Professional tennis is facing one of the biggest legal challenges in history as the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) filed legal actions against several governing bodies of the sport. The litigation claims “Tennis is broken” and that organisations “suppress” talent and “exploit” players. Below we unpack the claims made by the PTPA and what they hope to change.
Edited by Grant Longstaff. Published 6 July 2026.
Background to the PTPA legal action
The PTPA began with Vasek Pospisil and Novak Djokovic who believed the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) had “had grown into an anti-competitive organisation that it once vowed to protect the players from”. The movement grew and the PTPA was formally founded in 2021.
In 2025 the PTPA filed for legal action against the ATP, Women’s Tennis Association (WTA), International Tennis Federation (ITF), the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) and the four Grand Slam tournaments. In their claim, the PTPA alleges the four organisations “operate as a cartel by implementing a number of draconian, interlocking anticompetitive restraints and abusive practices.”
We look at the claims of the PTPA below and what could change for professional tennis players as the case progresses.
Contracts, sponsorship and image rights
Most professional tennis players operate independently. Their careers depend on sponsorship agreements, endorsement deals and management contracts.
The PTPA believes players face restrictions on how they can commercially exploit their name, image and likeness rights which in turn limits sponsorship opportunities and earning potential. They believe the free market should determine player income.
One aspect raised is that the PTPA believe players should be allowed to accept or display betting sponsorships. This is particularly interesting as tournaments are allowed to receive these endorsements; however players are currently not.
Player ranking, tournament access and competition law
Another significant claim from the PTPA concerns the professional ranking system. It argues the rankings and participation requirements prevent players from competing in alternative events which could be financially beneficial for players. The PTPA argues the ATP, WTA, ITF, ITIA, and the Grand Slam tournaments, “collude” to cap the prize money of the tournaments they do play in, again limiting a player’s potential income.
Anti-doping and anti-corruption
The PTPA also criticises aspects of the sport’s anti-doping system by arguing some investigative practices infringe player rights and privacy. Anti-doping cases in tennis often raise debates and, as with many such cases, the validity of the claims made by the players are often scrutinised.
Jannik Sinner’s three-month ban, which fell in a period when there were no Grand Slam competitions, caused controversy within the tennis community. Some players believed he was given preferential treatment because he was world number one at the time. The PTPA believes there is a lack of "transparency", "process" and "consistency" in the system.
Financial pressures
The PTPA argues player compensation remains disproportionately low compared with revenues generated by professional tennis. This issue particularly affects lower-ranked players who, without the financial security the biggest players in the sport have, must cover the cost of entering a competition (such as travel and accommodation) themselves.
Vasek Pospisil said: “I’m one of the more fortunate players and I’ve still had to sleep in my car when traveling to matches early on in my career – imagine an NFL player being told that he had to sleep in his car at an away game. It’s absurd and would never happen.”
What’s next?
Pospisil also said: “[The legal actions] are about fixing tennis for today’s players and future generations. It’s time for accountability, real reform and a system that protects and empowers players. All stakeholders deserve a sport that operates with fairness and integrity.”
The case is ongoing. However, there does appear to be some backlash to the litigation. Since the legal action was filed Novak Djokovic has distanced himself from the PTPA, stating that “my values and approach are no longer aligned with the current direction of the organisation.”
The Fédération Française de Tennis (FFT), which governs the French Open, and the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC), which operates Wimbledon, also recently denied media and official accreditations to PTPA representatives. The PTPA believes this is as direct result of their legal action.
It could be years before we know what changes, if any, the legal challenges from the PTPA will bring. The outcome of the litigation remains uncertain at this stage.
Legal barriers in tennis FAQs
Why are legal disputes particularly difficult for lower-ranked tennis players?
Lower-ranked players often lack the financial resources needed to fund legal representation, but they remain subject to the same obligations as top-ranked athletes.
How does international travel create unique legal challenges?
Professional tennis players compete across multiple countries each season, creating ongoing requirements relating to visas, taxation, immigration compliance and local regulations.
What legal protections exist for pregnant players?
The WTA has introduced a maternity fund in 2025 allowing pregnant players up to 12 months paid leave. In 2019 the WTA also changed the rules so that players returning after maternity leave can use their previous ranking to enter 12 tournaments over a three-year period.
Find out more about sports law and the different legal disciplines you’ll need for a career in this field.
