OPINION
Five years ago, Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil established the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) with the aim of improving conditions for professional players. Djokovic has consistently clarified that it is not a union, but rather an association focused on bettering players’ circumstances and their share of the prize funds — a stance that somewhat resembles union-like aspirations.
Recently, the PTPA initiated legal action against the ATP, WTA, ITF, and the ITIA, claiming these organisations perpetuate a corrupt system that exploits players for profit while restricting their rights. This shift from seeking cooperation to pursuing litigation demonstrates a significant change in approach.
The PTPA’s lawsuit is backed by over 250 players, including many from the top 20 rankings, seeking a fairer and more transparent framework that prioritises player health and rights, similar to protections available in other sports. Notably, some prominent players support this movement, though others, like Aryna Sabalenka, remain unaware of the lawsuit’s details.
Interestingly, neither Djokovic nor the four Grand Slam tournaments are named in the lawsuit, despite the latter operating independently under the ITF umbrella. The PTPA argues that players’ earnings are limited and cites an example of exorbitant profits made from a US Open cocktail, questioning why players receive such a small share of revenues compared to their counterparts in leagues like the NFL and NBA.
Many concerns raised by the PTPA—such as the restriction of income due to competitive tournament scheduling—could be unfounded. Tennis operates in a vastly different structure compared to team sports, where players are treated as independent contractors. The PTPA has also identified issues such as players’ names being used for promotional purposes without additional compensation; however, the tours often compensate players with substantial guarantees for such rights.
Tennis’s equal prize money for men and women at events further distinguishes it from other sports. Whether players genuinely desire changes in a tournament schedule, they have the autonomy to choose how much they play. Complaints about demanding schedules seem somewhat disingenuous when many players engage in lucrative exhibition events during downtime.
The PTPA’s lawsuit requests unrealistic expectations, particularly concerning travel and tournament logistics. Professional players already benefit from exceptional accommodations and support while competing. Their grievances about playing in extreme temperatures and late finishes may overlook existing rules designed to ensure player welfare.
The financial viability of tennis tournaments depends on their ability to generate profit; without it, players face diminished opportunities. While acknowledging room for improvement, the PTPA’s extreme rhetoric in this lawsuit risks alienating key stakeholders in the sport. The legal system may well reject these claims as unfounded, suggesting the need for a more grounded dialogue moving forward.