Early last week, the Professional Tennis Players’ Association (PTPA) announced a lawsuit against tennis’ governing bodies.
It’s a heavy document – some 170+ pages – but fundamentally, the PTPA claims that the ATP, WTA, ITF and ITIA are anti-competitive monopolies. They have taken aim at the fundamental structure of tennis – including the ranking system, licensing, schedule and pay – and want to see it dismantled almost completely.
So the question is: Is this a good thing for tennis? Should tennis fans want this lawsuit to succeed, or not?
The answer, unfortunately, is a little nuanced: Yes, no, and a little bit of both.
First off, the PTPA is correct: tennis’ governing bodies do act in a monopolistic way. The tours and slams work together to coordinate on things like the calendar and ranking system, and there’s very little anyone can do about it.
The PTPA was formed to advocate for players in this setting. However, in the five years they’ve existed, nothing has been done. That’s because the powers that be in tennis hold all the power, and simply don’t need to negotiate with the PTPA.
There’s a reason why laws exist to prevent anti-competitive behaviors from happening, because usually, they don’t benefit individuals. There’s also a reason why many industries – including some other sports – have unionized.
From that perspective, that’s why this lawsuit is a good thing. It gives the PTPA a seat at the table. Whether it’s niggly drug-testing rules, late-night finishes or better prize money, the PTPA now has some leverage from which to negotiate.
However, the PTPA’s lawsuit is not as clear cut as simply making life better for tennis players. If it was, we’d be all for it.
The issue is, as touched on above, they want to completely dismantle the power structures in tennis (and, are under no obligation to provide an alternative).
Fundamentally, in tennis, as in every sport, you want the best of the best under one roof. What that actually looks like, is a benevolent monopolistic organization holding the reins.
Think about it. If tennis suddenly has no governing bodies, no ranking system, no cohesive calendar… What that means for tennis fans is it will suddenly become much harder to watch Carlos Alcaraz play Jannik Sinner. That’s the long and short of what would happen. A lack of monopoly would splinter the sport and prevent the best from sharing the court.
Sound dramatic? Just look at boxing.
Boxing has multiple competing bodies – the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, IBO, IBA – just to name a few. Each have their own champions. Yes, sometimes they fight each other and unite belts, but getting them to do so is a long arduous process decided in shady backrooms between managers.
Do we really want a sport where the quality of the end product is decided this way?
Often, fighters will go their whole careers – or 90% of them, at least – without fighting anyone half-decent. They accrue undefeated records, make a lot of money for themselves, but fans never get to see them fight a rival of equal footing.
Compare this to the UFC. Mixed martial arts is dominated by a monopolistic organisation, and as a result, almost every weekend there are brilliant clashes between the best of the best. Yes, fighters quibble about pay regularly, but there’s no denying the end product is far superior.
Both good, bad and both…
That’s why the PTPA’s lawsuit is both good, bad and both.
No, we don’t want it to succeed in its entirety, because it would significantly harm the quality of tennis. But yes, it’s good for the sport that it exists, as it gives the PTPA genuine leverage from which they can improve the lives of players.
By the way – the closest example of a lawsuit like this is sport occurred in the UFC. It took 10 years to litigate, and ended up in each fighter getting a nominal amount of money each.
So while plenty of attention has been on the PTPA lawsuit over the past fortnight, the reality is, this won’t be a flash in the pan. It’s far, far likely to be a slow burn that will led to slight, positive shifts in the tennis landscape.
And that’s a good thing, right?
Let us know your thoughts on this in the comments below.
