Governance at tie-break: players’ claims and the stability of tennis’ institutional framework

With the Australian Open just around the corner, anticipation builds for another head to head between Alcaraz and Sinner, two players who are defining a new tennis era after the age of the three kings: Federer, Nadal and the persistent Djokovic. But even beyond the court, 2026 could be a year of profound transformations for tennis across its organizational structure, competition circuit and economic framework.

Tennis is currently experiencing a phase of growing tension, fuelled by familiar issues: players complaints about an increasingly congested calendar; a revenue distribution perceived as unbalanced; claims of insufficient protection of their health; and, at the forefront, a governance model that fails to give players adequate weight in key decision-making processes. Within this context, two distinct but related initiatives have emerged, with the potential to bring fundamental changes in the professional circuit: on one side, legal action brought by the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) against ATP Tour Inc. (ATP), WTA Tour Inc. (WTA), International Tennis Federation Ltd. (ITF) and International Tennis Integrity Agency Ltd. (ITIA); and, on the other, a recent letter sent by several of the sport’s top players to the organizers of the Grand Slam tournaments.

Three proceedings, parallel allegations

Founded in 2020 by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil, the PTPA aims to protect tennis players' rights through collective action and the promotion of better organizational standards for tennis worldwide. In pursuit of these objectives, this past March the PTPA, together with a group of players participating individually, launched several legal initiatives against the governing bodies of world tennis (ATP, WTA, ITF and ITIA) before the U.S. District Court of New York, the UK Competition and Markets Authority and the European Commission.

In the U.S. proceedings, violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act — the federal antitrust statute — are alleged. Section 1 prohibits agreements or concerted practices that unreasonably restrain trade, while Section 2 prohibits monopolization and/or the abuse of a dominant position. In July, ITF and ITIA were removed as defendants and motions have since been made to add as defendants the organizations governing the four Grand Slam tournaments: Tennis Australia, All England Lawn Tennis Club, Fédération Française de Tennis and United States Tennis Association. Similarly, in the United Kingdom the antitrust complaint asserts that ITF, ATP, WTA and ITIA have violated Chapters I and II of the Competition Act 1998. Chapter I prohibits agreements or practices whose object or effect is the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition; and Chapter II bans the abuse of a dominant position affecting trade within the UK.

At the EU level, the complaint was filed with the European Commission under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, alleging violations of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

But, despite the varying jurisdictions, forums and pleadings,  a single theme lies at the heart of the allegations: the organizations have created a “cartel” that restricts competition and harms players both economically and in terms of working conditions, at least according to the PTPA.

So, what are the key claims made?

• Prize money fixing: according to the PTPA, the governing bodies have agreed on maximum prize money levels, preventing tournament organizers from increasing them even when financially capable. This limits players’ earnings compared to what a free market would generate. The PTPA highlights a significant revenue disparity: tennis players receive less than 20% of generated revenues, compared to the 50% share typically seen in football, basketball and American football.
• Ranking points system and calendar: the current structure forces players to compete almost exclusively in tournaments run by the same organizations (the only ones awarding ranking points), resulting in an extremely dense schedule and few opportunities to participate in independent events or exhibitions.
• Image rights restrictions: players must grant their image rights to the organizations free of charge, with no negotiation, as a condition of tournament entry. The Grand Slam Rulebook, Article I, Section E requires players to grant organizers the right to use their name, image, voice and audiovisual material for broadcasting, promotion and commercial exploitation, without compensation. Similarly, Section 1.12(A) of the ATP Circuit Regulations requires players to concede their image rights for the promotion of ATP events “without separate compensation.” Equivalent provisions exist in WTA regulations.
• Sponsorship restrictions: the contested rules impose severe limits on players’ sponsorships in terms of category, number and visibility; while the governing organizations sign major partnerships in categories prohibited to players.

The top 10’s demands

In parallel with the PTPA claims, a group of top-ranked ATP and WTA players have directly approached the Grand Slam tournament organizers, sending two separate letters in 2025, requesting:

• greater support for player welfare, including a pension fund, healthcare and maternity coverage;
• increased prize money as a share of revenues, aiming to raise the current 16% to 22% by 2030; and
• greater consultation and representation, through the establishment of a “Grand Slam Player Council” involved in strategic decisions.

What's next?

In recent days, Novak Djokovic has communicated his decision to distance himself from the PTPA and its initiatives, which has caused quite a stir.   Djokovic claims there is a “lack of transparency” although he continues to support the PTPA's original “vision” aimed at giving players a “stronger and more independent voice.” Even current world No. 1 Carlos Alcaraz, who has repeatedly raised concerns about the excessive demands of the competitive calendar, has stated he will not support the legal action.

Regardless, the proceedings will run their course, with or without the stars’ support, unless a comprehensive settlement is reached involving the antitrust authorities in the U.S., UK and EU. Antitrust proceedings are hardly new to sport — nor to tennis. The ATP itself was born from a player protest in the late 1980s against the Men’s International Professional Tennis Council. The then organizer of the men’s circuit was accused of anticompetitive practices and later dissolved following a settlement.

Today, the goal of the 12 players who, together with the PTPA, initiated the proceedings does not seem to be dismantling the governing bodies, but rather substantially revising the rules, potentially paving the way for collective bargaining structures. After all, these legal actions are the only forms of “union protest” available to tennis players, who, unlike footballers, are not employees protected by contracts and statutory provisions, but independent contractors who personally shoulder all costs of their profession (including travel, coaches, trainers and medical care). The legal claims, regardless of the number or prominence of the supporting players, may represent a defining moment for tennis. An opportunity to reform the professional tennis system in ways yet to be seen.

Published by G+ Gazzetta dello Sport on 10 January 2026.