Game, set and competition law
Author: Najma Rajah, O&O Economist
30 August 2025 marked the fifth anniversary of the official launch of the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA). Established on the eve of the US Open during the pandemic, the PTPA aimed to unite and mobilise tennis players to create transparency and equity throughout professional tennis.
Earlier this year, the PTPA launched a series of legal actions in the US, the UK, and Brussels. The PTPA’s submissions alleged that the central governing bodies in tennis were acting as a cartel, that they suppressed players’ earnings by restricting the number of tournaments they could play, that the ranking points system discouraged players from entering tournaments not organised by the central bodies, and that anti-doping practices violated players’ privacy.
The complaints by the PTPA are in line with several recent legal cases against governing bodies facing legal action for alleged breach of competition law. This article considers the points raised by the PTPA, the issues that the competition authorities could consider in their investigations, and whether the PTPA will succeed in achieving reform. It concludes that a key problem underlying the sport is fragmentation, and it is not clear that the PTPA’s legal action will directly resolve this issue.
In March 2025, the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA), an organisation founded at the US Open in 2020 comprising a group of tennis players, initiated a series of legal actions, simultaneously submitting complaints against tennis’ governing bodies to the US District Court in New York, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in the UK, and the European Commission in Brussels. The submissions outlined a range of concerns, including claims that the central governing bodies in tennis operate as a cartel by implementing several “anticompetitive restraints and abusive practices”. Collectively, the lawsuits alleged that the tennis authorities prevent players and fans from experiencing the sport's full benefits, while confining athletes to a system that harms their health and financial positions.
Tennis united?
One of the key goals of the PTPA was to represent the interests of players, who historically have never had an organisation acting solely on their behalf, despite operating in an ecosystem riddled with divisions and fragmentation.
Unlike other sports, in tennis, there is no single governing body. Instead, it features multiple organisations. The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) oversees the men’s tour, while the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) manages the women’s tour. The International Tennis Federation (ITF) serves as the overarching body for around 200 national tennis associations and organises the Davis Cup and the ITF World Tennis Tours. It also plays a governing role in the four Grand Slam tournaments (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open). These organisations and tournaments operate independently of each other. The lack of coordination among these bodies may be one reason why professional tennis players have complained that the tennis calendar is excessively long. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising that the PTPA felt the need to establish a new organisation aimed at uniting all players and leveraging their collective strength to advocate on their behalf.
However, while the PTPA claims to represent all tennis players, support for its legal actions from the sport’s top players has been limited. Some players, such as Carlos Alcaraz, have actively distanced themselves from the PTPA’s activities, despite recognising some of the concerns raised by the organisation. Similarly, Novak Djokovic, one of the PTPA’s co-founders, is not listed as a plaintiff in any of the submissions to the competition authorities. Moreover, shortly after the PTPA filed its complaints, in April 2025, the top 20 men’s and women’s players sent a letter to the Grand Slams requesting increased prize money. It remains unclear how this request relates to the PTPA’s complaints.
Key economic arguments made by the PTPA
The lawsuits represent an unprecedented move by tennis players in what the PTPA has described as historic legal actions. The PTPA’s chances of success, however, will depend on the credibility of the economic arguments that it presents.
In the UK, the submission to the CMA alleges that the governing bodies – the ATP, WTA and the ITF – face a conflict of interest since they have dual regulatory and economic functions. Furthermore, the governing bodies have exploited their roles as regulatory bodies to:
Limit professional tennis players’ earnings, endorsements, and sponsorship prospects. For example, the PTPA states that both the ATP and WTA have rejected prize money increases at the prestigious Indian Wells tournament proposed by the tournament organisers, thus distorting the market. The PTPA has also cited data showing that the share of tournament revenues redistributed in prize money in tennis is much lower than in other sports
Establish a closed circuit of tournaments that dictates which tournaments are allowed to take place at certain times and in specific geographical regions
Manipulate the ranking points system by forcing participation in sanctioned tournaments while penalising participation in non-sanctioned tournaments. This, according to the PTPA, enables the ATP, WTA and ITF to monopsonise the market for the services of professional tennis players
Enforce many arbitrary and capricious procedural rules without reasonable justification, transparency or due process. Here, the PTPA points to disproportionately harsh anti-doping practices
The PTPA argues that, taken together, these restrictions curtail professional tennis players’ earnings and foreclose the market, making it impossible for new non-sanctioned tournaments to thrive.
