Foot fault? Alleged anti-competitive practices of tennis’s governing bodies

In March 2025, the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) submitted an antitrust complaint to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and served letters before action in the UK, EU and New York against the governing bodies of professional tennis. The PTPA accuse those organisations of operating as a cartel by engaging in anti-competitive practices to suppress player earnings and welfare, as well as in the UK imposing restrictive rules on tennis competitions in breach of section 2 and section 18 of the Competition Act 1998.

Background

The PTPA is a US-based non-profit association founded by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil in 2019 as a union for professional tennis players. The complaints are against three separate organisations that together comprise professional tennis’s governing bodies: the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) and the International Tennis Federation (ITF). The PTPA also makes allegations against the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), an organisation created by the governing bodies to enforce anti-doping and anti-corruption measures within professional tennis.

The PTPA contends that the governing bodies have a dual function: they both regulate professional tennis and carry out the commercial function of organising and profiting from tennis events. They argue that there is a conflict of interest between responsibly regulating professional tennis and achieving the best commercial outcome for the governing bodies, which is detrimental to players.

In particular, the PTPA asserts that the regulations imposed by the governing bodies and the ITIA restrict the players’ earnings, endorsement and sponsorship potential; limit players’ ability to compete in tournaments other than those organised by the governing bodies; and subject players to arbitrary and capricious procedural rules which cannot be avoided due to the governing bodies’ monopoly over professional tennis.

The PTPA’s position is that the governing bodies exert this control over the game unlawfully, in breach of section 2 and section 18. They ask the CMA to fully investigate the offending rules and practices to prevent the Governing Bodies from continuing this conduct.

Overview of the Act

Section 2 of the Act prohibits agreements, decisions or concerted practices which prevent, restrict or distort competition within the United Kingdom (referred to as the “Chapter I prohibition”). This includes practices such as price fixing and limiting or controlling production, markets, technical development or investment.

Section 18(1) of the Act prohibits conduct on the part of one or more organisations which amounts to the abuse of a dominant position (referred to as the “Chapter II prohibition”). It aims to prevent organisations with market power from exploiting their dominant position to the detriment of competition and consumers; for example, imposing unfair purchase or selling prices, or limiting production or technical development at the expense of consumers.

The complaint

The PTPA alleges that the governing bodies are engaging in activity contrary to the Chapter I and II prohibitions in three ways.

1. Prize money

The governing bodies impose rules which affect how much players earn by controlling prize money pools available at each tournament; the players’ naming, image and likeness rights; and the players’ ability to accept or display sponsorships.

The PTPA’s main complaint in relation to prize money relates to regulations which limit the size of tournament prize pools and forbid “lower ranking” tournaments from offering greater prize money awards to compete with governing body tournaments. It is alleged that the ATP, WTA and ITF each abuse their respective dominant positions by imposing their own rules on prize pools and also coordinate their regulatory structures to limit competition between them, in breach of the Chapter I prohibition.

The alleged result is that tournaments are unable to compete with one another by offering larger compensation packages. The PTPA cite the example of the BNP Paribas Open in 2012, where Larry Ellison (the owner of the tournament) sought to increase the total prize pool for players participating by $1.6 million above the limit imposed by the ATP and WTA. His proposal was rejected by the governing bodies for its incompatibility with the ATP and WTA rules, in the interest, according to the PTPA, of protecting the status of the higher prize pool offered by the ITF Grand Slams.

Player remuneration is also limited by the governing bodies’ control over player name, image and likeness rights. The PTPA alleges that players must assign these rights to the governing bodies as a condition to participating in tournaments, without receiving additional compensation for them. Similarly, they allege that existing sponsorship rules restrict the industries in which players (but not the governing bodies) can enter into sponsorship agreements (for example, betting companies) as a further condition to tournament participation, limiting off-court income streams for players. The PTPA contends that these restrictions over player rights and sponsorship breach both the Chapter I and II prohibitions.

It was also reported on 3 April 2025 that the top 20 men’s and women’s players wrote to the four Grand Slams asking for more prize money, arguing that it has stagnated whilst commercial revenues have increased.

2. Competition

The second major complaint from the PTPA concerns alleged restrictions imposed by the governing bodies on competition between tournaments.

It is said that the ATP and WTA enforce a closed tournament structure, dictating where and when each tournament can take place. This is allegedly compounded by non-compete rules that prevent tournaments from hosting events within a certain geographic radius and timeframe of sanctioned events.

The PTPA argues that these rules effectively limit the number of tournaments that can be held, thereby reducing opportunities for players to compete and earn, in breach of section 2. By restricting the ability of new tournaments to enter the market and compete with existing ones, the governing bodies are accused of creating a restrictive monopoly to the detriment of players and fans alike.

3. ITIA Rules

Finally, the PTPA highlights a number of rules imposed by the governing bodies through the ITIA which it considers breach competition law rules. These include mandatory participation rules, penalties for playing in non-sanctioned events, and “arbitrary and capricious procedural rules” including invasive anti-doping and anti-corruption investigations.

The PTPA contends that these rules are applied inconsistently and without reasonable justification, often to the detriment of players' health and wellbeing. They claim players are required to participate in a “gruelling” schedule, with little regard for their physical and mental health, and face severe penalties for withdrawing from events, even for legitimate reasons such as injury or personal circumstances.

The PTPA argues that these rules amount to an abuse of the governing bodies’ respective dominant positions in the market, in breach of the Chapter II prohibition. By imposing such unfair trading conditions and limiting the players’ ability to compete in rival tournaments, the governing bodies are accused of exploiting their market power to the detriment of player welfare.

Comment

The PTPA’s complaint against the Governing Bodies is part of a broader trend of sports governing bodies facing legal action over alleged anti-competitive behaviour. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has handled multiple recent cases of antitrust litigation against sports associations, including the much-publicised Lassana Diarra v FIFA and European Super League cases.

Whilst the football regulators did take some criticism from the CJEU in both cases, it is undeniable that governing bodies play a critical function in professional sport. The same judgments also recognised their ability to implement “common rules intended to guarantee the homogeneity” of competition and that “it is legitimate for an association such as FIFA” to implement rules to maintain competition and equal opportunity. Whilst those decisions are not binding on the CMA or UK courts, they are likely to be persuasive in similar cases against sports governing bodies.

With investment and revenues in sport growing exponentially, scrutiny of and challenges to sports governing bodies has intensified. Sporting calendars are becoming increasingly congested, whilst athletes are also becoming more aware of their own value, with player associations bringing competition claims in a variety of sports from football to ice skating.

The European Commission’s decision on the recent claim by Fifpro (the largest professional football players’ union) against FIFA will be eagerly awaited as another indicator of the regulators’ approach to applying competition law to the sports sector.

For more information, please email the authors or your usual CMS contact.

Article co-authored by Theo Lonsdale, Graduate Solicitor Apprentice at CMS.