MIAMI GARDENS, Fla. — At age 30, Ons Jabeur has established herself as a formidable presence in professional tennis, being a three-time Grand Slam finalist and accumulating over $13 million in prize money. But even with her success, Jabeur sees various aspects of the sport that need improvement. Standing on the court for the Miami Open, she outlined several areas she believes require attention to enhance the experience for all players.
“We need to improve the structure that we have,” Jabeur emphasized. She critiqued the existing scheduling, suggesting that the current setup, with its many tournaments, poses health risks for players. Additionally, she raised concerns about the frequent changes of balls and inadequate player compensation. As a member of the executive committee of the Professional Tennis Players’ Association (PTPA), a group formed by Novak Djokovic and others, Jabeur is pushing for these changes. “There are definitely a lot of things to work on,” she concluded.
The issues Jabeur highlighted are at the heart of a class-action antitrust lawsuit filed by the PTPA in a federal court in New York. The suit accuses the organizations governing tennis — including the WTA, ATP, ITF, and ITIA — of operating as a “cartel.”
“The players demand to be heard,” stated Ahmad Nassar, executive director of the PTPA. He stressed the importance of addressing structural issues that stifle tennis as an international sport, aiming to create a balanced, fairer system for the entire tennis business.
Understanding the lawsuit requires familiarity with the PTPA. Founded by 24-time Grand Slam champion Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil, the PTPA was introduced just before the 2020 U.S. Open. Their mission is to represent tennis players, who, being independent contractors, lack a collective bargaining union common in team sports. The PTPA has consulted with over 250 players, including a majority from the top 20 rankings of the WTA and ATP, as part of their preparation for legal action.
The lawsuit aims for increased financial compensation and addresses several grievances about how the sport is administered. Critics argue that the current structure funnels too little revenue to players, caps tournament prize money, and hinders competition from outside tours. Other concerns include an intense 45-week season, combined tournaments lasting 12 days, matches extending past midnight, and a restrictive rankings system. Additionally, the ITIA’s approach is labeled “arbitrary and selective,” according to the lawsuit.
“Player welfare is completely disregarded,” Pospisil lamented, critiquing the tour schedule and the impact on players’ rights.
While the Grand Slam events weren’t named as separate defendants, they’re listed as co-conspirators under the ITF umbrella. The filing claims that in 2024, these four major tournaments generated over $1.5 billion but allocated only 10%-20% of revenue to players. Nassar explained that the Slams lack unilateral power to amend issues like the schedule or anti-doping processes, or to address prize money discrepancies present at other tournaments.
Notably, Djokovic is not a plaintiff in the case, though Pospisil is, alongside players like Nick Kyrgios and Sorana Cirstea. Nassar clarified that the focus is broader than any single player, although Djokovic remains actively engaged given his executive role.
In response, the WTA labeled the lawsuit as “regrettable and misguided,” while the ATP dismissed it as “entirely without merit.” Both organizations insinuated that the PTPA has disrupted progress, choosing division and misinformation over advancement.
The lawsuit’s implications for tennis are uncertain in both the short and long term. While a settlement could emerge, there’s a possibility that no changes will occur if players’ efforts prove unfruitful. Alternatively, a court ruling could enforce significant changes. Should the latter happen, PTPA lawyer Jim Quinn foresees it would necessitate a major restructuring.
