The civil war engulfing tennis has been laid bare on the opening day of the first grand slam event this year, with details of Tennis Australia’s peace deal with the Professional Tennis Players’ Association published for the first time.
The PTPA launched an anti-trust lawsuit against the four grand slam tournaments, the ATP Tour, WTA Tour, and the International Tennis Federation last year, accusing them of collaborating to reduce prize money, impose a restrictive ranking system and repress player promotional opportunities, but Tennis Australia was dropped from the claim last month after reaching a settlement agreement with the players’ union.
In a filing appearing to be timed to cause maximum discomfort to the three remaining grand slam tournaments and the sport’s three governing bodies, the details of that settlement were published on Saturday in the New York district court.
The court documents say Tennis Australia has agreed to cooperate with the PTPA against the other grand slam tournaments, including providing confidential financial information, in return for being removed from the claim and avoiding liability for potential damages that could reach tens of millions of pounds.
“Tennis Australia will begin providing valuable discovery that [the plaintiffs] may or may not have been ultimately able to obtain from Tennis Australia, which damages class plaintiffs can use in litigating their claims well in advance of court-ordered discovery against ATP and WTA,” the PTPA’s lawyers claim in a court filing.
“In exchange for a release of liability for monetary damages, Tennis Australia agrees to provide damages class plaintiffs with materials, facts, and other information known to Tennis Australia relevant to plaintiffs’ claims against the Tour defendants and grand slam defendants, including information regarding: financial books and records; tournament prize money; player name, image and likeness (“NIL”) rights and uses; player sponsorship and endorsement opportunities; tour scheduling requirements; player ranking points; player participation in non-Tour events; player claim enforcement mechanisms; and communications or agreements.”
The disclosure of the documents will increase tensions between Tennis Australia and the other grand slam tournaments, and is likely to dominate off-court conversations in Melbourne over the next fortnight. One source at the WTA Tour, which along with the ATP is also a co‑defendant, said that the timing of the release was an aggressive move that would lead to an escalation of the dispute.
The PTPA is seeking increased prize money and greater consultation for players over tournament scheduling, as well as more commercial freedom. In its legal submission it claims the deal with Tennis Australia has been designed to put pressure on the other grand slam tournaments to settle.
“By narrowing the number of defendants liable for damages in this case, damages class plaintiffs believe that other of the remaining defendants may be incentivized to engage in settlement negotiations as well,” the PTPA’s lawyers wrote.
“Damages class plaintiffs are confident that the substantial co-operation provided by Tennis Australia will help damages class plaintiffs litigate the antitrust claims to a successful jury verdict.”
In another inflammatory move, the PTPA issued a statement on the deal half an hour before Novak Djokovic’s pre-tournament press conference in Melbourne. The Serb co‑founded the union alongside the Canadian former player Vasek Pospisil in 2020, but announced his decision to step away from the organisation last month.
In a strongly worded statement the PTPA accused the governing bodies of presiding over a broken system and operating a cartel. “The agreement provides invaluable consultation on the future of the tennis industry and litigation cooperation, strengthening our case,” the PTPA said. “The settlement demonstrates the merits of our claims and signals that the remaining defendants may find it in their interest to engage promptly with reform.
“Our lawsuit challenges a broken system artificially suppressing player compensation, dictating punishing schedules, enforcing restrictive participation requirements, and limiting sponsorship opportunities. This systematic suppression stifles growth, innovation, and fairness across tennis.
“Players at every level recognise the current system fails them. They also recognise reform benefits everyone: players, tournaments, sponsors, fans, and the sport itself.
“Our legal case is backed by comprehensive funding sufficient to last through trial. We have the resources, leadership, strategy, and resolve to prove professional tennis has engaged in unlawful restraints of trade, violating antitrust law.
“History shows transformative change in professional sports comes through sustained pressure on anticompetitive structures. The window for reform is now. The choice is stark: shape the future or defend a hopelessly problematic and entangled cartel. This is a generational opportunity to reshape professional tennis for the better.”
Djokovic said he remained supportive of the PTPA’s objectives, but confirmed he had issues with its leadership. “I didn’t like how the leadership was taking the direction of the PTPA, and so I decided to step out,” he said. “Does that mean that I’m not supporting PTPA? No, I am. I am still wishing them all the best, because I think that there is room and there is a need for 100% players-only representation organisation existing in our ecosystem.”
The ATP and WTA have previously dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless and misguided” and in conjunction with the other three grand slam tournaments are expected to continue to defend their position. The prize money on offer at all four mmajor tournaments has grown significantly in recent years, with the Australian Open increasing the overall prize pot by 16% this year while, as reported by the Guardian last year, they have also indicated a willingness to give players a formal role in decision making through the formation of a player council.
