Tennis: Antitrust Scrutiny Intensifies in Global Governance Dispute
By Dr Estelle Ivanova, Counsel, VALLONI Attorneys at Law, Zurich, Switzerland
The antitrust landscape surrounding professional tennis has entered a decisive phase, with parallel legal proceedings advancing in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.
At the centre of these developments is the Professional Tennis Players’ Association (PTPA), a not-for-profit association of male and female tennis players founded by Vasek Pospisil and Novak Djokovic and representing male and female singles players in the top 500 and doubles players in the top 200 of the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) rankings.
The PTPA is challenging before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, United States, what it characterises as a structurally anti-competitive and welfare-insensitive governance model in global tennis.
In these legal proceedings, brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the PTPA alleges that the ATP and WTA Tours, together with the four Grand Slam organisers, are exercising monopolistic control over professional tennis.
In particular, the PTPA alleges the existence of a coordinated system functioning as a “cartel”, which limits prize-money that, in 2024, generated U$1.5 billion (around €1.3 billion) in revenue, yet distributed just 10-20% of it as prize money—far below what the players consider to be fair; constraining players’ commercial freedoms; and maintaining an unsustainable schedule and ranking architecture.
As part of these proceedings, the PTPA and Tennis Australia (TA) have now entered into “substantive and productive” settlement discussions and have jointly requested a stay of the proceedings in respect of TA—an exception that does not extend to the other defendants.
In the United Kingdom (UK), the PTPA has also lodged a complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority, which articulates a broader critique of tennis governance. It alleges that the sport’s leading institutions operate simultaneously as regulators and commercial actors, leveraging this dual capacity to the detriment of players, competitors, and the market as a whole.
The issues identified include limitations on players’ earning opportunities, structural features alleged to restrict the emergence of rival events, and broader issues relating to player welfare. The complaint has been submitted under the UK Competition Act 1998, with potential relevance to both Chapter I, which concerns agreements that may restrict competition, and Chapter II, which concerns the abuse of a dominant position.
A parallel complaint has also been submitted by the PTPA to the European Commission, which raises issues under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), with particular scrutiny on the exclusionary effects of the calendar system, the ranking architecture, and the restrictions placed on non-sanctioned events. The EU dimension underscores the cross-border nature of the alleged practices and their potential impact on the functioning of the EU Internal Market.
Taken together, the proceedings in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union illustrate an effort by the PTPA to prompt a broader reflection on the global governance and economic organisation of professional tennis.
Although litigation has provided the formal vehicle for these challenges, the PTPA has consistently framed its legal initiatives as a means of encouraging dialogue and negotiated reforms rather than pursuing adversarial outcomes.
Whether the discussions with TA will crystallise into concrete adjustments—and whether such developments may shape the posture of other governing bodies—remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the ATP and WTA continue to contest the substance of the claims before the New York court, and the processes in the EU and UK will follow their own distinct trajectories.
These legal proceedings also resonate with the evolving jurisprudence on the relationship between sporting governance and competition law. In ISU (Case C-124/21 P), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that eligibility rules may fall within Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, where they create barriers to market entry or restrict the activities of independent organisers.
Similarly, the European Superleague judgment (Case C-333/21) reaffirmed that sports governing bodies must exercise their regulatory powers in compliance with EU competition law, particularly when authorising—or declining to authorise—competing sports events.
Although the PTPA proceedings arise in a distinct factual context, they touch upon comparable structural themes concerning regulatory discretion, governance autonomy, market influence, and the economic significance of sporting activity within the meaning of EU law.
We await, with interest, the outcome of the PTPA proceedings.
Dr Estelle Ivanova may be contacted by e-mail at ‘
