they can sue on behalf of all professional players, according to Carfagna. Some top players, including four-time Grand Slam champion and rising star Carlos Alcaraz, have expressed ambivalence or even disagreement with the lawsuit. And while players’ unions have scored victories in other professional sports, the PTPA is an association — not a union, Carfagna notes.
“The biggest flaw in their argument is that tennis players are independent contractors,” Carfagna says. “These are the rules, and they agree to play by them. That means if they have any damages, each player should go through arbitration, sue in Delaware court to hear their individual cases, or, in the case of claims against the International Tennis Federation, go through arbitration in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.”
The rule of reason
If the PTPA manages to succeed on these tough procedural questions, Carfagna says, the association will still have a long road ahead to prove that the ATP, WTP, and other pro tennis organizations are in violation of antitrust law.
Antitrust litigation hinges on a legal standard called the “rule of reason,” he says. This means that a court will only deem a business practice illegal if it finds that, on balance, its procompetitive effects are outweighed by the anticompetitive impact.
“These cases take a long time, they’re expensive, and there is a lot of discovery and evidence that both sides will need to produce,” Carfagna says.
The PTPA takes issue with the pro tennis organizations’ system of assigning ranking points to players for winning sanctioned competitions — and using the resulting rankings to determine who may play in the sport’s top tournaments such as the Grand Slams. This practice, the plaintiffs argue, simultaneously prevents players from earning money in alternative competitions and keeps other groups from starting their own tournaments.
“These cases take a long time, they’re expensive, and there is a lot of discovery and evidence that both sides will need to produce.”
But Carfagna says that there are a few facts that work against this argument. “Across the board, the money has increased exponentially over the years,” he says. “And again, by the way, they have been proceeding this way, with the players’ permission, because they signed our waiver and consent forms.”
On balance, Carfagna says, the procompetitive benefits of such a system may outweigh the anticompetitive impact.
“If you can’t guarantee that your best players are going to be at some of these events, because they can make more money at other competitions, sponsors go away, overall prize money goes down, and the Grand Slams stop being the Grand Slams,” he says. “The sport is a meritocracy, and ultimately, I think you can show a procompetitive basis for this.”
Carfagna adds that there could also be procompetitive reasons behind the antidoping and anticorruption rules, including ensuring that competitions are fair and transparent.
But although Carfagna thinks that the pro tennis bodies may have the upper hand on the antitrust claims, he also thinks that no one involved in the suit wants a protracted battle. “Both sides would be really well advised to find some middle ground here,” he says.
Carfagna says his work with the LPGA gave him a firsthand view of similar antitrust accusations made against the PGA Tour in 2022. He predicts that the tennis lawsuit could end in a similar way: with some concessions to players but few seismic changes. Players might receive more of a voice in decision-making, for example, or perhaps the tours will offer a small increase in the percentage of profits that are shared as prize money, he suggests.
With Wimbledon’s announcement of an increase in prize money for 2025, Carfagna’s prediction seems prescient.
“This increase – coupled with an equalization in prize money for men and women – is just great,” he says. “That’s what makes the majors the majors. These are the competitions that pay the most money, get the most media attention. And with Wimbledon, the whole world will be watching.”
While it can be difficult to predict what might happen next, Carfagna thinks the federal court in New York could be sympathetic to pro tennis bodies’ arguments that the cases should be heard either in arbitration or in Delaware court.
If that happens, it could spell trouble for the case, he adds. “Without the power of the class behind you, what incentive does an attorney have to pursue these cases?”
But if the case proceeds, Carfagna believes the players and the tours alike will be interested in finding compromises — and a way to end the suit.
“They may think, ‘Let’s try to find something that works for our sponsors, for our tournaments, for our Grand Slams,’” he says. “Let’s not kill the golden goose.”
Want to stay up to date with Harvard Law Today? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.