By Alex M. Bulte and Ryan M. Rodenberg
Introduction
On March 18, 2025, a dozen professional tennis players and a non-union group called the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) filed a 163-page complaint in federal court against the four leading tennis governing bodies in the world. Describing professional tennis players as “stuck in a rigged game,” the new lawsuit alleges a conspiracy among the defendants “because a cartel of tour organizers and tournament operators have conspired to avoid competition amongst themselves and to shut out outside tournaments, affording them complete control over the players’ pay and working conditions” (p. 1). The plaintiffs allege nine distinct claims for relief and, among other things, are seeking an injunction, monetary damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs have also demanded a jury trial.
The complaint’s introduction—a subsection spanning the first ten substantive pages—outlines the key allegations described in detail throughout the document filed by attorney James W. Quinn and other lawyers from the Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP law firm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. First, the plaintiffs allege “price fixing and other restrictions on players’ earnings” (p. 3). Second, the complaint describes alleged “restraints on competition among tournaments” (p. 6). Third, the plaintiffs describe alleged “abusive investigations and discipline imposed on players” (p. 7).
Overview of the Parties
The plaintiffs include twelve current and former professional tennis players and the PTPA (p.10). Among them are Vasek Pospisil, Reilly Opelka, and Nick Kyrgios—all of whom have reached high ATP rankings and are known for advocating player rights and greater transparency (pp. 10-12). The PTPA, a nonprofit organization, joins the suit to push for systemic reform on behalf of both male and female players (pp. 32-35). Notably, two of the sport’s biggest stars—Novak Djokovic (a PTPA co-founder) and Carlos Alcaraz—are not plaintiffs in this case. In fact, Alcaraz was publicly critical of certain portions of the lawsuit.
The named defendants are the ATP Tour, WTA Tour, International Tennis Federation (ITF), and International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA)—four governing bodies that the plaintiffs allege to collectively control nearly every aspect of professional tennis (pp. 12-14). These organizations are accused of coordinating to limit competition, suppress player compensation, and impose restrictive schedules, rules, and disciplinary systems (pp. 1-9). While they exert global influence, the four Grand Slam tournaments consisting of the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the US Open are not named specifically as defendants in this case (p. 13). The complaint alleges that the defendants operate as a cartel that undermines fairness and player autonomy.
Specific Legal Claims
The plaintiffs devote extensive time positing how the defendants’ “imposition of illegal restraints, web of anticompetitive agreements, and exercise of monopsony power” have resulted in extensive antitrust injuries as part of interstate trade and commerce (p. 113). Accordingly, all but one of the plaintiffs’ claims for relief are spawned from the federal Sherman Act. The first four claims are alleged to be violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act: (i) unreasonable restraint of trade—price fixing; (ii) unreasonable restraint of trade—group boycott/refusal to deal conspiracy; (iii) unreasonable restraint of trade—market allocation; and (iv) unreasonable restraint of trade—output restriction.
The next four claims all allegedly derive from Section 2 of the Sherman Act: (i) monopolization of the professional men’s tennis market; (ii) monopolization of the professional women’s tennis market; (iii) conspiracy to monopsonize the professional men’s tennis market; and (iv) conspiracy to monopsonize the professional men’s tennis market. Beyond the eight antitrust-specific claims, the plaintiffs also added a claim “[u]nder common law principles of unjust enrichment” (p. 155). Claiming that the defendants “have been unjustly enriched as a result of the unlawful conduct detailed herein,” the complaint spends several paragraphs alleging how the ATP, WTA, and ITF and certain tournament co-conspirators have mandated certain NIL rights to be turned over to the tours for “lower compensation than they otherwise would have been able to offer their professional services in a free market (p. 155-156).
The plaintiffs also spend considerable time positioning the complaint as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The six male plaintiffs are proposed to represent the ‘ATP Class’ as representative of “[a]ll current, former, and future tennis players who compete in, or competed in, any ATP-sanctioned tennis tournament between the date of the Complaint through the date of final judgment in this matter” (p. 106). Similarly, the half-dozen female plaintiffs are characterized as representing the ‘WTA Class’ inclusive of “[a]ll current, former, and future tennis players who compete in, or competed in, any WTA-sanctioned tennis tournament between the date of the Complaint through the date of final judgment in this matter” (p. 107). The plaintiffs collectively also seek to establish an ‘ITF Class’ of players who competed in ITF-sanctioned tournaments “including, but not limited to, the Grand Slams” (p. 106). The newly-filed complaint then details who the proposed classes meet the requisite numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and superiority prongs of class actions suits.
