Exclusive session with Ben Cisneros and Sam Comb, Associates at Morgan Sports Law and specialists in sports governance and regulatory disputes.
📌 Legal insights into the PTPA tennis dispute with the ATP, WTA, ITF, and ITIA
From antitrust allegations to player welfare concerns, Ben and Sam provide key insights into the ongoing dispute between the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) and governing bodies like the ATP, WTA, ITF, and ITIA—highlighting how this legal battle could reshape the structure of professional tennis.
🎓 Hosted by Sports Law Hub
🤝 In collaboration with ISLA – International Sports Lawyers Association
The PTPA tennis dispute represents a critical moment in the evolution of professional tennis governance. Led by prominent players like Novak Djokovic, the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) has positioned itself as a vocal advocate for athletes’ rights—distinct from the ATP, WTA, ITF, and ITIA, which collectively form the sport’s governing ecosystem.
While not formally recognized as a union, the PTPA seeks to establish an independent voice for players, highlighting longstanding concerns over competition, player welfare, and fairness. As discussed by Ben Cisneros and Sam Comb, associates at Morgan Sports Law, the legal arguments brought forward by the PTPA offer a unique lens on how power, regulation, and player autonomy intersect in modern tennis.
According to the speakers, the ATP and WTA were originally founded as player associations—the “Association of Tennis Professionals” and the “Women’s Tennis Association,” respectively. However, over time, both entities evolved into governing bodies that now represent both players and tournaments. As Ben and Sam explain, “there wasn’t an independent group advocating externally for players’ interests until the PTPA came along.”
This lack of separation has led the PTPA to challenge the existing structure, asserting that the player voice has become diluted within multi-interest organizations. The heart of the PTPA tennis dispute lies in whether tennis professionals should have an independent, officially recognized platform for collective negotiation—something complicated by the fact that players are independent contractors, not employees
The legal complaints brought by the PTPA allege anti-competitive practices across three main areas: financial control, scheduling, and player welfare.
The first set of claims focuses on how prize money is regulated. The PTPA contends that ATP and WTA rules fix the amount of prize money available at each tournament, preventing tournaments from competing for top players by offering better payouts. According to the speakers, “this fixed system restricts upward mobility in player earnings.”
In addition, players reportedly face limitations in pursuing personal sponsorship deals, with governing bodies controlling key sponsorship categories. The PTPA also claims that player image rights have been exploited without adequate compensation.
The second major concern involves what the PTPA describes as an “unsustainable schedule.” Tennis players face an 11-month season with limited breaks, and are often barred from participating in unsanctioned events due to rigid ATP and WTA requirements. Ben and Sam note that these rules can include restrictions on playing in events even 30 days before or after a sanctioned tournament within a 100-mile radius.
The result, they argue, is that “players are effectively locked into a closed ecosystem with little freedom to offer their services elsewhere,” raising further questions under competition law.
Closely tied to the scheduling issue is the impact on player welfare. The PTPA highlights matches scheduled into early morning hours and extreme weather conditions as evidence of disregard for athlete well-being.
Moreover, the ITIA (International Tennis Integrity Agency) is accused of overreaching in its investigative practices, particularly in relation to anti-doping and anti-corruption measures. The complaint includes concerns over late-night drug testing and intrusive phone searches, which the speakers suggest may violate players’ privacy rights.
Despite the strength of some arguments, Ben and Sam caution that the path to legal recognition is uncertain. Because tennis players are not employees, traditional labor law frameworks do not easily apply. There is no clear legal process for the PTPA to gain official union status, making negotiation the likeliest route.
Current litigation in the U.S., UK, and EU challenges the conduct of tennis governing bodies under competition law. However, the U.S. case could hinge on a pending motion to dismiss, which argues the PTPA lacks standing and that disputes must be resolved through arbitration, as per ATP and WTA rules.
As the speakers explain, “if the motion to dismiss fails, governing bodies could be forced to trial, which may create pressure to negotiate or settle.”
The PTPA tennis dispute is not the first of its kind in sports. Similar legal battles in golf and mixed martial arts have resulted in settlements or structural changes. Ben and Sam suggest the PTPA may be using litigation as leverage to secure formal recognition and reforms around prize money, scheduling, and representation.
While resolution may take time, this dispute could reshape how athletes interact with sports institutions—not only in tennis but across the wider professional sports landscape.
