Tennis Australia Breaks Free from the Pack by Settling in Pro Tennis Antitrust Litigation

Mar 6, 2026

By Dhwanil Shah

In a potentially significant blow to the legal defense of tennis governing bodies, Tennis Australia has become the first defendant to settle with the plaintiffs in the on-going professional tennis antitrust class action (Vasek Pospisil, et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc., et al.). The settlement, which was confirmed in a letter filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 22, 2025, marks the first major exit by a defendant in the litigation.[76] The terms of the settlement agreement surfaced on the opening day of the 2026 Australian Open, isolating the remaining defendants—Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), Women’s Tennis Association (WTA), and the remaining three Grand Slams (Wimbledon, French Open, and US Open) after Tennis Australia’s exit.[77]

The lawsuit, led by the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) and a coalition of current and former players, alleges that the sport’s governing bodies have colluded to suppress prize money, limit competition from rival tours, deny players a fair share of revenue, and impose a restrictive ranking system—the latter was central to the amended complaint filed on September 26, 2025 when the four Grand Slams were added to the antitrust-focused lawsuit. According to the plaintiffs, the restrictive ranking system ensures that the only pathway to Grand Slam qualification is through the ATP and WTA ranking points, allowing the defendants to allegedly maintain a group boycott that puts barriers to entry for any potential rival tour. They further allege that the defendants colluded to stratify prize money, enforcing an agreement that prevents independent tournaments from offering prize money that exceed the Grand Slams along with the mandatory assignment of players’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights to the Grand Slams for zero compensation.[78]

The proposed settlement agreement allows Tennis Australia to be dropped from the litigation and avoid potential liability for damages that could have reached eight figures. In exchange, Tennis Australia has agreed to turn over evidence including “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,” 2 providing valuable discovery to the plaintiffs that can be used against the remaining defendants. The plaintiffs assert that this agreement will help them “litigate the antitrust claims to a successful jury verdict”.2 On January 22, 2026, the court granted a stay of the injunctive relief claims against Tennis Australia, who agreed to consult on developing structural reforms for the sport.[79]

Furthermore, the settlement comes amidst a broader calendar war, notably with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which recently secured a new Masters 1000 event for 2028.[80] Settling with the players may thus be a strategic move by Tennis Australia to secure player loyalty and protect its crucial January calendar slot against growing competition. Following the settlement, Tennis Australia announced a record prize money purse of approximately $111.5 million AUD for the 2026 tournament. This increase can be interpreted as a direct concession to the plaintiffs’ central argument regarding the underpayment of athletes relative to revenue. While the new prize money pool represents approximately 16% of the organizer’s reported revenue, falling short of the 22% target demanded by the players, it still constitutes a considerable increase.[81]

The defendants were not the only ones to suffer a blow. On January 4, 2026, just weeks after Tennis Australia settled, co-founder Novak Djokovic resigned from the PTPA, citing ongoing concerns regarding transparency, governance, and the way his voice and image have been represented.[82] While Djokovic was not a named plaintiff in the lawsuit, a strategic decision made early in the filing process to protect him from counterclaims, his departure has dual implications for the litigation. On one hand, losing the most recognizable face of the player movement potentially reduces the PTPA’s bargaining power in the court of public opinion. On the other hand, his exit may arguably strengthen the class certification arguments. By removing the highest-earning player in history from the leadership group, the class of plaintiffs becomes more economically homogenous. This shift arguably neutralizes the defense arguments that the interests of superstar players conflict with those of the lower-ranked players the lawsuit claims to protect.

More broadly, Tennis Australia’s exit alters the litigation for the remaining defendants, who have intensified their legal opposition with the remaining Grand Slam defendants filing a joint motion to dismiss the substantive claims on the same day the settlement with Tennis Australia was filed. They argue that the plaintiffs rely on conclusory assertations rather than evidence of the alleged cartel agreement between the organizers that operate independently on different surfaces at different times of the year.[83] There is no indication in the docket as to when the district court judge will rule on the pending motion.

Dhwanil Shah is a doctoral student at Florida State University.

  1. Vasek Pospisil, et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-02207-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), Document No. 194 (Tennis Australia Settlement), filed on Dec. 23, 2025. ↑

  2. Vasek Pospisil, et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-02207-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), Document No. 199 (Preliminary Settlement Agreement with Tennis Australia), filed on Jan. 16, 2026. ↑

  3. Vasek Pospisil, et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-02207-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), Document No. 139 (Second Amended Complaint), filed on Sep. 26, 2025. ↑

  4. Vasek Pospisil, et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-02207-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), Document No. 203 (Injunctive Relief Claims Stay Order), filed on Jan. 22, 2026. ↑

  5. PIF’s Surj Sports Investment partners with ATP in first-ever expansion of the master’s 1000 category in ATP Tour’s 35-year history, ATP Tour (Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.atptour.com/en/news/saudi-atp-masters-1000-announcement-october-2025 ↑

  6. Charlie Eccleshare, Australian Open announces record prize money amid player pressure on Grand Slams, The Athletic (Jan. 6, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6944796/2026/01/06/tennis-prize-money-australian-open-grand-slams/ ↑

  7. Matthew Futterman, Novak Djokovic steps away from tennis player organization over representation of ‘my voice and image’, The Athletic. (Jan. 4, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6940085/2026/01/04/novak-djokovic-ptpa-tennis-player-organization-leaves/ ↑

  8. Vasek Pospisil, et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-02207-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), Document No. 190 (Remaining Grand Slams’ Motion to Dismiss), filed on Dec. 22, 2025. ↑

Articles in Current Issue