Key Components of the Complaint
The complaint alleges that the ATP, WTA, ITF, and ITIA operate as a coordinated cartel that suppresses competition, player earnings, and independent opportunities within professional tennis. One of the central claims involves alleged prize money suppression. Plaintiffs assert that defendants engage in horizontal price-fixing by jointly setting prize money levels across events, limiting player compensation, and eliminating upward pressure on payouts that would otherwise occur in a competitive market (p. 40).
A second major allegation focuses on alleged restrictions on independent tournament play. The complaint states that players face penalties—including the loss of ranking points and potential suspensions—for choosing to compete in non-sanctioned or unaffiliated events (pp. 59-65). These restrictions allegedly apply regardless of personal circumstances such as injury, mental health, or family matters, discouraging participation in alternative circuits and reducing player autonomy (p. 65). Players are also allegedly required to obtain written approvals to participate in certain exhibitions or leagues, reinforcing the tours’ control over athlete schedules (pp. 66-67).
The plaintiffs also highlight alleged limitations related to rankings. ATP and WTA ranking points are only awarded at sanctioned events, meaning tournaments such as those on the UTR Pro Tennis Tour are excluded. The complaint argues this system coerces players into the incumbent tours by linking rankings directly to tour loyalty, thereby deterring innovation and preventing competition from new event organizers (pp. 73-82). Finally, the complaint outlines alleged overreach by the ITIA, including mandatory arbitration waivers, lack of due process protections during investigations, and the collection of personal data without adequate safeguards (pp. 83–89).
Immediate Next Steps
Within days of the complaint being filed, the acrimonious nature of the dispute resulted in an exchange of letters filed with the court. Plaintiff attorney James W. Quinn submitted a three-page letter to the judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) for the purpose of protecting plaintiffs “against efforts by Defendants to intimidate, coerce, or threaten them for participating in the suit” (p. 1). The letter was accompanied by a signed declaration describing an alleged incident on March 19, 2025 at a top-flight professional tennis tournament in Miami. Four days later, Bradley I. Ruskin, an attorney representing the ATP, responded with a three-page letter in opposition, positing that the “ATP has not made any false or misleading statements, violated any players’ rights, or interfered with the administration of the case. Plaintiffs prematurely filed a poorly investigated complaint, based largely on unreliable hearsay, and no relief beyond the status quo is needed” (p. 1). The dueling letters will be evaluated during a courtroom hearing on April 11, 2025.
The case represents one of the most consequential challenges to the structure of the sport since the ‘open’ era of professional tennis started in 1968. Indeed, the lawsuit—if successful—could transform tennis governance from the low-level minor leagues to the upper-echelon Grand Slams. Upon service of the complaint, each defendant will have a short time window to draft a substantive response. Such a response will likely include a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. In turn, the district court judge assigned to the case—Margeret M. Garnett—will then rule on whether the case can continue. Such a ruling would likely occur prior to the end of the year. Until then, multiple player plaintiffs will be actively competing in ATP and WTA tournaments while the litigation is live.
Alex M. Bulte is an Economics major at Florida State University and a member of the varsity tennis team. Ryan M. Rodenberg is a professor of sports law analytics at Florida State University.
President Trump Issues Executive Order Signaling Continued Efforts to Close U.S. Department of Education & State of Title IX Athletics Enforcement Efforts
By Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., Senior Writer and Professor, Sports Media, Ithaca College, staurows@ithaca.edu
With the signing of an executive order entitled Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities on Thursday, March 20, 2025, President Trump continues to prioritize the eventual closure of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE). Whether that comes to fruition remains to be seen. According to legal experts, the shuttering of a federal agency requires Congressional action. As a practical matter, however, the DOE’s work has been substantially interrupted as a result of reductions in both funding and staffing since the newly appointed U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon took office.