Still to play out
In the UK, the CMA has not yet stated whether there are grounds for it to investigate the PTPA’s complaint under the jurisdiction of the 1998 Competition Act. But if it was to do so, it would likely need to take a view on a range of questions.
For example, the CMA will need to identify the appropriate market definition from both a product and a geographic perspective. This will involve considering issues such as whether the men’s and women’s competitions form part of the same market.
Secondly, the CMA will need to assess whether the governing bodies have both the incentive and the ability to distort the market. The answer to the latter will partly depend on the presence of barriers to entry that prevent the setting up of new tournaments. This, in turn, will depend upon whether there are high fixed costs associated with organising and hosting events. Tennis tournaments rely on specific infrastructure that, unlike in some other sports, may only be used for the duration of the tournament. Furthermore, establishing new venues or expanding existing ones may require planning permission and other approvals. In other words, the market for the provision of tennis tournaments is not a market where we would expect to see perfect competition (at least from an economic theory perspective).
The CMA will also examine whether there are any pro-competitive effects of the current structure of governing bodies and if these outweigh any potential anti-competitive effects. In 2025, the ATP tour consisted of 60 tournaments across 29 countries, while the WTA tour had 55 tournaments across 26 countries. Some level of coordination between the tournaments is necessary to ensure the smooth running and structure of the professional tennis circuit for logistical reasons. It would be detrimental to players if they had to travel from continent to continent each week to compete. Similarly, the governing bodies’ rule books ensure there is a degree of uniformity across different tournaments. This is important for both players and spectators alike, who then have clarity on issues such as deciding-set tie break formats and whether on-court coaching is permitted. The requirements for anti-doping are also critical for ensuring the integrity of the sport.
The CMA’s position may also consider previous cases where sporting associations were challenged for breaching competition law, as the PTPA’s complaint aligns with a series of earlier cases in the US and in Europe. In the US, for example, in 2022, there was a case against the Professional Golfers’ Association Tour. In Europe, in 2021, some leading football clubs attempted to form a breakaway league to compete with the European Champions League. FIFA (the International Federation of Association Football) and UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) threatened sanctions, and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in 2023 that the two governing bodies had acted unlawfully in obstructing the Super League. However, the judgment also recognised the need for common rules to ensure “the homogeneity and coordination of these competitions within an overall match calendar as well as, more broadly, to promote in a suitable and effective manner, the holding of sporting competitions based on equal opportunities and merit.”
While the CMA may adopt a different stance from the EC, especially after Brexit, it would need to provide evidence explaining why the circumstances in the UK differ from those in the rest of Europe.
But even if neither the CMA nor the EC pursue the case further, the PTPA’s legal actions may still promote reform by highlighting its concerns. There have already been signs that the governing bodies have listened to some of the players' issues. The ATP and WTA have increased prize money, and in 2022, the ATP introduced a profit-sharing model. However, the profit-sharing model is linked to longer tournaments, which only supports the arguments that players lack sufficient downtime between events and have limited opportunities to earn revenue outside the tour.
No quick fixes on the horizon
So, what are the long-term solutions? The executive director of the PTPA, Ahmad Nassar, has clarified that the aim of the legal actions is not to disrupt tennis, but the PTPA is calling for reforms to address “systemic failures”. But if the PTPA was successful in its lobbying for more non-ATP and WTA events, it is hard to see how this would serve to unite tennis unless it forced the governing bodies to restructure to avoid further fragmentation of the sport.
O&O’s expertise in sports economics and governance
To assess these types of issues, parties on either side need advisers who understand sports ecosystems, so they can (1) help define the relevant markets, (2) estimate the impact of current and proposed new structures on the relative consumer appeal and commercial value of a sporting tournament and (3) compare the arrangements with other sports in terms of likely outcomes across the whole ecosystem.
O&O is an expert in the economics of sports ecosystems and has provided supporting evidence and analysis in sports-related competition cases, arbitration and legal actions for investors, sporting bodies, new entrants and clients working with legal teams and competition economists.