Tennis Players Rally Against a System Built to Serve Itself

Photo by Lan Gao on Unsplash

On March 18, 2025, professional tennis players filed a class-action suit in the Southern District of New York against global tennis organizations. In the lawsuit, the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) alleged that the ATP Tour, WTA Tour, International Tennis Federation (ITF), and International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) engage as a cartel by reducing player earnings, elongating overly-tedious schedules, and violating player privacy through arbitrary drug-testing and invasive biometric data collection. The implications for potential change in sports organizations worldwide could be vast if this lawsuit continues to garner traction.

Class-action lawsuits in sports happen frequently due to the nature of the governing law. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, plaintiffs must show that 1) the class is so numerous that joining all members would be impractical; 2) there are common questions of law or fact that apply to the whole class; 3) the claims of the representative parties are typical to those of the class; and 4) the representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Given the inherent structural similarities in athletes’ contracts and uniform treatment by governing bodies, it’s no wonder that sports are often the perfect setting for class actions. As exemplified by the case of the PTPA, a unified front of players can attempt to remedy systemic harm done by sports leagues through the challenge of a class-action lawsuit.

While the complaint from the PTPA included over a dozen players worldwide, Novak Djokovic, one of the co-founders of the PTPA and a global star, was not included in the lawsuit. Not including Djokovic as a plaintiff was a strategic and collective decision by the PTPA. The goal of the lawsuit as explained by PTPA is to address their concerns with the leading worldwide tennis organizations. The complaint does address the earnings of tennis players, but the goal of the lawsuit is “about fairness, safety, and basic human dignity.” Novak Djokovic has been vocal in his support for the lawsuit and explaining that the reason he did not sign the complaint was because he wants more tennis players to step up. In previous years, Djokovic has been very vocal in headlines about past COVID restrictions and would like more players to set up to take control of their careers and the future of tennis. 

One important legislative barrier, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, prohibits conspiracy in furtherance of restraint of trade or commerce. The PTPA lawsuit alleges that the ATP, WTA, ITF, and ITIA function as a cartel that engages in both horizontal and vertical illegal activity. The introduction of the complaint strongly sets the stage by stating that “tour organizers and tournament operators have conspired to avoid competition amongst themselves and to shut out outside tournaments, affording them complete control over the players’ pay and working conditions.” According to the represented class, the alleged conspiracy has intervened against free market forces and, in effect, limited athletes’ abilities to negotiate their own pay and working conditions. 

Indian Wells, one of the biggest tournaments outside the Grand Slams, is an example of the control over the players’ pay. Larry Ellison, the owner of both the Indian Wells tournament and the site, wanted to give players an over $1.6 million boost in the prize money. The men’s tour did not approve the increase. “The board, made up of half players and half owners, deadlocked. Players, like Britain’s Andy Murray, were stunned that an organization that's supposed to represent them would allow money to be left on the table.” Other amenities will have to be added to the site in order to enhance viewership in the smaller tournaments. Enhancements, like adding award-winning restaurants like Nobu, and site expansions are making the site more intriguing to tennis fans and sports fans alike. 

The recent doping issues in the tennis world have created a conversation about the privacy issues of tennis players worldwide. The lack of transparency that players have with the drug testing policy is creating inconsistent outcomes for players and is one of the reasons many players are uniting to fight against the large tennis organizations. One of the claims in the PTPA complaint is that the player’s rights to privacy are violated due to the random drug tests.

Rights of privacy surrounding drug tests vary based on who is being tested and for what purpose the test is for. Tennis organizations play the players for their participation and receive tournament profits in return. Due to this relationship, drug testing for tennis players should be similar to what it is in workplace conditions. Random drug tests are still an option, but some sort of notice is required and players should not have to succumb to ridiculous drug testing methods. The complaint explains that the main tennis organizations “subject players to abusive and arbitrary investigative processes that lack any sense of fairness or due process and often result in suspensions or fines—often unwarranted—that jeopardize their careers.” Players are forced to perform blood and urine tests and if illegal substances are found, players are awarded very little insight or reasoning for the sanctions. 

The recent doping case with Jannik Sinner has brought even more attention to this issue.

ITIA has a strict policy that players are responsible for their own consumption of substances and thus consume any substances at their own risk. However, what followed in the Sinner doping case did not follow the strict rules that ITIA has implemented. The lack of strict liability in the Sinner case has highlighted the ITIA’s special treatment of high-paying and ranking tennis players and provides insight to PTPA’s claims.

Sinner tested positive twice for a banned substance over a two-week period in 2024. While Sinner’s levels were low, there is nothing in the ITIA website that explains that low levels of banned substances will be treated differently than if the player had high levels. Sinner explained that the substances entered his system unintentionally due to a third party who was not aware of the regulations. Sinner was suspended, but was allowed to continue to play during the appeal process. The ITIA ended up absolving Sinner of his doping charges after hearing that it was the fault of a third party and Sinner bore “no fault or negligence.” After Sinner was cleared, WADA filed an appeal stating that “the finding of 'no fault or negligence' was not correct under the applicable rules." WADA’s appeal is more aligned with ITIA’s rules than the decision that ITIA made. Sinner did end up getting a ban. Notably, the ban was just long enough so he could play in the next grand slam tournament.

The feedback from the rest of the tennis community has been mixed. Some people agree that there is favoritism happening with the drug testing regulations, while others believe the appeal process has been fair. The goal of the PTPA complaint is to remedy the harms of the ATP and other large tennis organizations to ensure fairness for tennis players. 

Another privacy issue that has been alleged against worldwide tennis organizations is that the collection of biometric data violates the rights of professional players. Tennis is only one of a plethora of sports that uses biometric data to support teams and athletes in both analytics and health. In June of 2024, the ATP announced approval of in-competition wearables. This is comparable to Major League Baseball’s (MLB) approval of “Whoop Straps” in order to track biological factors such as arm stress. The key detail in both of these cases is that athlete participation in these programs is voluntary. The non-compulsory aspect of these programs does not absolve sports leagues from the ethical issues that arise from gathering athletes’ bio-data, but it is a caveat that the complaint in the Southern District of New York failed to outline. A more equitable solution may be a league-wide regulatory framework (such as the NFL, which states that players own their personal data collected by wearables) or a collective bargaining agreement (such as the NBA, which states that a player will have access to all collected data from approved wearables). There are still important questions that need to be addressed when it comes to personal health information, which is generally why the United States has yet to modernize legislation such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA).

The tennis and sports world will be watching closely to see the effects of the PTPA’s class-action lawsuit. Though the case itself may not spark any actionable change within international sports governance, the issues being raised resonate across athletes in different sports leagues. The demand for athletes’ rights due to unfair labor practices will continue to grow, regardless of the legal outcome.

*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.