The Department of Education has been in existence for nearly half a century having been created by President Jimmy Carter in 1979. The Department was intended to oversee national educational policy and to administer federal financial assistance programs that were designed to support vulnerable student populations around the country as a way of increasing educational access for all students. While only 14% of funding for schools comes from the federal government, and control of education is exercised at the state and local levels, the Department of Education has played a key role in distributing federal financial aid for education, conducting research and gathering data on students educated in U.S. schools that support policy decisions, and enforcing federal education laws that prohibit discrimination. More than 13 million students have been the beneficiaries of the Department of Education’s work through the administration of student federal financial aid programs as distributed through grants, work-study programs, and loans (Gedeon, 2025)
Within days of Secretary McMahon taking office, nearly 50% of the 4,133 staffers working at the Department of Education were fired. Employees who did not agree to participate in a deferred resignation program or voluntary separation incentive plan were subsequently furloughed (Office of Communication and Outreach, 2025). Subjected to the scrutiny of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), efforts have been made to cut $1.6 billion in government contracts and $1.1 billion in grants, reductions that have halted research projects designed to better understand how students learn and what they need to be successful. According to Turner (2025), the layoffs at the Department of Education disproportionately targeted financial aid, civil rights, and education research teams. A decision to cut $600 million in grants to support teacher training programs focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), critical race theory, and anti-racism initiatives was blocked (as of this writing) by a federal judge who issued a temporary restraining order in American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education et al., v. Linda McMahon, in her official capacity as Secretary of Education et al. (2025) citing the grave effect the lack of funding will have on the public, including “fewer teachers for students in high-need neighborhoods, early childhood education, and special education programs” (p. 45).
Among the areas dramatically affected by the reductions is the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), whose mission has been to “ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights” including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Of the 12 OCR field offices around the country, only six remain at a time when the OCR had received the highest number of complaints in its history (n=22,687) (Lhamon, 2024). Over half of the complaints received during the 2024 fiscal year were Title IX complaints, with the number of Title IX allegations in the area of athletics surpassing all others by a wide margin with just over 7,000 (Lhamon, 2024).
Even as sweeping changes will result in investigations being dropped due to lack of resources, the OCR has aggressively pursued complaints against states and institutions that have supported the civil rights of transgender girl and women athletes. In an investigation that has been unprecedented in the brevity of its process and fact finding, the OCR found the state of Maine to be in violation of Title IX on March 19, 2025, for allowing two transgender girls to participate on girls’ teams and to use girls’ athletic facilities. Maine officials were given 10 days to accept a list of changes put forward by the Department of Education. Failing that, the case will be sent to the U.S. Department of Justice. In the case of the University of Pennsylvania (Penn), the institution stands accused of violating Title IX after it allowed a transgender woman to participate on its women’s swim team during the 2021-2022 academic year. Relying on Trump’s executive order signed in 2025 barring transgender women from competing on women’s teams, the Department of Education notified Penn that $175 million dollars in federal grant funding was suspended (Scripps News Group, 2025). The state of Delaware has been challenged by Delaware State Senator Bryant Richardson regarding a transgender athlete policy despite the fact that there are no transgender athletes in the state. The complaint asked the United States Department of Justice Office for Civil Rights to terminate federal funding to the state due to violations of Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and President Trump’s executive order.
References
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education et al., v. Linda McMahon, in her official capacity as Secretary of Education. United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Civil No.: 1:25-cv-00702-JRR. Temporary Restraining Order issued. (2025, March 17). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.577789/gov.uscourts.mdd.577789.32.0.pdf
Gedeon, J. (2025, March 2025). What is the Department of Education and what does it do? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/20/what-is-department-education-trump#:~:text=The%20Department%20of%20Education%20is,employs%20about%204%2C400%20staff%20members.
Lhamon, C. (2024). 2024 fiscal year annual report: Report to the President and Secretary of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/ocr-report-president-and-secretary-of-education-2024-109012.pdf
Office for Civil Rights Overview of the Agency. Mission statement. (2025). https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ocr/about-ocr
Office of Communication and Outreach. (2025).U.S. Department of Education initiates reduction in force. Press release. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-initiates-reduction-force
Richardson v. State of Delaware (2025, March 4).Complaint filed with the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. https://www.scribd.com/document/838117669/Federal-complaint-with-U-S-Dept-of-Justice
Scripps News Group. (2025, March 19). Trump administration targets Maine, University of Pennsylvania over trans athletes. KTVH.com. https://www.ktvh.com/politics/president-trumps-first-100-days/trump-administration-targets-maine-university-of-pennsylvania-over-trans-athletes
Szilagy, S. (2025,March 20). Trump’s new executive order just dealt another blow to the Department of Education. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/trumps-new-executive-order-just-dealt-another-brutal-blow-to-the-department-of-education/
Trump, D. (2025, March 20).Executive Order: Improving education outcomes by empowering parents, states, and communities. Washington, DC: White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/improving-education-outcomes-by-empowering-parents-states-and-communities/
Turner, C. (2025, March13). The Education Department is being cut in half. Here’s what is being lost. All Things Considered. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5325854/trump-education-department-layoffs-civil-rights-student-loans
